Sitting of 22 April 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 30th April.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    National Service (Replacement Vacancies)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Minister of Labour if, for the sake of greater accuracy and clarity, he will discontinue the practice of including replacement vacancies under the National Service Acts in the general total of vacancies notified at the employment exchanges.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. lain Macleod): No, Sir. I have, however, arranged for the number of these vacancies to be recorded separately in the statistics issued by my Department.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that I am grateful for that answer because these are fake vacancies which are distorting the very important ratio as between unemployment and vacancies? Is he further aware that in Scotland the number of National Service vacancies runs at about 12 per cent. of the total number and alters the ratio of unemployment to vacancies from about 15 to 1 to 18 to 1?
    Mr. Macleod: I would not say that this was faking the vacancies. Men would be released for National Service
    362
    if workers could be engaged. I agree with the hon. Member to the extent that I am making this change in future when the distinction between the two will be shown by a footnote.

    Earnings
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the change in average weekly earnings due to short time and unemployment in the last six months and twelve months, respectively.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret there is not sufficient information available to make calculations of this kind.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the change in weekly earnings in the engineering, building, textile, and mining industries in the last six months.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I regret that the information is not yet available.
    Mr. Allaun: Is it not the fact that in certain industries, thanks to short time and unemployment, the average earnings have actually gone down—notably in cotton, coal, docks, metal manufacture and shipbuilding—in some cases up to £1 a week according to the Ministry of Labour Gazette figures for the twelve months ending last October?
    Mr. Macleod: That may be so in selected industries. But in spite of the changes in the average weekly earnings to which the hon. Member drew attention, the average weekly earnings of all the workers rose by 1½ per cent. between April and October, 1958.

    Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the numbers and the percentage of insured male and female unemployed persons in each of the three counties of Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire at the latest convenient date; and if he will give similar figures for the same period of 1958.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Commander Donaldson: While I shall study the figures with interest, is my right

    363
    hon. Friend aware that the incidence of unemployment and under-employment in my three Border counties is due in the main to the imposition of American wool tariffs? Will he consult his right hon. Friends to try to create conditions in which the effect of these tariffs will

    NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF MALE AND FEMALE UNEMPLOYED PERSONS REGISTERED AT LOCAL OFFICES IN ROXBURGHSHIRE, SELKIRKSHIRE AND PEEBLESSHIRE ON 17TH MARCH, 1958 AND 9TH MARCH, 1959

    17th March, 1958

    Males

    Percent.

    Females

    Percent.

    Total

    Percent.

    Roxburghshire

    …

    …

    225

    2·4

    95

    1·6

    320

    2·1

    Selkirkshire

    …

    …

    …

    185

    2·3

    77

    1·5

    262

    2·0

    Peeblesshire

    …

    …

    …

    58

    2·0

    35

    1·8

    93

    1·9

    9th March, 1959

    Males

    Percent.

    Females

    Percent.

    Total

    Percent.

    Roxburghshire

    …

    …

    177

    1·9

    56

    0·9

    233

    1·5

    Selkirkshire

    …

    …

    …

    125

    1·6

    77

    1·5

    202

    1·6

    Peeblesshire

    …

    …

    …

    55

    1·9

    8

    0·4

    63

    1·3

    International Labour Office (Committees)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour what decisions have been reached for the representation of employing organisations of Communist countries in the committees of the International Labour Office.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to representation on Committees of the International Labour Conference. It is for the Conference to decide this question. Proposals by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office adopted at its session last March will be before the Conference when it meets in June.
    Mr. Brockway: Is it the case that the representative of the Government has made certain proposals and that these have been supported by the workers' representatives but opposed by the British employers' representatives? In view of the importance of the representation of publicly-owned bodies, will the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to secure the acceptance of these proposals?
    Mr. Macleod: I think it would be a sad day if the Government started
    364
    be ameliorated and, as I hope, the tariffs eventually abolished?
    Mr. Macleod: I will take note of that and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.
    Following is the table:
    dictating to employers' or workers' representatives how they should vote at Geneva. That is what all the argument is about. It is just because all the blocs in certain countries vote together that this situation has arisen. Happily, that does not apply in this country.
    Sir G. Lloyd: Is it not the fact that the whole principle of tri-partisanism is at stake in this issue? Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement that the employers have a right to be consulted and to express opinions on this issue will be warmly welcomed?

    Index of Retail Prices (Packaged Goods)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Labour (1) what reductions in number of contents took place within boxes of non-food commodities sold to the public within the past year and selected for sampling in calculating the Index of Retail Prices; what fluctuations have taken place within the same period in contents of food and non-food commodities sold in tubes without stated weight and similarly selected; and how far these fluctuations in weight or number

    365
    were reflected in the price, as ascertained in calculating the Index of Retail Prices;
    (2) what fluctuations in weight took place in food and non-food commodities sold in cellophane wraps without stated weight within the past year; and how far these weight changes affected the value of the items selected in compiling the Index of Retail Prices;
    (3) how many weight changes have occurred in packet goods within the past year; and how far weight reductions lowered or increased the value of the packets and were reflected in the Index of Retail Prices, as ascertained through the selections made for the purpose of calculating and constructing the Index.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: As regards those items used as price indicators for the Index of Retail Prices, most of the changes in contents or weight of this type take place in respect of food items for which quotations are obtained by weight even if the commodity is not sold by weight. Any such weight changes are therefore automatically taken into account.
    As regards those items on which information about changes in net weight or contents is obtained from the manufacturers, it is not my practice to disclose details of the price changes of individual commodities.
    Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have the other information for which the hon. Lady asks.
    Mrs. Mann: I am deprived of three supplementary questions by the right hon. Gentleman answering these three Questions together. I should like to ask him if it is still a practice of his Department to write to certain firms asking whether they have made changes. If so, is it not rather like the policeman asking the burglar how many cribs he has cracked? Further, is it not the case that the weights and measures inspectors now find their occupation gone because in a pre-packed age everything is sold by the packet and not by weight?
    Mr. Macleod: As far as the hon. Lady's first question is concerned, we still make this sort of inquiry from manufacturers, and, of course, we check when we can the replies which we get. The main point I would make in answer
    366
    to the hon. Lady is that weight is taken into account, because even when commodities are not sold by weight we obtain quotations for weight. I know that this is an enormously complicated matter, and I am very anxious to make the Index of Retail Prices as efficient as I possibly can. If the hon. Lady would like to discuss the matter with my Director of Statistics, I am sure that he will he very pleased to meet her.

    Youth Employment Officers
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the importance of the work of youth employment officers employed by local education authorities and the necessity for them being properly remunerated for suitable qualifications, whether a statement has yet been prepared as to the qualifications required.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): I understand that this statement is still under consideration by the local authority associations concerned in England and Wales.
    Mr. Holt: Is the Parliamentary Secretary happy about the present situation in regard to youth employment officers employed by the local education authorities, for whom his Department pays 75 per cent. of their salaries, who receive much lower salaries than those employed direct by the Ministry of Labour? As many of these people have very high qualifications and the work done is very important, does he not think that something ought to be done about it?
    Mr. Wood: The purpose of the two Answers which I gave the hon. Gentleman in March and this month was to draw attention to the discussions that are going on now on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman means, and I hope that the result of those discussions will give satisfaction in the direction which he suggests.

    Disabled Persons, Scotland
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled persons who require sheltered employment are registered as unemployed in Scotland.
    Mr. Wood: 423 on 16th March, 1959.
    Miss Herbison: Can the Minister give me any information as to what steps his

    367
    Department has been taking in order to ensure that these workers can be placed?
    Mr. Wood: There are a number of workers in Section 2—those who need sheltered employment—who are already in employment. The figure which I have given to the hon. Lady is very similar to the figure last year, which compares extremely well with the increase in unemployment both among able-bodied and Section 1 disabled. As regards these 423 who are unemployed, 300 of them, I am informed, live in areas that are served by Remploy factories, and the other 100 are in remote parts of Scotland and it will be very difficult to fit them into employment. We are hoping that a number of the 300 who are situated near Remploy factories could be found work if Remploy production was increased.
    Miss Herbison: Is it the case, then, that there is a possibility that the existing Remploy factories can provide work for these 300?
    Mr. Wood: I do not think they could all be placed in Remploy factories, but there are other workshops, both for the sighted disabled worker and the blind, in Scotland which might be able to absorb a number of the 300 who are within the field.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour how many persons who have suffered from tuberculosis and are able to work only in sheltered employment are registered as unemployed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the provision of a Remploy factory to provide work for these disabled men and women.
    Mr. Wood: The answer to the first part of the Question is 27. Remploy's trading position does not yet permit the building of additional factories, but when it does the needs of Scotland will certainly be kept in mind.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a very similar reply was given to me by the Minister a number of years ago? Surely, the Minister must be aware that those people who suffer from tuberculosis have very great difficulty indeed in being placed anywhere? Is he aware that it seems to me that, since every Minister on the Government side of the
    368
    House says how prosperous we now are in this country under the present Government, one of the first things they should have attempted to do was to provide the Remploy factory promised for Scotland a number of years ago?
    Mr. Wood: That is true, and the hon. Lady is right in drawing my attention to the statement by my predecessor on this matter. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Lady that since that statement was made the methods of treatment of tuberculosis have improved so much that in many parts of the country the sheltered workshops which exist for the tuberculous are finding it very difficult to get enough people to fill the space. That being so, I still agree with the hon. Lady that there are a number of tuberculous in Scotland who would like sheltered employment, but I am afraid that I cannot at the moment add to the statement which my predecessor made. I hope that when it is possible for Remploy to expand the needs of the tuberculous in Scotland will be taken into account.

    40-Hour Week
    Mr. Boydasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the present employment position, he will now introduce legislation to establish a 40-hour week as the normal working week in this country.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd: Would the Minister concede that such legislation would not necessarily need to be framed so rigidly as to prevent expansion to use the full opportunities of production when they come while at the same time helping to reduce unemployment in the present situation?
    Mr. Macleod: No. I think everybody takes the view that this is and must remain a matter for industry, and indeed for discussion industry by industry.
    Mr. Lee: While understanding very well the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes about legislation, could he say whether he is aware that much of the apprehension in industry now, and one of the reasons for asking for a 40-hour week, is due to the fear of the consequences of the coming of automation and that kind of thing? Could he say whether any work is being done in his Department

    369
    to try to ascertain the industrial and social implications arising from new methods and modernisation?
    Mr. Macleod: I am quite certain that we should all unite in saying that there is nothing to fear, in this country or indeed in any other, from the coming of automation or the introduction of new forms of technological change. Change there must be, and in the end I think we are bound to benefit from it. On the question of automation, a good deal of work has been done, and it is a matter which has been brought under close study, particularly by the N.J.A.C.

    Gartcosh
    14. Miss Herbisonasked the Minister of Labour how many of the redundant workers of Smith and McLean, Gartcosh, are still unemployed; and what are the prospects of early future employment.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Of those declared redundant since 1st January, 1958, 106 are still registered as unemployed. My local officers are doing everything possible to place them in other work, but I regret to say that the immediate prospects are not very good.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that 106 who are still unemployed have been unemployed for a considerable time? Is he also aware that over 50 per cent. of the workers at Messrs. Smith and McLean have become redundant, and that those who are working are working only a 4-day week? Surely, there must be some steps which the Minister could take that would bring hope to this area, which, if nothing is done by his Department, will be without hope for the future?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think that is so. As the hon. Lady knows, this particular part of Lanarkshire is regarded as one of the very highest priority. It is in that area, for example, that we are building the advance factory in Scotland, and, as the hon. Lady knows well, we are also going ahead with the plans for the new steel mill. Part of the trouble arises from this immediate problem, to which she has directed her question—that this was an old-fashioned hand mill unable to compete with modern methods. We must do everything we can to attract more modern industry to that area.

    Brixton
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many people are registered as unemployed at the Brixton Employment Exchange; and what were the corresponding figures in 1951 and 1958.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: There were 2,863 on 13th April, 1959, compared with 1,147 on 16th April, 1951, and 2,457 on 14th April, 1958.
    Mr. Lipton: Do those figures in the Minister's opinion show that Conservative freedom works?
    Mr. Macleod: Conservative freedom certainly works. The figures in Brixton are, of course, dropping.

    Accident, Barton Bridge (Report)
    Mr. Storeyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received the report of Her Majesty's Factory Inspector upon the accident on 19th February on the new high level Barton Bridge; and if he will make a statement thereon.
    Mr. Wood: Yes. Sir. I have now received a report on this accident from the Factory Inspectorate, and I am sure the House will join me in expressing deep sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed.
    I understand that the bridge partially collapsed when four steel girders forming part of the approaches to it were being installed on concrete piers. The more important reasons for the collapse appear to have been the faulty design and construction of temporary scaffolding towers erected to support the girders.
    The towers were erected by a firm of scaffolders for Messrs. Samuel Butler and Co., Ltd., the contractors responsible for the construction of the steel work of the bridge. The Inspectorate have been in touch with the contractors, who will themselves erect the new support towers for the girders to a design by a firm of qualified consulting engineers, who will examine them before they are loaded. The Chief Inspector is arranging a meeting with representatives of the scaffolding firm responsible for the original construction.
    Mr. Storey: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, which will do a lot to restore confidence amongst the workers

    371
    on the bridge, may I ask if he can give any information about the stoppage of work that has arisen as a result of this accident; and whether he will use his good offices to secure a resumption of work as early as possible?
    Mr. Wood: I will make further inquiries about the matter that my hon. Friend raises and will certainly bend my efforts in the direction he suggests.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this stoppage has arisen because the Constructional Engineering Union workers employed there feel a lack of confidence in the supervising staff and are insisting on expert people who have had training in the job and are members of their own union?
    Mr. Wood: My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) has asked about the accident. If the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) likes to put a Question about the stoppage of work, I will certainly answer it.

    Wednesbury
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Minister of Labour what is the total number unemployed in the Wednesbury constituency on the latest available date, and the number unemployed for six months or longer.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: There were 1,314 on 13th April, including 323 temporarily stopped. On 9th March, 182 persons had been unemployed for over six months.
    Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask the Minister why in a Written Answer last week he stated that he did not regard the unemployment situation in Wednesbury as serious? As unemployment there is now five times as great as it was in 1951 and is of very grave concern to my constituents, what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that in 1951 the figure was one-fifth of 1 per cent., so the two statements are not necessarily contradictory. But I will say that the trend in this area has moved contrary to the way one would expect, and contrary to the way the other exchanges seem to be moving. I would like to look especially into this matter and write to the hon. Member about it.

    Ayrshire
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed people in the county of Ayr and in the Ayr constituency, respectively, now and at the same date last year; and what percentage the present figures bear to the number of employable people in the two areas.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The figures for 13th April will soon be available and I will then write to my hon. Friend.
    Sir T. Moore: While being deeply ignorant of what the figures will be, might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any plan to increase the number of people who are at present employed in the county and in my constituency?
    Mr. Macleod: There are certain parts that are available for D.A.T.A.C. assistance and, with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, we try to help in those areas.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely the Minister has some figures available. There is a seriously complex problem in Ayr itself. Is the Minister aware that a special conference is being called on Friday by the county council and local Members of Parliament and that he has given his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) very meagre food to take to that conference?
    Mr. Macleod: That is simply because the figures for 13th April will be available in a day or two. From my hon. Friend's Question I thought that he wanted the latest figures, and I will send those to him as soon as I can.

    Non-Ferrous Foundries
    Mr. Allaunasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the concern among foundry workers over the delay in implementing the report of the Joint Standing Committee on conditions in non-ferrous foundries by the issue of appropriate regulations; and when he expects to take action.
    Mr. Wood: Work is proceeding on a draft Code of Regulations. This will be published and interested organisations will be asked for their comments.
    Mr. Allaun: Yes, Sir— but when? As it is now no less than five and a half years since the Joint Committee was set up,

    373
    and eighteen months since the Minister was asked about the delays in implementing its Report, has not the Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers and others interested serious ground for complaint? As the existing iron and steel foundries Regulations would provide a helpful basis, should it not be easier to produce this quickly?
    Mr. Wood: I agree that it has taken a long time, but I do not think that the union has cause for complaint, because the Report of the Joint Committee was very long and complicated and an immense amount of consultation and discussion was necessary. We will try to speed this up as much as we can, but it is bound to take a very long time.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Ex-Rifleman T. Williams (Discharge)
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Labour if he is satisfied with the way in which medical boards are operating in respect of National Service men, in view of the case of 23604106 ex-Rifleman T. Williams; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. I have the fullest confidence in the skill and judgment of medical boards set up under the National Service Acts. The boards consult specialists in cases of doubt, and any man who thinks he has been wrongly graded may appeal. I have already given in reply to the hon. Member on 18th February an account of Mr. Williams' examination by National Service medical boards.
    Mr. Irving: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this sort of case causes great public interest and that the public will not be able to see the logic of a situation in which a man is found fit for service on one day and fit for discharge on the next? In view of these cases and of other cases that appear to be arising, will not the Minister look at the system again?
    Mr. Macleod: I will look at the methods, but I must say that I find nothing surprising in the fact that medical men differ—that is very commonly known. The ordinary composition of the board is a chairman and four doctors,
    374
    who call in consultant advice. In this case, they called in and considered the advice of two consultants. It was quite a long time later, and in quite different circumstances, that other doctors came to a different conclusion.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In view of the immense public interest in this case, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that he and others of his right hon. Friends are entirely dependent upon expert advice in such matters, and that it would be quite wrong for him, on political or any other grounds, to interfere with the experts' conclusions?
    Mr. Macleod: Of course, that is so. Equally, I do not disclose—except, in this case, the fact that consultant opinion was obtained—the details of the medical examination.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Contracts, Liverpool and Birkenhead
    Mr.. Braddockasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the imminent completion of Admiralty work on H.M.S. "Albrighton" at the Victoria Dock, Birkenhead, on H.M.S. "Tughril", at the Clarence Dock, Liverpool, at the end of April, and on H.M.S. "Tippu Sultan", at the Morpeth Dock, Liverpool, at the end of June, will result, respectively, in approximately 300, 500 and 500 men of all trades becoming unemployed; and what steps he is taking to provide alternative employment for the 1,300 men at present employed in these yards.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Yes, Sir. The amount of naval work now available for allocation to commercial yards is very small, but the claims of all areas are considered when allocations are made.
    Mrs. Braddock: Cannot the Civil Lord be more explicit about the position? These 1,300 men will be completely out of work by the end of June and have had no indication at all as to what is to happen in regard to Admiralty work to take up the numbers who are and will be unemployed.
    Mr. Galbraith: I quite understand the hon. Lady's point, but she must realise

    375
    that when the size of the Fleet has been declining the number of ships available to be put out to contract in private yards is also bound to decline.
    Mr. P. Wells: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not divert work from the Admiralty yards in order to provide employment elsewhere?
    Mr. Galbraith: The policy of the Admiralty in this matter, as I have told the hon. Gentleman many times, is to repair naval vessels in the Royal dockyards up to their capacity.

    Depot, Clayton
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many persons are being made redundant at the Royal Naval motor transport depot at Clayton, Newcastle-under-Lyme; and what assistance will be given to them in respect of alternative employment, travelling expenses, and housing.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: This depot, with its five satellites, now employs a staff of 75, of whom 21 are established. It is expected that the established staff will be offered transfer to Admiralty employment elsewhere, and the unestablished staff will become redundant; but it is too early yet for staff moves to have been planned in detail. For those who are transferred, there is a wide range of allowances towards additional expenses.
    Mr. Swingler: As there are 1,000 workers unemployed in this area, will the Civil Lord make special efforts to see that all those being made redundant in this area are offered some kind of alternative employment? Further, as a number of these men have had to move house several times in recent years, will he see what assistance can be given to them to go to other parts of the country and continue their employment?
    Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly bear those points in mind.

    H.M. Yacht "Britannia" (Suez Canal)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what payment was made to the Egyptian authorities for the recent passage of the "Britannia" through the Suez Canal; and what was the time taken.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): The payment was £647. Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia" sailed through the Suez Canal in 16 hours 40 minutes.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary satisfied that the shortage of pilots has been overcome? At the time of the Suez crisis we were told that if the Suez Canal were nationalised and put into the hands of the Egyptians they would not have enough pilots? Was the pilot in this case a Russian or an Egyptian? How does it come about that the First Lord of the Admiralty let this expensive ship go through in this way?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that that arises from the Question on the Order Paper.

    H.M.S. "Eagle"
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) how many coamings on H.M.S. "Eagle" have been cut away; on which decks they are situated; and how high these coamings are above sea level;
    (2) an whose instructions coamings were cut away on H.M.S. "Eagle"; and to what extent it is intended to replace them.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Ten coamings or sills have been cut down or removed from Nos. 2, 3 and 4 decks in H.M.S. "Eagle." These decks are from 20–40 feet above the normal waterline. This action was taken on the instructions of the Captain of H.M.S. "Eagle," and is approved by the Board of Admiralty. The need for replacement of these sills will be reviewed in the course of the ship's modernisation.
    Mr. Willis: Does not the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary agree that if these watertight doors are put in in order to ensure safety they should not be so readily removed? Has not someone been over-zealous?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: There has been absolutely no jeopardy to the safety of the ship as a result of this action.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: Does my hon. Friend agree that if this action has been suggested by officers serving at sea, notably

    377
    the commanding officer, it is hardly right for us to query the action of someone with that experience?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I agree with that remark of my hon. Friend.

    Factories, Brechin and Arbroath (Contracts)
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the large contracts between the Admiralty and the Coventry Gauge and Tool Company, amounting to more than £1 million, he will make it a condition of contracts that a substantial part of the work shall be carried out in their factories in Brechin and Arbroath, where there is a much higher rate of unemployment than in the Coventry area.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: No, Sir. In placing contracts with a firm the Admiralty cannot interfere with the firm's internal organisation by dictating at which of its factories the work should be done. I understand, however, that it is the firm's intention gradually to transfer the work on Admiralty contracts at Coventry to their factory at Brechin.
    Sir J. Duncan: While appreciating that it would not be right for the Government to direct this firm, will my hon. Friend nevertheless ask them to do so, because it would be in line with Government policy that the work should be done in areas of heavy unemployment rather than areas like Coventry where unemployment is very low?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: It would be completely in line with Government policy, but no intervention from me is necessary because this is being done by the firm.

    Army Personnel and Equipment (Transport)
    Mr. Atkinsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what provision exists for the transport of Army personnel and equipment oversea by the Royal Navy to places where their presence is, or may be, required for operations.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: The Royal Navy's responsibilities are confined to the provision of ships for the assault lift and to the escorting and protection of the transports used in seaborne troop movements.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend consider that the two tank landing ships which he has in the operational fleet are adequate for the execution of his responsibility? Does he not consider that the Navy should take on considerably more of these ships in order to make an adequate contribution to combined operations?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that the two tank landing ships are enough for an assault landing. Whilst I have defined the Navy's responsibilities, I would remind my hon. Friend that other Ministries have responsibilities in this sphere. For instance, the M.T.C.A. and the War Office have responsibilities at sea. The Royal Air Force, in the case of an air-lift, use Transport Command, Coastal Command, independent airlines and the Corporations.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Ex-Rifleman T. Williams (Discharge)
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Secretary of State for War what was the medical category of No. 23604106 Rifleman T. Williams at the time of his enlistment on 22nd January, 1959; and on what medical grounds he was discharged from the Army as unfit for military service two months later.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for War what was the medical grading of 23604106 ex-Rifleman T. Williams, Green Jackets Brigade, now discharged from the Army and returned to civil life and professionally known as Terry Dene, on first attestation into the Army; how long elapsed between his medical examination on first entry into the ranks and his reporting sick and being admitted into an Army or other hospital; and what was the total cost to public funds of the sojourn of this soldier in the service from the day of first attestation to the day of final discharge, including all hospital costs, both military and civil, as paid from Army funds and within the Army Vote.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Rifleman Williams reported for duty on 22nd January, having been placed in Grade I at his pre-service medical examination. When his Army examination took place on the 23rd January the unit medical officer

    379
    found no reason to disagree with this grading. Williams reported sick on the following day and was admitted to hospital.
    The total cost of Rifleman Williams to Army Votes was about £100, his treatment in a civil hospital being provided by the National Health Service.
    With regard to the medical grounds for discharge, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my Answer on 15th April.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Will my hon. Friend agree that the rejection or immediate release from the Forces on medical grounds of these people earning big money—whether they be T.V. stars, racing car drivers or first-class cricketers who score centuries for their counties a week after being released on medical grounds—causes great resentment among the ordinary young men of this country who are prepared to do their duty by their country despite the loss of money and interruption of their career which it entails? Will my hon. Friend further agree that, as a result of these cases, they and their parents are now losing faith, not merely in the efficiency, but in some cases the integrity, of the medical boards concerned?
    Mr. Fraser: There is absolutely no question about the integrity of the medical boards concerned. I must say that I somewhat resent that slur on the medical board. These cases are few, and when they fall on famous figures immediately there is immense publicity attached to them. In this case we are perfectly satisfied that what was done was done correctly.
    Mr. Strachey: Does the Under-Secretary of State admit that the series of coincidences is past credence and that there has been now a series of prominent men released from the Services in this way? At the end of the period of National Service, when it is very important that men who have to be called up should retain their belief in the integrity of the Services, the Under-Secretary ought to provide great safeguards to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again.
    Mr. Fraser: That is precisely what we did. That was precisely why Rifleman Williams was sent not merely to a military hospital but to a civilian mental hospital. The reports from that civilian
    380
    mental hospital and our own medical reports showed that he was unfit.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend recognise that not only is there great public concern about this case arising from the enormous earnings of this man in civil life, but also the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House are gravely concerned about it? Is he not aware that this man did one day's soldiering, after having been found completely fit for the Army? Then, after several weeks he was discharged, and, to add insult to injury, within hours of his discharge he was "rocking and rolling" on television programmes and again earning very big money? Is my hon. Friend aware that this case merits further scrutiny and should not be laughed off by the War Office or by the Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. Fraser: There is no question of laughing this case off. I have been into it most thoroughly. Like many hon. Members of the House, I was naturally distressed by this event. I repeat that this man was not fit for military service.
    Mr. Robens: No hon. Member wants to cast slurs on the medical profession, but how does it come about that these men are able to pass the necessary medical examinations to get into the Services and then within a very short period are found to be unfit for service?
    Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour replied to that in an earlier Answer.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for War how many days 23604106 ex-Rifleman T. Williams, Green Jackets Brigade, now discharged from the Army and returned to civil life and professionally known as Terry Dene, served in the ranks; how many days he was under medical care and attention; and how many days elapsed between the date of first attestation into the ranks and the date of passing under the care of the Army medical authorities.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The numbers of days are 94, 62 and one, respectively.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole series of answers today from the Treasury Bench will create the

    381
    impression in the minds of the general public that there is one law relating to National Service for all normal young men and another law for persons who are television artistes or otherwise earning large sums of money in civil life?
    Mr. Fraser: I completely deny that. My hon. Friend has drawn precisely the wrong conclusions from the answer which I have given. It is precisely because Williams was treated as other men that he has had this twenty-eight days' leave which we give to all persons discharged on medical grounds.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman conscious of the fact that there is strong apprehension and feeling not only on both sides of the House but among the public outside that somehow favouritism has been shown to this young man? In view of the fact that he is a "rock and roll" expert, has the War Office consulted the Admiralty as to whether he would be suitable for sea service?
    Mr. Fraser: I know the right hon. Gentleman has vocal attributes, but I personally am not going to be rocked or rolled by him.
    Mr. Jennings: Is my hon. Friend aware that this man is making his first stage appearance at the Majestic Cinema, Chaddesden, near Derby on Sunday, since the termination of his short Army career? In view of this fact, how far does my hon. Friend reconcile the expert opinion of the Army medical authorities with this man's apparent quick recovery?
    Mr. Fraser: I must point out that it is not merely the opinion of the Army medical authorities which is involved in this case, but the opinion of the civilian hospital to which Rifleman Williams was sent. On this point both are unanimous.
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman has never dealt with the point raised by my hon. Friend that what causes public anxiety in the main is that these men are all passed as fit to serve by one set of medical authorities, and then sometimes within a very short period are found unfit by the other set of medical authorities. How does the Under-Secretary account for this?
    Mr. Fraser: I account for it by the fact that if it is a psychiatric case, as
    382
    this proved to be, the circumstances change very swiftly, and the final evidence which we have from the civil and military doctors is to the effect that this man is unfit to be a soldier. Let me say that it is to the credit of hundreds of thousands of young men that they are medically fit to be soldiers.
    Mr. Monslow: Has the hon. Gentleman not heard of another good example of this sort of case concerning the "pop" singer, Marty Wilde, who, because of corns, was exempted from service, while I have made representations on behalf of men requesting exemption on the grounds that they are following an academic career, and exemption has been refused?
    Mr. Fraser: That is an entirely different question and one which has not come to the military authorities' attention.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does all this mean that there is room on the stage, the music-hall and television for psychiatric cases?
    Commander Donaldson: While the House has expressed its feelings, may I ask whether it would not be a fair comparison to give the figures of normal young men not in the public eye who have been discharged in similar circumstances, and let us keep the matter in perspective?
    Mr. Fraser: I will obtain those figures if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a Question.
    Mr. Nabarro: I would have smartened-up Terry Dene's parade for him.

    Eaton Hall
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be in a position to announce a decision on the future of Eaton Hall.
    Mr. H. Fraser: As I explained in answer to Questions on 8th April, we are dealing with this as urgently as possible; but it is a complex matter and I cannot say when it will be possible to make an announcement.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the Under-Secertary of State agree that the House has been very patient? Eaton Hall has been empty now for about a year. I agree about the difficulty of a decision, but the Under-Secretary ought to give us at any rate

    383
    some prospect that a decision will be arrived at fairly soon, because there is a good deal of legitimate public concern about this.
    Mr. Fraser: We will come to a decision as soon as we can, but as I explained on 8th April, we do not want to make the wrong decision.

    Depŵt, Selby
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Secretary of State for War whether the tank and vehicle depot near Selby has now been cleared; and what is to be its future use.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The depôt, which was originally an airfield, has been cleared and is being returned to the Air Ministry. I understand that it will be put up for disposal.
    Mr. Shinwell: Have all the tanks and vehicles which were regarded as obsolete on this site been sold or have they been transferred to some other depôt, and if so, where?
    Mr. Fraser: They have been disposed of by the Ministry of Supply. There are 8,000 vehicles concerned; they have been sold, in some cases for scrap, and others have been disposed of elsewhere. On the more general question of the disposal of stores, I am glad to be able to inform the right hon. Gentleman that in the last two years thirty-nine ordnance depôts have been closed and we are closing twelve more this year.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Gibsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association are evicting their tenant, the widow of a former employee, from the flat at 13, Northbourne Road, Clapham, and that the Secretary of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association refuses to allow more time to enable this lady to find other accommodation, on the ground that the flat is wanted for married quarters, although there is a flat in the same house unoccupied for many months; and whether he will make enquiries into this matter and arrange that this widow shall be allowed to stay in the flat until she is able to find other accommodation.
    Mr. H. Fraser: Mrs. Metcalfe has lived rent-free in this flat since February, 1957. Now that the other apartment is
    384
    vacant, the whole house is to be handed over to the Regular Army for use as married quarters. The legal process to obtain possession will, therefore, begin after 30th April, but my right hon. Friend is prepared to delay enforcement until September when I understand that the local housing authorities will consider the application which Mrs. Metcalfe has already made. I must make it clear that there can be no extension beyond that.
    Mr. Gibson: While expressing appreciation of the last part of that reply, may I ask, if in September the local borough council is unable to provide accommodation, as it has already indicated it may not be able, whether the hon. Gentleman will see that this lady, who is not in the least responsible for the situation which has been created, is given more time, if necessary, to find other accommodation? She is prepared to take other accommodation if she can find it.
    Mr. Fraser: I am afraid I cannot give the indefinite undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks. We have already given an extension and, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, this lady has been living rent-free for more than two years.

    Ex-Corporal Munday (Sentence)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now announce his decision concerning the sentence of ex-Corporal Munday of the Royal Hampshire Regiment in regard to the original sentence of three years' imprisonment, taking specially into account the extenuating circumstances arising in this case.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The original sentence was reduced by six months in October last year. My right hon. Friend has now reviewed it again and made a further reduction to two years' imprisonment.
    Mr. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend agree that after remission for good conduct, this man will eventualy serve a period of sixteen months imprisonment only, compared with the original court-martial sentence of three years? Having regard to the quite extenuating circumstances of the case and the disgraceful muddle made by the War Office as to whether he ought to be court-martialled in this country or in Cyprus, might it not have shown more mature judgment

    385
    on the part of the officers sitting on the court-martial if they had given him a lighter sentence in the first place?
    Mr. Fraser: These were very grave offences and, as my hon. Friend knows, the soldier broke from arrest and fired a rifle at those who tried to recapture him. There were mitigating circumstances and they account for the review of the sentence.

    Bearskins
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the future supply of bearskins for use by the British army.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The Brigade of Guards require about 300 bearskin caps a year. I understand that there may be difficulty in future in obtaining sufficient pelts of suitable quality, and this problem is being investigated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply.
    Recently, the Brigade of Guards received an offer from the Mayor of Timmins, Ontario, to organise a hunt which would produce a large number of bearskins. The Brigade expressed their gratitude for the offer which has been conveyed to the Minister of Supply.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern that the Army appears to be encouraging the organised massacre of these small Canadian bears when they ought to be exploring means of finding a substitute? Can he say whether the letter from the Brigade of Guards to this Canadian township, which appears to approve proposals being made for a large-scale hunt, was written with the authority of the Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. Fraser: No, Sir. The offer was made direct to the Brigade of Guards and we have now properly passed it to the Ministry of Supply. I should make it clear, on the other point, that this offer is a very friendly one which we have no intention of refusing. At the same time, we think that the Canadians ought to be told exactly what type and quality of pelts are wanted so that there is no needless and wasteful killing. The Ministry of Supply is making arrangements along these lines.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Housing Estate, Stockton-on-Tees (Kiosk)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Postmaster-General when he will provide a telephone kiosk to serve the developing Hardwick Estate at Stockton-on-Tees.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): A site for a kiosk is under consideration and, if all goes well, it should be provided within a month or two.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Does that mean that the difficulties of where the overhead or underground lines should be have been overcome?
    Mr. Marples: I think so.

    Obsolete Telephone Poles, York-Boroughbridge Road
    Mr. Ramsdenasked the Postmaster-General when he will give instructions in the interests of road safety for the removal of the obsolete telephone poles on the York-Boroughbridge Road.
    Mr. Marples: Discussion is in progress with the county council on the method to be employed in removing these poles. As soon as this is agreed, the work will be put in hand.

    Finance
    Mr. Haymanasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of public telephone kiosks pay their way; and to what extent the remainder is subsidised by the general revenue of the telephone service.
    Mr. Marples: It is estimated broadly that rather less than one-third of all telephone call offices pay their way. The net loss on all call offices is currently about £3 million per annum.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that his Department recently refused a telephone kiosk in a working-class district of Camborne, Cornwall, on the grounds that the general telephone service would probably not pay its way? Is he also aware that this is a working-class area with few private telephones, and will he look into this matter again?
    Mr. Marples: We try to reconcile commercial prospects, as it were, with the public need and the fact that, on balance,

    387
    we meet the public need is shown by the £3 million loss made on call offices. So generally we are looking after the public need. I will look into this particular case again and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Haymanasked the Postmaster-General to what extent the lack of adequate financial resources is hampering the development of the telephone service; and when he expects the service to be free from financial difficulties.
    Mr. Marples: Naturally I wish that more investment could be allowed for development of the telephone service, but the reduction of the waiting list from 230,000 to 60,000 during the past three years shows that at any rate we are getting on. The answer to the second part of the hon. Member's Question depends on Government decisions about future investment, which I cannot anticipate.
    Mr. Hayman: Can we have an assurance from the Postmaster-General that the financial difficulties of which the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me exist within the Government and not with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the financial state of the country?
    Mr. Marples: Our job in the Post Office is to get the best value for the money which we are allowed to receive for capital investment. We would all like to get more—railways, schools and hospitals—but the fact that the waiting list has gone down so dramatically shows that we are getting our share.

  POST OFFICE

    Mails (Safety)
    Mr. Remnantasked the Postmaster-General what steps he takes to safeguard the mails while being carried by British Railways.
    Mr. Marples: I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to give details of the precautions taken for the safety of mails, which would be of great interest to thieves. We are naturally getting our share of attention in the present crime wave, but I can assure my hon. Friend that, with British Railways, we are constantly reviewing and adapting
    388
    our security arrangements with a view to deterring and catching the thieves. The number of mailbags lost is today very much less that it was some years ago, but this is not to say that we are satisfied with the position.
    Mr. Remnant: Is the Postmaster-General aware of the anxiety and apprehension felt by the public at these continual robberies, and does his assurance, which I take to refer to traffic being conveyed over the railways, apply to other spheres of his activities?
    Mr. Marples: It applies to all spheres in the Post Office. Losses to date have been less than they have been for some considerable time. This year, mailbag losses are only 55 per cent. of what they were in 1951–52 and 1952–53. It would be absolutely stupid if I were to give details of the precautions we take and publicise them.
    Mr. Hobson: In view of the excellent work of the investigating branch of the Post Office in regard to mailbag robberies some years ago and the very successful results that accrued, would the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing the numbers of the investigating branch?
    Mr. Marples: We do not want to increase the numbers of the investigating branch. We want to increase co-operation between the Post Office and the police in general and Scotland Yard in particular, and that is what we are doing.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Ely Cathedral (Warning Light)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will consult the Dean and Chapter of Ely Cathedral with a view to the replacing of a light warning low-flying aircraft, based on Mildenhall, of the position of the West Tower of the Cathedral
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Airey Neave): We no longer need this light now that the airfield at Witch-ford has closed. Aircraft from Mildenhall, which is some nine miles from the Cathedral, are routed well above the height of the tower.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the local inhabitants of Ely have been somewhat

    389
    disturbed in recent months by extremely low-flying aircraft, particularly during the hours of darkness? While it is appreciated that the United States Air Force using Mildenhall may not be fully aware of the geography of this country, and as the cloud base over the Fens is often very low. would it not be better to have a light put on the tower?
    Mr. Neave: As my hon. and gallant Friend says, there is this question of aircraft coming over Ely, but Ely is not now in an approach area. Our rule for lights outside approach areas is to put them on buildings higher than 500 feet.
    Mr. de Freitas: If there is any question about this, why should there be a problem? Many other cathedrals and spires have lights on them, and if there is even the faintest possibility of danger why should not the Air Ministry bring this point to the attention of the Dean and Chapter?
    Mr. Neave: I will certainly do that. As Ely is no longer in an approach area, I do not think I ought to commit myself at this stage, but I will bring that point to their attention.

    Stoke Heath
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to dispose of the buildings and plant at Stoke Heath.
    Mr. Neave: We are finding out whether there is any other Government use for the site. If there is not we shall try to sell it.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the need for more employment in this area, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has a comparatively high level of unemployment, will a special effort be made by his Department to try to dispose of the buildings in such a way as to create new employment in the area?
    Mr. Neave: We will certainly try to sell the site for industrial purposes if we can.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air how many established and unestablished men made redundant at Stoke Heath have been offered alternative employment; why some of them have been offered posts at stations due to be closed shortly; and to what extent
    390
    the trade unions have been consulted about the problems arising from the closure of this station.
    Mr. Neave: 44 established and 62 un-established employees have been offered other work. Another six will be offered it shortly. One job for a temporary labourer was offered at a unit due to close at the end of the year. Redundancy arrangements are agreed centrally with the trades unions concerned.
    Mr. Swingler: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have raised this question before. Would he try to ensure that there is some effective consultation with the trade unions on these matters? Is he aware that in my constituency there is no really effective consultation and, as a result, the men have a long catalogue of grievances? Cannot something be done to consult the trade union officers and go through all these redundancy questions?
    Mr. Neave: My information is that redundancy agreements are discussed with the trade unions concerned. If the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that they are not, I am most concerned about it, and I should like to have details from him.

    Thor Missile
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what further tests and modifications are required before the United States Thor missiles in this country will be regarded as operational.
    Mr. Neave: The development programme, including tests, is a continuous process and the extent of the modifications which may be required cannot be decided in advance.
    Mr. de Freitas: In view of the widespread doubts expressed on technical grounds, not only in the United States but on the Continent and in this country, about the value of these particular missiles, is it not time that the Air Ministry cut the losses imposed on it by the Ministry of Defence and scrapped these missiles?
    Mr. Neave: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. We have repeatedly stressed that missiles in this country will not become operational until proving tests have been satisfactorily completed. Last week's firing was part of the training programme, and I think that we should await the results of the tests

  ROADS

    Street Lighting
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the extent to which the risk of accidents on the road is increased through the varying arrangements for the suspension of street lighting during fog; and if he will take such steps as are necessary to bring about uniformity in the arrangements between the various local authorities.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): My right hon. Friend's responsibility for street lighting is confined to assisting lighting authorities to light trunk roads and as far as these are concerned we try to ensure that the standards adopted are those likely to be most helpful to traffic, whether in foggy conditions or otherwise. I have no doubt that lighting authorities generally are fully aware of the importance of this.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. Friend aware that with the increasing volume and importance of through traffic it is rather disconcerting for motorists to have to experience so many different types of lighting, and is it not the aim of his Ministry ultimately to achieve a real measure of uniformity of lighting for all our main roads?
    Mr. Nugent: We have taken steps recently to achieve co-operation between adjacent lighting authorities and I am hopeful that that will bear fruit.

  TRANSPORT

    Learner Drivers
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the unsatisfactory nature of the present arrangements under which learner drivers receive tuition; and if he will introduce regulations which will ensure that learner drivers are always accompanied by a competent driver sitting alongside, and that motor cars used for tuition on the highway shall be fitted with dual-control equipment, so as to enable the accompanying driver to act effectively in an emergency.
    Mr. Nugent: It is already the law that a learner driver may not drive a motor
    392
    car unless he is accompanied by someone holding a substantive licence to drive that type of vehicle. I do not think my hon. Friend's suggestion that all motor cars used for tuition on the highway should be fitted with dual-control equipment is practicable.

    Goods Transport (Survey)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when it is proposed to publish the results of the survey of road goods transport conducted a year ago; and what has caused the delay.
    Mr. Nugent: The analysis of the returns and preparation of the report has involved a good deal of work, but we hope to publish it in the course of the next month or so.
    Mr. Davies: I appreciate the work involved, but can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that there is no ulterior motive in holding back these returns, as in certain quarters of the Press there are suggestions that because they are unfavourable to C-licence holders they are not being published?
    Mr. Nugent: I have not seen them myself, so I cannot say. Certainly there is no ulterior motive in holding them back, and I hope that they will be published next month.

    Carriers' Licences (Offences)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to amend the Road Traffic Acts to provide that persons convicted on a second offence under Section 19 of the 1930 Act in regard to drivers' working hours, or under Section 16 of the 1933 Act in regard to the keeping of records, shall have their licence suspended and that on a subsequent conviction shall have it revoked.
    Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. The suspension and revocation of carriers' licences are best dealt with under the statutory discretion exercised by Licensing Authorities, which can thus take into account the varying circumstances of individual cases.
    Mr. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in nearly all cases of prosecution a very large number of violations have been revealed and it is frequently the same operators who are found guilty

    393
    of committing these offences? Would it not be better that there should be this deterrent, this threat of the withdrawal of the licence, rather than the imposition of small fines which is now the custom?
    Mr. Nugent: The licensing authorities have power to levy such a penalty where they think it right. I think that it is best to leave it to their discretion. I should be sorry to leave the impression that we are harrying the commercial carrying trade.

NUCLEAR FUEL ELEMENTS (MANUFACTURE)
Mr. Robens(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister in what circumstances a private company is permitted to manufacture nuclear fuel elements, and what security reasons are involved in the refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power to reveal which organisation other than the Atomic Energy Authority is now manufacturing these nuclear fuel elements.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power—I quote his words—
"… at this very moment preparations are in the planning stage for a firm making fuel elements".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st April, 1959; c. 27.]
The Parliamentary Secretary was, naturally, unwilling to go into greater detail until he had been able to refer to the defence authorities as to whether any question of security arose.
I have considered this matter and I see no objection to stating that it is the intention that Rolls-Royce Limited should manufacture fuel elements for nuclear submarine machinery. The material will be supplied by and will remain the property of the Admiralty.
Mr. Robens: Is the Prime Minister now refuting the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power who said, in Standing Committee B yesterday. speaking to me:
"… the right hon. Gentleman can take it from me that fuel elements can be and will almost certainly be increasingly made outside the A.E.A."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st April. 1959; c. 30.]
Does the Prime Minister not agree that, so far, it has been a cardinal policy that nuclear fuel is manufactured and owned
394
entirely by the State? Is he now deciding on a brand-new policy in respect of nuclear energy? Further, will he say upon what terms any company is now able to obtain uranium from the Government and make nuclear fuel elements, as the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to say in the Standing Committee?
The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the object of the Bill, the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Bill, which is still under consideration in Committee, is to provide for the future now that we are entering into the new atomic age. At present, of course, all material is manufactured by the Authority and remains, in this particular instance I have given or in other instances, the property of the Authority or the Defence Departments.
In the future, it may be—I do not think it very likely owing to the enormous costs involved—that there will be the manufacture of elements in part of the processes of industry. What we want to do in the Bill is to make provision for the future, and, of course, all material would either be the property of the Authority or the Defence Department or be manufactured only under licence and control.
Mr. Robens: I am glad to have had that statement from the Prime Minister about control and continuing ownership by the Government, but will he not agree that it is a very strange thing that a Standing Committee dealing with such a Bill as this should be the place where such an astounding change in Government policy is made known?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any change at all. If, as I hope—I do not know how long it will take—nuclear power in ships, aeroplanes and all kinds of methods of propulsion is to become part of the current life of the nation, is it not a good thing to introduce a Bill to see that proper licensing and control is arranged for that future?
Several Hon. Members rose—?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. William Yates. Private Notice Question.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Gaitskell: The subject of the Private Notice Question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth

395
(Mr. Robens) is one of very considerable importance, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members were rising, and I think that some of my right hon. Friends also wished to put one or two questions to the Prime Minister. I have been very surprised that you did not call them.
Mr. Speaker: I saw a number of hon. Members rising. If this matter was before the House for debate, I should endeavour to call them. As far as I understood it, the Question of the right hon. Member for Blyth received an answer which satisfied him. As it was his Question, I decided to pass on to the other Private Notice Questions. If there is any right hon. Member who wishes to ask a supplementary question, I will allow it.
Mr. Gaitskell: If you are not proposing to call my hon. Friends, but you are prepared to call only right hon. Members on this side of the House, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood you to say that, if certain right hon. Members wished to put a supplementary question, you would call them. There are, in fact, Members of the House who, though not right hon. Members, equally wish to put supplementary questions. May I put this to you, Sir? Is it not a fact that, when you give leave for a Private Notice Question to be put, that presupposes that the subject matter of the Question is of outstanding public importance? Might one not expect, therefore, that it would be natural for a number of hon. Members to wish to pursue the answer given to it?
Mr. Speaker: That is a rather confused question. In the first place, I should say that I judge the merits of any Private Notice Question by the circumstances in which the case arises. When I read the Question of the right hon. Member for Blyth, I thought that there was certainly some obscurity left as to the true position about these nuclear fuels and, therefore, I thought that it was a matter which should be cleared up, if the Committee were to continue its deliberations and reach a conclusion. That was the reason why in this case I thought it proper to allow the Question.
396
I mentioned right hon. Members in my reply to the Leader of the Opposition because I understood him to say that some of his right hon. Friends wished to ask questions. For that reason, I said that, if I had omitted to observe a right hon. Gentleman rising, I should be very glad to allow him to do so. But I do not think that we should proceed with this very much further, because the answer has been given.
Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my original submission to you, I pointed out that a number of my hon. Friends wished to put questions and that some of my right hon. Friends did, also. Some of us had refrained from rising because we wished my hon. Friends to be able to put their questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think that there is anything particularly surprising about that; it is a very usual practice, which I myself followed in this particular case. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow some of my hon. Friends to put questions to the Prime Minister.
Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Certainly not.
Mr. Gaitskell: It is not the hon and gallant Member's affair. He is not the Speaker.
Following any questions from my hon. Friends, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I also might be allowed to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: All this is a little irregular. I do not want to go against the wishes of the House in any way. I try to do what is best for the House as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition mentioned both his hon. Friends and his right hon. Friends. When I said that I should certainly call any right hon. Gentleman who wanted to ask a question, I was merely giving to one of the categories mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition the privilege to which members of it are accustomed. I understand now that no right hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a question. I have been given notice that there is one hon. Member who has a constituency interest in this matter, and therefore call Mr. Brockway.
Mr. Brockway: Is the Prime Minister aware that at the nuclear research

397
station of the Hawker-Siddeley Company, at Langley, in Slough, a reactor will be completed in September which, when developed, could heat a town, provide power for large industrial plant, operate a liner and provide isotopes for hospitals. While it is desirable that there should be the use of atomic energy for peace in this constructive way, should it not, in view of its immense potentialities, be in public rather than private hands?
The Prime Minister: I think that there are two quite separate questions there. There is the question of safety and control and, of course, there is the question we often debate in the House, whether all industrial processes should be nationalised or not.
As regards safety and control, I think that what the hon. Member says, which I did not know and which I am very happy to hear, is a very good reason for a Bill which sets up a proper system of licensing and control being passed into law.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are not questioning the principle of the Bill, namely, that there should be effective licensing and control? The question my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth put to him was directed to the particular case of manufacture of nuclear fuel elements by a firm. Is it intended that nuclear fuel elements shall be manufactured on a large scale in many cases by other firms? Is it essential that this should be done by private enterprise and not be left to the Atomic Energy Authority?
The Prime Minister: As a matter of practical fact, I think it probable that there will be a certain amount of processing. Manufacture, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, calls for enormous investment and plant at the present stage, but the purpose of the Bill is to make quite clear that, whatever may be the developments during the next twenty or thirty years, a proper system of licensing and control is enforced if it should ever arise that processing or manufacture is to be done by private enterprise.
Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what conditions are laid down by the Atomic Energy Authority and what the financial arrangements are, for instance, when the "know-how" is
398
made available to these private firms to make nuclear elements?
The Prime Minister: That is really another question. This is an enabling Bill, a Bill to set up and give to the Authority—
Several Hon. Members indicated dissent.
The Prime Minister: The whole question arose out of the Bill—the proper system for the future. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman approves of that. At present, as I said, and for many years, I should think, except for certain matters of processing, of which I gave a particular instance, the material will be supplied either by the Atomic Energy Authority or, for defence purposes, by the defence Departments.

PANAMA (DAME MARGOT FONTEYN)
Mr. W. Yates(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Dame Margot Fonteyn was tricked by the Panamanian police authorities, was arrested and detained in prison, and why the Panamanian Government has refused to allow Her Majesty's Ambassador to communicate with her.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): Dame Margot Fonteyn was released early this morning and left Panama at her own request at 0505 local time, which is five past eleven our time. I have not yet been able to get a full and authoritative account of the circumstances of her arrest.
Mr. Yates: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this treatment of a British subject by that Government has caused wide concern and is deeply resented, and that we are very glad that Dame Margot Fonteyn is free?
Mr. Profumo: I assure my hon. Friend that as far as I can make out, Her Majesty's Ambassador in Panama worked extremely hard and took immediate action to secure and safeguard the rights of a British subject. In fact, I can go so far as to say that throughout this

399
regrettable incident Her Majesty's representative was well on his toes.
Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware—I also put down a Private Notice Question on the same subject—that we are delighted that the intervention of the Ambassador has secured the release of this distinguished ballerina and that the British public, having seen her as a swan, did not appreciate her being cast in the role of a decoy duck?
Mr. Dugdale: While welcoming the intervention of Her Majesty's representative in the case of this distinguished lady, may I ask the Minister what is the difference between her case and that of Mr. Clutton-Brock, in which no intervention whatever has been made?
Mr. Profumo: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is a considerable difference between the two cases. I am responsible only for answering this Question and I gather from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that he is wholly satisfied, which makes me believe that I have given the right answer.

ACCIDENT, BILLINGHAM
Mr. Chetwynd(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the tragic accident at the I.C.I. works at Billingham, near Stockton-on-Tees, last night.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The District Inspector of Factories is investigating the accident urgently and he will report to the Chief Inspector in the course of the day. I do not think that I can usefully comment on this sad accident until the report is available, but I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the relatives of those who were killed.
Mr. Chetwynd: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and associate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Slater), in whose constituency the accident occurred, but who is at present at the Council of Europe, and myself, from whose constituency many of the workers come, with the right hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy? At the same time may we express our
400
sympathy with I.C.I. in the fact that this tragedy should have hit that organisation when this £9 million new plant was just being opened?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the inquiry to which he has referred is a preliminary inquiry, to be followed later by a full-scale inquiry by his Department? Can he also say whether the factory is now safe for work to continue?
Mr. Macleod: My District Inspector, who is a chemist, is already undertaking the inquiry and the Chief Inspector will have his report by tonight. I will have to study it before I can be certain whether any other form of inquiry is necessary, although I would not think so. The company is, of course, carrying out its own inquiry.
In the nature of things, I cannot give an answer on the second point. I know, however, that my District Inspector will be studying that matter and the company itself, which, as the House knows, has very high standards indeed in this matter, will also pay attention to it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Horticultural Industry
  Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st May, I shall call attention to the needs of the horticultural industry, and move a Resolution.
  Automation (Industrial Implications)
  Mr. Lee: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st May, I shall call attention to the need for study of the industrial implications of automation, and move a Resolution.
  International Police Force
  Mr. Tilney: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 1st May, I shall call attention to the need for the creation of a permanent directly-recruited international police force, and move a Resolution.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Street Offences Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  STREET OFFENCES BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  STREET OFFENCES BILL

    New Clause. — (RIGHT OF WOMAN CAUTIONED FOR LOITERING TO APPLY TO COURT.)
    (1) Where a woman is cautioned by a constable, in respect of her conduct in a street or public place, that if she persists in such conduct it may result in her being charged with an offence under section one of this Act, she may not later than fourteen clear days afterwards apply to a magistrates' court for an order directing that there is to be no entry made in respect of that caution in any record maintained by the police of those so cautioned and that any such entry already made is to be expunged; and the court shall make the order unless satisfied that on the occasion when she was cautioned she was loitering or soliciting in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution.

    (2) An application under this section shall be by way of complaint against the chief officer of police for the area in which the woman is cautioned or against such officer of police as he may designate for the purpose in relation to that area or any part of it; and, subject to any provision to the contrary in rules made under section fifteen of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, on the hearing of any such complaint the procedure shall be the same as if it were a complaint by the police officer against the woman, except that this shall not affect the operation of sections forty-seven to forty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which relate to the non-attendance of the parties to a complaint).

    (3) In this section references to a street shall be construed in accordance with subsection (4) of section one of this Act.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.50 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding, may I draw the attention of the House to the proposed new Clause—(Cautions)—in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and other hon. Members, which seems to cover the same subject matter. There is no harm in the two new Clauses being discussed together.
    The Attorney-General: During the Committee stage of the Bill, we had considerable discussion concerning the cautioning system, which was outlined
    402
    by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading. Indeed, we discussed and debated similar proposals to those now contained in the new Clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I should like to remind the House that the main object of the cautioning system as we see it is that it should operate as a system to rescue those about to embark on a career of prostitution.
    During our Committee debates, I outlined in more detail than did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading the procedure that would be followed in London. If I may remind the House, the system, put shortly, is intended to operate as follows. If a woman is seen loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution by one police officer and she is not known to him as a common prostitute who has had convictions, he will obtain the assistance of another police officer. They will then both watch the woman and only if they are satisfied that she is loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution will they caution her.
    When they have cautioned her, it is intended that they should ask whether she will allow her name and address to be given to a moral welfare organisation and they will invite her to call at a police station to see a woman police officer, who will give her advice and, perhaps, put her in touch with a moral welfare officer.
    Those are all steps designed and intended to help to rescue those starting on this life. The caution, if it is given, will be recorded at the police station and, in London, registered on a central register. It is only after such a person has been cautioned twice that a charge under the Bill will be presented.
    As I said in Committee, we regard this cautioning system as a kind of fender pushed in front of the engine of the law to prevent people being caught up in its machinery. To achieve our object, we regard it as essential that the cautioning system should be administrative in character and not embodied in any Statute or in any code of statutory regulations. We regard it as of the first importance that this system should operate without the persons cautioned being brought immediately before the Courts.

    403
    From listening to the discussions uptairs, I know that there is a difference of view among many hon. Members on this matter, and a difference of view which is sincerely held. There are some who think that, rather than any cautioning system, it would be better that the new entrant should be brought straight away before the court, when the courts may be able to put her on probation and things of that kind. There are some who wish to formalise the cautioning procedure more than we consider desirable.
    In Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton thought that the caution should be administered by magistrates. In his new Clause, he has departed from that principle and he proposes that the caution should be administered by what he calls authorised persons. The hon. and learned Member's Clause does not specify what qualities authorised persons should possess. It merely refers to authorised persons.
    If I may outline some of our objections to the hon. and learned Member's present proposals, objections which are similar to those we advanced before but apply, perhaps, with even greater force, they are these. We consider it undesirable that we should bring into this operation authorised persons, as the hon. and learned Member suggests, who are not concerned in any sense with the administration of justice. What would happen under the hon. and learned Member's proposals is that there would be a trial before authorised persons to decide whether a woman was loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, and a trial with none of the normal safeguards, with the rules of evidence apparently not applying and with no rights of appeal, and yet, if the decision of the authorised person was wrong, it might lead to serious consequences for the person concerned.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I do not know why the Attorney-General says that there would be no right of appeal. As I drafted the Clause and put it down originally, I provided for grounds of appeal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then put down his Clause, which seemed to me to be quite acceptable. Therefore, I left out subsection (5) of my new Clause, accepting the right of appeal as provided in the Attorney-General's new Clause.
    The Attorney-General: I am dealing with the hon. and learned Member's new Clause as it appears on the Notice Paper and not with his first thoughts. As it stands now, his new Clause—I am glad that the hon. and learned Member agrees —does not contain any right of appeal.
    Mr. Paget: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Clause is providing that.
    The Attorney-General: The two will not fit together. That is quite clear, as I shall explain.
    Furthermore, one other objection to the hon. and learned Member's new Clause is that it gives the power of arresting a woman so that she can be cautioned on her refusal or failure to visit an authorised person, and power to arrest her when she is not being charged with any offence. I regard that as wholly wrong. As I see it, the woman who is wrongly suspected and wrongly cautioned would, under the hon. and learned Member's new Clause, be in a worse position than she would be under the Bill as it now stands in that she would be liable to be arrested and taken before an authorised person.
    For those reasons, which I have stated quite shortly, we are unable to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's new Clause, which is quite contrary to our approach to the cautioning system.
    4.0 p.m.
    However, in Committee, as those who were present there will recollect, considerable fears were expressed about the position of a respectable woman who was wrongly cautioned, and I said that I would very carefully consider the various suggestions made, including an interesting suggestion put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), to see whether some way could be found of giving such a woman a legal right of redress. The result of much cogitation and discussion is the new Clause I am proposing.
    I will now say a word or two about how we see it in operation. Under the Clause, a woman who is cautioned by a police constable in accordance with the system which I have outlined will be entitled as a matter of legal right to apply within 14 days for an order from the magistrate that her name should not be entered in, or, if already entered in,

    405
    should be expunged from, any police records of those cautions. If she does so apply for such an order the matter will go before the magistrate.
    Under this Clause the burden of proof will be upon the police. If, and only if, the police satisfy the magistrate that she was loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution will an order expunging her name from the records or ordering that it should not be entered not be made.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say where the records will be, who keeps them, and to whom they will be made available? I submit to him very seriously that if he had a near relative, who was a woman, an innocent person, who received a caution, she would hesitate a very long time before she sought publicly in a magistrates' court to contest a publicly made allegation that she was a common prostitute, when, by keeping her mouth shut, and allowing the caution to go on, she need not have to face that undesirable publicity.
    The Attorney-General: I will come to that point in a moment. It is a very real one. I am now seeking to explain, in quite ordinary, non-legal language, because I think it is important, if one can, to make the matter as plain as possible, what the rights will be and how we see this system will operate; but I will certainly come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
    I would just say this, that I hope that the new Clause will meet with the approval of the House as a means whereby the respectable woman who regards herself as wrongly cautioned will be able to obtain redress. I should like to say this, too, that I do not myself think that anyone who went to see what is going on in the streets of London tonight would regard the chances of the police making a mistake in cautioning as at all high. But one cannot exclude the possibility of error, and I think that we were all agreed in the Committee that it was right that some way should be found of giving a woman cautioned the opportunity of challenging the facts which led to the caution being given and the opportunity of doing so in the courts.
    I hope, however, and, indeed, I believe, that, should a mistake be made in cautioning, the exercise of this right of
    406
    access to the courts will be the last resort, because the sensible woman, if she is wrongly cautioned, ought to go immediately to the police station and make a complaint. That complaint will be investigated, and if the officer in charge of the police station comes to the conclusion that an error has been made there will be no entry in any register or police records of the fact that she has been cautioned.
    But, really, it does not stop there. If she does not receive satisfaction at the police station, in London she will be able and ought to make a complaint without delay to the Commissioner of Police, and I am authorised to say that he is very ready indeed to investigate any such complaints as are brought to his notice about this cautioning system.
    After those steps have been taken, steps which, I would suggest, any sensible woman would take, who thinks she has been wrongly cautioned, should the police adhere to the view that what the police constable did out in the street or public place was justified, then this new Clause will give her her right of demanding a judicial determination of the question of fact whether she was or she was not loitering or soliciting on the occasion for the purpose of prostitution.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's case, as I understand it, is to depend on the administrative system of cautioning which we are trying to follow. Would he be good enough to explain this? If the police constable wishes to caution one of the women, is she obliged to give her name and address, or is she entitled to withhold them?
    The Attorney-General: We can discuss that, but it is departing a little from this Clause.
    Mr. Paget: Why?
    The Attorney-General: She may or may not give her name. That we recognise perfectly well, but I should be grateful if the House would let me go on with this explanation, because I want to come to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I have been dealing with the new Clause, and I should like to get this explanation in one piece, if I can.
    One question which troubled us in relation to this new Clause was the ques

    407
    tion which the hon. Member for Oldham, West has raised, namely, should the proceedings be in public or not when a woman seeks access to the courts? On the one hand, it can be argued that if the police have made a mistake or have misconducted themselves in cautioning someone it is right that that error should be made public and not covered up. There can be disadvantages which follow from investigation of police activities in private. That is an argument on one side, and it is one which merits serious consideration.
    On the other side, there is the argument which the hon. Gentleman touched upon, that the fear of publicity may deter a respectable woman from seeking access to the courts. We have given considerable thought to that. We were interested to read on the Notice Paper the original Amendment of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and his hon. Friends. What I may call the revised version appears now on the Notice Paper as an Amendment to this new Clause, to insert a new subsection (3). I can tell the House that we are disposed to accept that Amendment as a satisfactory compromise.
    Why I say "satisfactory compromise" is for this reason. If a woman feels so confident that she has been wrongly cautioned, if she feels so aggrieved by the conduct of the police, she may wish the proceedings to be in public. If so, they will be. The decision rests with her. If, on the other hand, she does not ask for them to be in public, then they will be in camera, and then the failure of her application to the court will not result in her receiving any publicity. It will not be known that she has been cautioned for this offence. It will not be publicly known in respect of the other persons cautioned and, therefore, she will not, because she has had recourse to the courts, be singled out as one of those who has been cautioned. I have done my best —I hope that I have not taken the words out of the hon. Gentleman's mouth—to explain the reasons which have prompted us in the view which we at present hold. We shall listen to what is said in the House, because it is an important question. It is not a light matter, in my view, to introduce a system, even in this limited field, where proceedings can always be in camera at the wish of one party in what will be a form of litigation.
    Mr. Hale: The Attorney-General promised to say a word about records, about access to them and where they are kept. I take it that they are written, in the first place, in the policeman's notebook. I should like to know where they are copied down, who has access to them and how far they will be permanent and available in future.
    The Attorney-General: There will be a record made at the police station to which the policeman is attached. That is where the first entry will be made. I imagine that it will be made in his notebook, too. There will be a central register in London, for obvious reasons. These are police documents and police documents only. Although I cannot speak for the Home Office, I understand that after a year the documents are destroyed.
    I do not think that one need worry too much about this matter. Cautioning to a limited degree, namely, one caution instead of two, has been in operation in London for a considerable time. I understand that it does not apply only to London. I may be wrong, but I have never heard a complaint or criticism of the manner of its operation, nor any complaint or criticism of publicity being given to the content of what is recorded. Obviously, records must be made somewhere if we are to ensure that persons receive two cautions before they are prosecuted. I hope that I have said enough to commend the new Clause to the House.
    The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) raised the important question of refusal of name and address. My answer to it is that there is no power contained in the Bill to arrest someone who so refuses. One hopes that the police will be able to persuade the new entrant not to refuse to give her name and address because the whole object of the cautioning system is to help, to avoid bringing those whom it is desired to help and to save within the ambit of our criminal law.
    Let me take the case of the woman who does refuse her name or perhaps gives a false name.
    Mr. Hale: Or the real name of someone else.
    The Attorney-General: That may be, but, again, the policeman will make a careful note of the woman's description in order to help him.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: Even the colour of her hair?
    The Attorney-General: If the hon. Lady changed the colour of her hair, I should still be able to identify her.
    It may well be that the result will be that some of the people who adopt such methods may succeed in obtaining more cautions before prosecution, but I think that that is much better than a system of compulsory arrest because there is the suspicion that the name is false or on refusing to give the name. I believe that, just as no difficulty has been found in working the system up to now with one caution, in practice no real difficulty will be experienced in operating this system in relation to new recruits and new entrants. I am sure that all who operate this administrative procedure—the police and everyone else—regard it as a work not of bringing people into the clutches of the criminal law, but a work of salvation and will do their best to assist those whom they approach.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The Attorney-General has put the case for the new Clause very fairly. He said that this is a matter which has divided hon. Members on both sides. We on this side have our own differences of opinion about the desirability of a Clause of this kind and, indeed, about the desirability of a cautioning system altogether. As during previous stages of the Bill, we shall not apply the Whips, but will leave the decision entirely to a free vote of hon. Members.
    Although we have our differences of opinion about the desirability of a cautioning system in general, I think that we have all agreed that, if there is to be a cautioning system, certain safeguards are essential. First, it should be uniform throughout the country; secondly, it should be contained in the Bill so that the public may know the safeguards available to them; and, thirdly, there should be a right of appeal to anyone who believes that she has been wrongly cautioned.
    The new Clause goes a considerable way to meet the last two requirements that I have stated: the system of cautioning is now in the Bill and there is a right of appeal. It seems to me, however, that
    410
    we do not have to make today a choice between cautioning and no cautioning, but a choice between cautioning by administrative process and cautioning under Statute. If I had to make a choice between the two, I would sooner have cautioning under Statute than cautioning by administrative process purely under the control of the Home Office, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and chief constables throughout the country. Therefore, I shall support the new Clause with, I hope, the additional safeguard contained in the Amendment.
    There are certain additional questions which I should like to put to the Attorney-General beyond those which my hon. Friends have already put to him. First, I should like to know whether it is proposed that the power to caution should be in the hands of plain clothes policemen. It seems to me that if the Metropolitan Police use plain clothes officers for this work, there is scope for a great deal of trouble and apprehension, and I would have thought some scope for blackmail and bringing undue influence to bear upon these women by men in plain clothes who are not in any way associated with the Metropolitan Police. There might well be great dangers, therefore, if plain clothes men were employed on this work.
    I should also like to ask the Attorney-General whether the Government have been able to give consideration since Second Reading to the suggestion I made then, namely, that as far as possible women police should be used in activities of this kind.
    I confess that I am not greatly impressed by the assurances of the Attorney-General about the ability of the police to obtain accurate names and addresses from people who are cautioned, or, indeed, whether they have powers to compel women to give their names and addresses. When we questioned the Attorney-General in Committee on 11th March, I repeated a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and said to him:
    "Have the police any powers to compel any member of the public not accused of a specific offence to supply his or her name and address to the police?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 11th March, 1959; c. 160.]
    In answer, the Attorney-General said, "I do not think they have". I understood that to be a general statement of the

    411
    law and not merely a statement of the provisions in the Bill. I therefore still have great doubts about how this system will work out.
    I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) about the possibility of women giving the names and addresses of other real and identifiable people. How will a policeman know whether a woman has been cautioned before, and whether on a particular occasion he should charge her instead of cautioning her? What will be the position if a policeman takes a woman to the station believing that she has been cautioned on a previous occasion only to find that that is not the case? Is it not possible that a policeman might be putting himself in jeopardy in a case of that kind?
    How many constables do the Government envisage taking part in operations of this kind? On Second Reading the Home Secretary told us that one officer would be engaged. In Standing Committee, apparently by accident, the Attorney-General informed us—
    The Attorney-General: It was not by accident.
    Mr. Greenwood: I am very glad to hear that, but it makes it more confusing. In Standing Committee, the Attorney-General told us that it would be done by two constables. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) said that two constables would do the job. Later, I pressed the right hon. Gentleman and he said, "I said two advisedly", but the new Clause on the Notice Paper says:
    "Where a woman is cautioned by a constable…"
    not by two constables.
    The Attorney-General: It is a pity to waste time on a point when there is nothing between us. Where a policeman sees a woman behaving in this way he will get the assistance of another constable. That will be two constables, and they will watch the woman to see if she persists in her behaviour. If she does, they will go up to her and one of them will caution her. It will not be a chorus of the two constables.
    Mr. Greenwood: That is not in the new Clause. If this was the last and definite
    412
    answer from the Government that two constables would always be engaged on occasions of this kind, it would go some way towards putting our doubts at rest.
    How widespread will this practice be? We heard in Standing Committee that the chief constables in 12 police areas outside the Metropolitan area had agreed to operate a system of this kind. If we are to write this into the Act, the procedure should be universal throughout the country. The Government should tell us how many chief constables, and how large an area, will be covered by the new Clause which we are asked to accept.
    Mr. Paget: I felt that it was a little barefaced, if I may say so, of the Attorney-General to accuse me of not having provided a method of appeal. I invented it. I put it down upstairs and the Government rejected it. The method of appeal was stipulated in my Clause when I put it down for the Report stage. When the Government provided a method of appeal, out of courtesy to them I withdrew that part of my Clause as an indication that I accepted the Government's proposal. Indeed, the Attorney-General's attack on me on this issue reminds me of the chap who punched another man in the mouth and then complained that his knuckles had been bitten.
    We are agreed that there ought to be a method of appeal. As a matter of practice, as against principle, I quite agree that it is not very important. I shall be surprised if this right of appeal is exercised once a year, but as a matter of principle and civil liberty it is of the greatest importance that it should be there.
    There are two aspects of cautioning which one will have to consider. First, as a piece of machinery preliminary to bringing people before a court, will it work? Secondly, as a means of preventing girls from adopting a life of prostitution, will it work? In my view the proposed method of cautioning will fail in both respects.
    As a piece of machinery, it has been said that the present system adopted by the Metropolitan Police has worked. In my submission, it has worked for one reason, and one reason only. It has been quite unofficial; nobody has known anything about it; the girls have given their names, and it has been possible to note their names in a register so that next time one knows whether she has

    413
    been cautioned or not. But the girls will now know that they do not have to give their names. Certainly, before they get the second caution they will know that they are entitled to turn round to the police officer and say, "Are you arresting me or are you not? If not, 'buzz off'". Thal will become the standard reply.
    What will be the position of the police officer when he is given that reply? He can either "buzz off", or bring the girl into the police station, thereby taking the chance either that she has been cautioned on a couple of occasions or has a previous conviction. If he is wrong, there might be an action for wrongful arrest. By the time that has happened even once, the nerves of the policemen will be substantially broken and they will not take the risk of taking these girls in but will just "buzz off".
    There will be a few old warhorses, if I can put it that way, who will be known to the police as having a string of convictions, but any girl who is not like that will be safe unless she has met the particular policeman on a previous occasion and he recognises her. A certain amount of changing round of beats will be necessary to achieve this, but it will be extremely difficult to work once the girls know that they do not have to give their names.
    If the girl gives somebody's else's name, she commits no offence by doing so. She can give the name of the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or any other name that she chooses.
    Mr. Hale: She can give the name of another prostitute in the same street, and very likely will. That would create a very real problem.
    Mr. Paget: Exactly, and no offence would be committed by doing so. As a piece of machinery, apart from its purpose of reform, once the girls know their rights the whole system becomes unworkable.
    4.30 p.m.
    So much for the machinery aspect of the Government's proposal. I come next to what I regard as more important, because I think that this is a bad Bill which will cause more evils than it cures. Therefore, provisions which the Government introduce that will simply make the
    414
    Bill unworkable do not have any particular disapproval from me. I am much more concerned about the chance of reforming the girl. That is what is important. I am not concerned with the girl who has made up her mind to take up this life, or with a girl who is spotted for the first time but has been on the streets for some time.
    I am not concerned with the experienced girl. I am concerned with the girl who has came from Jamaica and has no idea whatever of becoming a prostitute but has not known where to go and, in ignorance and at a loss, has gone an the streets. I am concerned with the girl who has come over from Ireland to a job which she cannot find, or a job which has turned out to be unsatisfactory. I am concerned with the girl who has had a row with her parents and has been turned out and is too proud to go back.
    What is the effect on that sort of inexperienced young girl when two policemen walk up to her? It is fear and panic. I and most hon. Members opposite have for all our lives regarded policemen as people who are something in the nature of being our servants. We have regarded the policeman as a person who was there to look after us. But that is not so with everybody. There has been a fear of police from childhood in a great many working-class people. Girls from Jamaica, girls from Ireland, and foreign girls fear the police. Their fear is a very real and panicky thing. Do not let us delude ourselves about that.
    When, in that atmosphere of fear, a girl is told that she can go to a voluntary organisation, or can have a talk with a women police officer if she likes, she is too panicky to listen if she is not an experienced type of girl and is the sort of beginner whom we seek to help. Therefore, I do not believe that the sort of cautioning which does not bring to the girl an alternative choice will do any good. Having had this cautioning system, may I ask whether the Government have any figures to show how many girls it has deterred and what proportion? I am very doubtful whether it has deterred any.
    Here, having criticised the Government, I come to my own proposed new Clause, entitled "Cautions".

    "(1) No common prostitute shall be prosecuted for loitering or soliciting for the purpose

    415
    of prostitution unless she has within the previous two years—

    (a) been convicted of committing offence as a common prostitute; or

    (b) received two cautions.

    (2) The Secretary of State for the Home Department shall appoint and authorise a person or persons in each police district in the United Kingdom either individually or as holders of a specified office or appointment (hereinafter referred to as 'an authorised person') to administer cautions in accordance with the provisions of this section.

    (3) A constable may require any person loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution to visit an authorised person in a private room at some place other than a magistrates' court house, at a time specified by the constable and if such person refuses or fails so to visit the authorised person, a constable shall arrest such person and bring her before the authorised person.

    (4) An authorised person shall receive such person and shall give her an opportunity to state informally any reasons she may give as to why she should not be cautioned and shall if he thinks fit, hear any other person or arrange for such person to see any other person either separately or in his presence and shall then at his absolute discretion decide whether in all the circumstances it is desirable that such person be cautioned, and if the authorised person shall so decide he shall caution her not to loiter or solicit for the purpose of prostitution and the caution shall be entered in a register to be kept for that purpose, and the said register shall be evidence that the said person was so cautioned."

    It is designed precisely to get over the difficulty in the Government's scheme. The first thing that I do is to put the cautioning provision into the Bill. I can see the object of having a cautioning system which is purely informal and which the police can carry out if they like, but which is not a condition precedent to prosecution and which involves no question of a legal right of appeal from it. But the Government's proposal is something in between, something which has the Home Secretary's authority and the authority of his undertaking to Parliament and something which, although it is not in the Bill, we are to have a legal ground of appeal against. I can see no point at all in this half-way house which is neither informal and without legal effect nor part of the law of the land.
    In my proposed new Clause, therefore, I make a conviction or two cautions in the previous two years a condition precedent to prosecution. But it is said, "When you come to prosecute again and you have to prove the condition of
    416
    two previous cautions or a conviction in the previous two years, are you not prejudicing her trial? "What hypocrisy. Does anyone really imagine that magistrates are so dumb that they do not know this procedure? Does anyone think that there is a single magistrate who will not know that any girl brought before him has been through the caution procedure? The fact that this condition is put in the Bill does not make it either more or less prejudicial than it is today.
    The next point is the question: who should do the cautioning? This is where I am really concerned, because I want the girl to be given an alternative and I want that alternative to be put to her quietly and persuasively. In Committee, I suggested that the right person to do this would be a magistrate. I still think that the magistrate is the best choice, because he has available all the various people who can help. He can call in the probation officer, or a woman police officer, or people from voluntary organisations. He can bring in whom he likes to have a talk with the girl. He is in a position to select the machinery which will be most helpful.
    I should like the magistrate to be the appointed person, but there are localities where that may not be possible. The magistrate may be too busy or it may be difficult to arrange. Therefore, I leave it to the Home Secretary to say that in that district it shall be a probation officer or an officer of the women's police force above a certain rank or some other person whom he thinks suitable. The discretion is given to him to choose the suitable person in any district.
    Next, I come to the question of how we bring the girl—she is not a prostitute at this point—before the person who will caution her. Here I get over the difficulty that she can simply say, "Buzz off", by giving the constable legal authority to require her name, and legal authority to arrest her if she fails to attend before the authorised person who is to caution her. I am told that this is an invasion of civil liberty. Again, that is the highest hypocrisy. Under the law of this land, which has endured since the fifteenth century, there is power to arrest anybody who is considered to be of evil repute or to be behaving in a disorderly manner, without making any

    417
    charge against them, and to bring them before a court where they must show cause why they should not be required to enter into sureties of the peace.
    Mr. Hale: This was always only applied to Socialists.
    Mr. Paget: Yes, it is applied to Socialists, and it is applied to prostitutes; it is applied to anybody the authority does not like. To say, when we have that law, that a girl who has been soliciting on the street —which is behaving in a disorderly manner—cannot be arrested if she refuses a request to attend before an authorised person; to say that to provide that power is an invasion of civil liberty considering what our law of the subject is, I submit is the highest hypocrisy. I regard that as a necessary piece of machinery if we are to make either the Government form or my form of caution work.
    Thirdly, as to where she shall go. I provide that she shall go to an appointed place which shall not be the magistrates' court house. I say it shall not be the magistrates' court house for a simple reason. At every magistrates' court house there will be in the rows at the back pimps waiting to pick up young girls. So if the girls are taken before the magistrate, the boys will be there to collect them in. Therefore, we want to keep them away from the police court as much as we can.
    Where should the appointed place be? It may be the probation officer's house. It may be the police station. It may be any place which is convenient to the particular organisation which has been selected. This is flexible. It can suit the particular district and arrangement, but to somewhere the girl goes. When the girl goes there, the atmosphere is entirely different from what it is when she is accosted by two policemen under a lamppost and told that she has done something wrong. There is somebody experienced who can talk to her and can use such power and experience as he has to persuade her. Also he has available to him three quite vital things. Here I am thinking particularly of Jamaican and Irish girls.
    First, he is a position to arrange hostel accommodation for her. That is vital. Secondly, he is in a position to offer her a job. It is easy to get jobs for girls in the present employment situation. Every probation officer can place these
    418
    girls. Thirdly, and I think not less important, he will have some funds, which can be in some part official or it may be voluntary, in order to pay for her lodgings for a week. With these he can provide her with the necessary power of payment to get her over a short period until she is herself earning and can perhaps repay the money. All those things become available if we adopt this form of procedure.
    4.45 p.m.
    Then I am told that this is a form of trial. I say that the approved person can hear what the girl has to say, he can hear what the police have to say about it if there is an argument, he can hear anybody else whom he thinks may help, and he can ask the girl to see anybody else whom he thinks may help her. If that is a trial, I prefer it to the trial without right of answer, without right of reply, without any form of hearing, conducted by two policemen under a lamppost. Either of them results in a caution. I prefer the quieter, friendlier examination resulting, it is true, in an executive decision, because a caution is an executive decision.
    In my submission, both as to workability and as to the chance of reform, the method I suggest is vastly superior to that suggested by the Government. When the Attorney-General says that the two Clauses cannot stand together, I say, frankly, nonsense. The only difference is that we would have to change caution by a constable to caution by an authorised person. There is no great problem there, and therefore I urge the Government to have second thoughts on this matter.
    Mr. Godfrey Lagden: Since the Bill has been upstairs in Committee it has been improved considerably, and the right of appeal which has now been introduced is one which I think will be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. I am rather disappointed, however, that it has not been carried a stage further. We have listened this afternoon to the learned Attorney-General on the question of cautions and I am not sure, having done so, whether this system of caution will be universal throughout the country. In fact, I think that it is extremely doubtful whether that will be so.

    419
    The Home Secretary, for whose courage and honesty I have the greatest regard, seems on this occasion to be refusing the responsibility which would put him in the position of having to answer in this House for anything which happened in any of the areas outside the Metropolitan Police area. It seems an extraordinary thing that, when we are introducing new legislation, we should be saying that it shall operate for the Metropolitan Police area and that the Home Secretary will instruct—I repeat, instruct—the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police on how he should interpret the law. Outside that area, however, we have no interest in the matter, and merely hope that those in charge outside it will interpret the legislation in the same manner.
    We were all agreed in Committee that there should be a right of appeal to almost anybody who could assist the person who was about to be charged. But here is an extraordinary thing. If they choose, which is not unusual, that their Member of Parliament shall be the person to whom they turn, the Member of Parliament will have to say, "I am sorry, but I cannot help you. Although I am your elected representative, to turn to me is useless, because when I go to the House of Commons I shall be told that the Home Secretary cannot answer any questions on this matter because it is outside his jurisdiction. If you appeal for a debate of any kind you will be unsuccessful."
    I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I would ask the Home Secretary to take sufficient power to enable any hon. Member to ask any Question he likes in the House on behalf of his constituent. Without introducing new legislation, he should not hide behind any idea that this would involve national police forces, and so forth. That is a red herring, which should not be considered. In new legislation it is easy for the Home Secretary to say, "I will take power to answer any Question in this House that any duly elected Member of Parliament cares to ask me."?
    Mr. Hale: I thought that the Attorney-General made a very good case for his Clause, and I was very impressed by what he said. It is a civilised Clause, a decent effort to improve the Bill. I merely want to raise a few points as briefly as possible.
    420
    First, it is something of a departure to say that we shall not put this provision into the Bill but that we shall introduce a new quasi-judicial system which may be operated by the police without any statutory authority, and without any special rules being laid down except such as are agreed privately between the Home Office and the persons directing the police forces. That is a point about which most lawyers would feel some hesitancy. On the whole, however, as it has worked in Scotland, and as Scottish judicial procedure is in many ways so much better than our own, I should be quite willing to say, "Let us forget these hesitations for the moment and try this system to see whether it works. If it does not it can be taken care of in regulations." I would leave it at that.
    It is possible to raise all sorts of suppositious postulates as to possibilities arising under any legislation, but I suggest, without wishing to say a rude word against the ladies concerned, that the police experience the same difficulty when interviewing these ladies as afflicted Lord Malvern in his recent conversations with Africans. It is not a suppositious proposition to say that if a policeman is giving a caution for the first time he presumably does not know the lady concerned very well, because she has not been cautioned or prosecuted before.
    In those circumstances she could give the name of the girl working the next street. That name will be written down and the other girl will never hear about it until she is "pinched" three years later and charged as a prostitute. At that stage, the policeman will swear that she was the girl he cautioned, and he will believe it.
    Hon. Members may smile sympathetically, but they should realise that those who give evidence on matters of form arising out of conduct relating to our practice of the service of documents never really recollect what happened. We must face this. If I am required to swear that I served a document upon a certain person four years ago I look up my records, and, if they indicate that I did serve the document on him, I go into the witness box and I swear that I so served it, knowing that my records should be correct.
    Similarly, it will be quite reasonable for the policeman, having had to deal

    421
    with 400 or 500 women since, and not being able to remember individual cases, to go into the witness box and say, "I cautioned May Jones, a common prostitute, two years ago. She has been convicted twice, and, therefore, is liable to prosecution." When the girl says that she has never heard about all this she will be liable to a term of imprisonment for three or four years for perjury. I know that we sometimes make rather wild suggestions, but I insist that this is a possibility. We really come to the point when, if the system is to work, the policeman should caution only a girl he knows. I do not mind if the system operates in that day. I am inclined to think that it is a well-intentioned, decent and civilised system.
    I did not agree with every word of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I do not always find myself in that happy position. The most important part of his speech was his suggestion that the Attorney-General was on false ground when he said, "We are not arresting these girls; we are having a more civilised procedure. We are just cautioning them under the lamp-post and letting them go." We all know what happens in such cases. If the policeman is nice the girl is let out on bail straight away and told to go out and earn the fine, and if the policeman is unpleasant she is kept until the next morning, and she misses a night's revenue.
    It is no hardship to provide that if these girls give their names they shall be ordered to report at a certain point, and there is a strong case for saying that that point should not be the petty sessions court. I know that if a new address is fixed it will become known in the end, but at the moment we must remember not only that pimps hang about the courts, but that the atmosphere is singularly unpleasant for a woman, if there has been a possible miscarriage of justice. There will also be some hard-boiled customers leering down from the benches. The atmosphere in a police court is not a very happy one for any woman.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will be prepared to adopt the suggestion put forward by my hon. and learned Friend and agree that these girls should report to an authorised person. He will prob
    422
    ably be a magistrate with some experience in these matters. He may be a lay magistrate, who is willing to see these girls at his house. He will exercise the same judicial process of being satisfied that the police were right in apprehending the woman, and he will give her such advice as she is willing to accept and such help as he deems appropriate.
    Mr. Paget: It may be a woman magistrate.
    Mr. Hale: As my hon. and learned Friend says, it may be a woman magistrate. I hope so, although some are tougher than men. It might also be a woman policeman. At any rate, it should be a humane, decent individual with experience, who is prepared to render this service.
    Why should not the Home Secretary agree to this proposal? The Attorney-General may say that we have hardly had time to work the thing out, and that discussions might be required. If he says that the Government are prepared to incorporate this provision in another place I am sure that my hon. Friends would not obstruct the Bill when it came back. The combined effect of the best of both Clauses would make a substantial improvement, and would he welcomed by most people.
    Miss Joan Vickers: In Committee, I moved a far better and more definite proposal. I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) lifted some of my suggestions. I therefore have great sympathy for what he said, and I do not want to go over all the points he made. What worries me is that the Government Clause begins by saying:
    "Where a woman is cautioned…"
    "Where" may mean "if". It raises some doubt whether she should be cautioned. It is not definite, and it gives no real protection. Many areas do not operate the cautioning system which is carried out in the Metropolitan area of London. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point. The present wording is far too vague.
    Later, the Clause provides that such a woman
    "may not later than fourteen clear days afterwards apply to a magistrates' court…"

    423
    We understand that the Clause is really for the benefit of new entrants—women who are probably new to the district and are not known to the police or to people in the district. How are these women to know where to apply? Women in this category are not generally intelligent. How are they to know when the 14 days' period is up?
    I hope that the police will be provided with leaflets, or printed slips written out by the chief constable, which they can hand to these women and which will state their names and will give the exact date within which they must apply to the courts. I cannot imagine that new entrants will have much knowledge of the area.
    If the woman does not apply within 14 days she will automatically have her name placed on the register, or so I understand. Is that an accurate assumption? Will registers of areas other than London be interchangeable? I can see a great deal of difficulty arising in this connection in the future.
    As I have said, the Clause is designed to protect only the innocent woman and the new entrant. What will happen to the woman who has previously been convicted for soliciting, but who may be innocent when charged on a later occasion? Will the Clause cover her? I do not think it will. It refers to "a woman" and not "a common prostitute", and if a woman has once been convicted it is likely that at some considerable time later she will be considered to be a common prostitute. She will receive no protection under the Clause, although she would have under my Clause, because I included a definite period of time.
    I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider this matter. The Clause is not definite enough, and it does not give sufficient instructions to policemen outside the Metropolitan area.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. B. T. Parkin: I was puzzled, as I believe many of my hon. Friends were, at the lateness of the stage in our discussions when the Government revealed what they had in mind in regard to the administration of the cautioning system which the Home Secretary mentioned as an intention, and which did not appear in the Bill. We are very grateful for the explanations which have
    424
    since been forthcoming, and also for the form of the proposed new Clause. I rise only to ask whether the reason for the delay was that the Government assume that they will be using the cautioning system at present employed by the police.
    I had a disturbing constituency case, with which I will not weary the House again, except to point out that in the letter which the Home Secretary sent to me he wrote, "She was cautioned." I suppose that most of us have been cautioned. "I should not leave it there, Sir, if I were you," is a caution, is it not? I do not know whether these cautions have ever had any administrative or legal validity. We must assume that the police know their job, and know what they are looking for. They frequently say to a young girl, "You had better move along or you'll be getting into trouble around here." That is a caution.
    We must be careful that such cautions do not go on the record under the new system. Magistrates know the way in which the police work at present, and they have confidence in the efficiency of the police. if a magistrate is to be made aware of the fact that when a girl appears before him it is the third step in the process, and that she is by that time on the register as a second-class citizen, he will not insist on a great deal of evidence. According to the terms of the Bill she need only loiter: she does not have to solicit.
    I do not want the Home Secretary to abandon the old system of cautioning. That would be stupid. It is merely a case of a policeman doing an ordinary day's work. He cautions and warns people about all sorts of offences, and not only those mentioned in the Bill. But I wonder whether there should not be a distinction between the friendly sort of warning to an apparent newcomer that the place where she is is no sort of place to hang about, and that prostitution is no sort of life to lead—which will probably still regularly be given—and the more formal caution suggested in the Bill. The policeman ought not to be obliged to think to himself, "If I say this it must be written down. It will have to go on to the central register, and two of these cautions will really amount to a conviction."
    Will the policeman have to tell the girl not only that he is cautioning her,

    425
    but that the caution will go on record? Secondly—and this may not be entirely in order—the Attorney-General said something about the destruction of records. It would be useful at some time to know when these girls will have a chance to make a fresh start.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I start by congratulating the Government, and the Attorney-General in particular, on drawing up a wholly admirable Clause. It is evident that very close attention has been paid to what was said by hon. Members on both sides in Committee about cautioning and ensuring that the liberties of the subject are protected, particularly in the case of the new recruit coming into the profession of prostitution, or of the woman who may be improperly or wrongly arrested.
    The new Clause is admirable and requires very little change, but I have one or two points to make about it. First, I am satisfied that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) is right and that the proceedings in this matter should not normally be heard anywhere but in private. I hope that that will be included in the new Clause.
    I am sure that both my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) and the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) are right in what they have said about the cautioning of a woman by a constable. The woman may not appreciate that she has any rights in the matter. She may not know that she is being cautioned, or she may not appreciate it to the full, and unless she is given some document she will not appreciate that she has a right of objection.
    There are two ways in which this can be met. The first is to add to the new Clause that where a woman is cautioned by a constable she should receive a note in writing to that effect. I do not suggest that that should be done by an Amendment now, although it could be done in another place. The wording could be that she shall receive a notice that she has been so cautioned.
    The second way is purely administrative—for this is all a matter of administration, in any event. It would require a directive from the Home Office that a constable on his beat shall give the lady
    426
    concerned a ticket which indicates the caution and that on that ticket there must be—not, as in the case of a railway ticket, on the back, but on the front—an extract of this Clause showing what right she has to appeal against the caution, if I may use that phrase.
    Mr. Walter Edwards: Is it not possible that they might transfer these tickets, as Cup Final tickets are transferred?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not know whether the hon. Member means that it might be as valuable as a Cup Final ticket to the girls.
    The second method which I have suggested has two advantages. A cautioning ticket would be admirable in that it would set out the rights which the girl has to appeal and state to whom she may appeal, but it would also be valuable because the other half of the ticket could be retained. It would not be transferred but would be taken back to the police station and placed in the records to show the details of the person concerned. It could go in the register of cautions.
    I therefore suggest—and I put it no higher than this—that it might be better to do this purely administratively by a circular from the Home Office rather than by an Amendment to the Clause. I do not know. At any rate, I suggest that the word "caution" requires to be elaborated, that the woman should receive a ticket in writing and that the constable should keep a duplicate of the ticket, which would be taken back to his office to ensure that there is no mistake.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Would not the hon. Member agree that his system would be all the more dangerous in the event of a false name and address of the woman being given?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: We cannot help where a false name and address is given. I do not pay very much attention to this point, because I do not think that the ordinary woman on the street, having been cautioned for the first time in her life, will give a false name and address which happens to fit that of another real person. She may give a false name and an erroneous address, in which case the address will relate to no one else, but I think that in the main we shall

    427
    probably obtain the true information. In any event, if she gets away with it, it will cause no injustice.
    I strongly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in the two main points which he made and which I think ought to be still further underlined. First, I object very strongly to any of these ladies being required by a police officer to go to the police station. That would be a semi-judicial process giving the constable power of arrest. I object to that very strongly, and I can see no reason why the woman should be compelled to go to the police station.
    The second reason for which I object is that I do not like the system of authorising some other body of persons to do the work. I think that the proper person to deal with this—dealing with the cautioning system and with the ultimate question of conviction—is the magistrate. If the Amendment is carried whereby the magistrate may sit in camera, it would meet points made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and others. It would meet the argument that pimps and ponces might be at the police court. There would be very few, if any, of the cases which we have in mind, and I see no reason why they should not be considered on a day other than that on which the magistrate normally deals with cases concerning prostitutes. We can leave it to the commonsense of a magistrate that if he were to consider on a certain day whether a woman was or was not a prostitute, he would not choose the same morning for that hearing as that on which he was dealing with prostitutes.
    I warmly welcome the Clause. I hope that either the question about cautioning will be dealt with by later Amendment or, alternatively, that we may be given some information about the system which will be set out in the circular and the written notice. Subject to that, I believe that the Bill will be materially strengthened and the liberty of the subject improved by this admirable new Clause.
    Mr. David Weitzman: I do not like the Bill and, with many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am opposed to a system of cautioning. Indeed, if there
    428
    were to be a system of cautioning I should prefer it to be done by a magistrate. Nevertheless, we must be practical. We all realise that the system of cautioning as outlined by the Attorney-General is the system which will be put into effect. We realise that the system adopted in the past will be that used in the future.
    In those circumstances, my sole object in discussing the matter is to see that it is made as effective as possible. That was why I put down a Clause, to which the Attorney-General was kind enough to refer, which had very much the same object as that now before us, and I am glad that the principle of it has been put forward now. I want to point out some criticisms which can be made not of the Clause itself but of the fact that it is written into the Bill in this way. With this Clause inserted, the Bill is untidy. There is no reference to cautioning at all until, suddenly, we reach the new Clause now before us which simply says:
    "Where a woman is cautioned by a constable…"
    The Attorney-General: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman read the words which immediately follow?
    Mr. Weitzman: I am merely saying that we suddenly come across a Clause which begins:
    "Where a woman is cautioned by a constable, in respect of her conduct in a public street or public place…
    It is untidy. If a cautioning system is to be adopted, I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be written into the Bill.
    I remind the Attorney-General that in paragraph 268 of the Wolfenden Report reference was made to the fact that if it can be proved that a woman has been reasonably and justifiably cautioned, that is presumptive evidence that she is a common prostitute. I should have thought that the Bill could have contained something to that effect.
    I listened with great interest to what the Home Secretary said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, when he dealt precisely with this point and put forward reasons why he said the system of cautioning should not be written into the Bill. He gave two reasons. First, he said that he did not want there to be any question of arrest for the purpose of cautioning. That does not arise with the new Clause as it now stands. Secondly

    429
    —although I do not quote his words—he said that he did not want cautioning to be made a constituent part of the charge.
    With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is sheer nonsense. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, every magistrate who has a woman charged before him with this offence knows perfectly well that she would not be before him unless she had twice been cautioned. He therefore knows perfectly well that it is a constituent part of the charge. I cannot for the life of me see why this was not incorporated in the Bill.
    5.15 p.m.
    Another point seems to me of great importance. In his speech on Second Reading, as reported at col. 1274 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the Home Secretary said:
    "I can assure the House that the practice of informal cautioning will generally be adopted in the Metropolitan Police District."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 1274.]
    Home Secretaries come and go. Home Secretaries change their views. Police chiefs may accept their advice or not. There is nothing to bind them to do it, and the practice may vary. Unless we have something written into the Bill saying what the practice should be for cautioning, what safeguards have we about what will be done?
    I suggest that even at this late stage consideration should be given to writing into the Bill the system of cautioning which will prevail. I think that the Attorney-General has done a very useful service and that the Government have acted very properly in bringing forward the new Clause, of which I strongly approve, but, at the same time, I suggest that they ought to go just a little further. Let them consider carefully what are the objections to writing into the Bill the system of cautioning. I hope that if they do so they will come to the conclusion that it would be far better to do so. It will then be in the Bill. It will not be subject to whatever the Home Secretary may advise, or whatever advice a police chief may accept. There will be a uniform procedure in the Bill.
    Subject to that criticism, however, I am glad to see the new Clause on the Notice Paper.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think that it is almost the universal desire of the House, both of those who are strongly in favour of the Bill and those whose enthusiasm for it is more restrained, that there should not be, certainly in respect of young women or first offenders, a prosecution without two previous warnings. We are all at one in that—or nearly all of us—including those who attach less importance to the question of cautioning than do others.
    The difference between most of us is whether the machinery for those cautions should be administrative or statutory. I should like to join those who have continued to urge upon the Government that to make it statutory, to make it a condition precedent to a conviction by the Statute, is very much the better way of doing it. Everybody knows there are objections to it, but everybody knows there are objections to any form of administering cautions. The real question is: which proposal has the least objection to it?
    I suggest to the Attorney-General and to the Home Secretary that this matter might very well be reconsidered. I do not think that anybody is absolutely dogmatic about it. It is a question of how one assesses the relative argument on both sides. I suggest to the Government that this may seem to weigh the balance in favour of making a statutory procedure.
    In the first place, I suggest to the Attorney-General that there is something a little anomalous in the new Clause itself. It is an improvement, and we are all glad to see it, that the Statute with the Clause as proposed by the Attorney-General will, in fact, refer—this is quite new—to a caution, but is it not anomalous to have an elaborate procedure of appeal against something which, according to the Statute, need never happen at all?
    What the Clause provides is that if a caution is administered there can be a complaint against it and, if there is a complaint against it, the question between the complainant and the cautioning police constable shall be tried—subject, of course, to it being heard in camera—exactly as if the woman had been arrested and the charge made in the first place. So we have a full machinery for a full trial according to the ordinary

    431
    laws of evidence by way of appeal against something for which there is no statutory authority at all.
    That seems an unnecessarily clumsy and anomalous way of proceeding for an appeal against a caution which most of us think ought to be administered anyhow. I should have thought by itself it would not have been a bad reason even, if it stood alone, for making the caution a statutory caution.
    The second point I make, and I hope not to be too long about making one or two points, is that there is a constitutional objection. It may not be very important in that it may not affect a great number of people, but in principle it is a breach of the Bill of Rights. Under this system, the Home Secretary, so far as he has power to direct it—and that is limited to the Metropolitan area—and in other places chief constables, are given a dispensing power. It is said that the caution will work in this way, and police constables will be instructed where an offence is committed in their sight not to prosecute for it.
    Mr. Ede: What authority is there for anybody doing that?
    Mr. Silverman: That is just what I am saying—that there is no authority—yet it is being suggested that it shall be done administratively. That is the point I am trying, perhaps a little clumsily, to make. If it is done by administrative directions there is a breach of the Bill of Rights, because it amounts to an instruction to police officers to dispense with a prosecution even though the offence is committed in front of them.
    Mr. Paget: Has my hon. Friend considered the position of the private prosecutor here, where one organiser decides to run the other organiser's girls off?
    Mr. Silverman: I do not want to be led off to other illustrations, although I am sure there is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said. I am content with the main, broad point I am making. Although it may very well be argued, and argued with reason, that it is a small breach—that not many people are affected and in many cases it has a useful result and one ought not to take it too seriously—nevertheless it is in prin
    432
    ciple a breach of the Bill of Rights because it amounts to a ministerial dispensation against prosecutions and convictions for statutory offences.
    If there were no other way of dealing with it, one might perhaps stomach that and not make too much fuss about it, but if we can achieve the same purpose without involving ourselves in this constitutional peccadillo—if we like to call it so—but, nevertheless, an impropriety, it would seem a good reason for doing it in a way which avoids that difficulty rather than doing it in a way which involves us in it.
    The third point I make is what I think my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had in mind. The Home Secretary has no mans whatever, unless he makes it a statutory part of the offence, of seeing to it that the virtually unanimous wish of the House in this respect is carried out at all. Such authority as he has is limited to the Metropolitan Police. There, he may have power, I think he would have power, to give directions to the Chief Commissioner of Police.
    Suppose he does and suppose the Chief Commissioner carries out those instructions—which, in so far as they amount to a requirement that he shall not obey the law, there is no guarantee he will do—even if he does and passes on those instructions to individual police constables, there is, as I said in Committee, no reason in the world why any police constable should take any notice of them at all.
    A police constable is not subject to any direction of anybody, in the force or out of it, as to when he shall or when he shall not effect an arrest. That is his statutory responsibility. He is clothed with individual authority; he is an institution in himself and no one has the power—no one ought to have the power—to interfere with him.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Is not the police constable liable to dismissal from the force? He is not a law unto himself.
    Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is right up to a point, but I do not think he can carry that point all the way. It is true that a police constable can, in certain circumstances, be dismissed, but there is no absolute authority in anybody to dismiss him. If he is improperly dismissed

    433
    he can appeal to a watch committee. If he is not satisfied with that, he can appeal to the Home Secretary. He can say in such a case, "I have been improperly dismissed. I have been dismissed for making an arrest of a person who committed an offence and who was convicted of that offence. What have I done wrong? Why should I be dismissed?" I hope my hon. Friend will accept from me that that is the position. It may be a position he likes or does not like, but there is no doubt that that is the position.
    It would be wholly wrong for the Home Secretary to support the dismissal of a police officer for doing what is his statutory duty. That would be the situation. I should have thought that from every point of view if we want to say to a police constable, "Do not make an arrest unless cautions have been delivered," the simplest way of producing that result, and the effective way of producing it, is to put it in the Bill. That is beyond doubt. Then there would be no question about it. Then the police officer, who arrested first without administering the caution, would lose his case, and, secondly, would be properly answerable for a disciplinary offence in having effected a wrongful arrest.
    When there are such manifest advantages to be gat out of writing the procedure into the Bill, it is very difficult to see what there is to be urged on the other side against it. I most earnestly ask the Government to 'reconsider it.
    5.30 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate which has taken place on the new Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the new Clause in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) to the new Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend.
    What I think is interesting is that the question of holding these proceedings in public or in private has not been the subject of any controversy at all. It might well have been, but it is not. Therefore, I can say straight away that we will accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Indeed, I said so when moving the new Clause.
    434
    I think that it is true to say that we have had today not only an interesting but a better debate on these subjects than we had in Standing Committee. The debate has traversed a wide field, and I would hope that, perhaps, we need not traverse such a wide field on the later Amendments to be considered. I make no complaint about the time that we have taken up in debating this important new proposal, or of the fact that discussion has ranged somewhat wide.
    It is true, of course, that nearly every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate spoke in Committee on the same matters, when we concentrated attention upon them for about four hours. I hope that the House will forgive me if I try to condense my replies to the large number of questions put to me into a comparatively short compass. I want to answer all the points that have been raised.
    I will take the questions in the order in which they were made. First, the hon. Member for Rossendale asked me a considerable number of questions. One was whether plain clothes police would be employed on this work. I understand that it is not the practice in the Metropolitan area that they should be. Of course, I have not had time to consider, or, indeed, to ascertain, what is the practice all over the rest of the country. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are obvious dangers about the employment of plain clothes policemen on this work, although, and I hope that he would agree, a situation may exist in a particular locality which renders the employment of plain clothes policemen necessary.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the employment of women police. I would be the last to underestimate the valuable services which women police could perform in this field, and, as the hon. Member will know, one of the things that I mentioned in moving the new Clause was that in the cautioning system envisaged efforts would be made to bring the woman or girl cautioned into contact with a woman police officer. That would be part of the system and I would hope that it would be effective.
    A subject which, I think, troubles the hon. Gentleman a great deal, and one which has troubled a large number of hon. Members, was the question about false names and what is to happen if the

    435
    girl gives a false name. It may be, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, that the girl gives the name of someone else. One has to bear in mind that this cautioning system is intended to apply not to the hardened prostitutes, who are well-known to the police, but to the new entrants into that occupation. So far as I can ascertain—I have got only very hazy figures which I obtained when I saw a police officer on this matter —the number of entrants is by no means large per year.
    It should be possible to get hold of the girls at an early stage, and that, surely, is what is wanted. When police officers go up and speak to them, and speak to them as they normally do, I see no reason despite the pessimism of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, to suppose that they will not be prepared to tell the police their names and addresses. It depends largely on the approach.
    The system of giving one caution, which is now being elaborated into giving two cautions, before a prosecution is instituted, is a system which has been going on for a long time. It was going on before the beginning of this century and during all the tenure of office of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and it is a system which has worked satisfactorily.
    Mr. Ede: Some conversation is going on near me. I heard that remark of the right hon. and learned Gentleman better than what he was saying just previously. Would he mind going back just to the beginning of the sentence
    The Attorney-General: I was saying that the system of giving a first caution, which is in operation now, has been in operation for years. It goes right back to the last century and was in practice during the time that the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary. That is all I said.
    Mr. Ede: That was not in the last century.
    The Attorney-General: No. Our sufferings were after the last century, I agree.
    That system has worked quite well, and I see no reason in the light of experience to assume, as the hon. and learned Gentleman as assumed, that it will not work
    436
    all right in the future. I believe that it will. This matter has, of course, been carefully considered by the police and they are quite satisfied that the present system should continue without the kind of powers which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests for obtaining names and addresses and for seeking to secure that if they are refused the girls should be arrested and taken into custody.
    Mr. Paget: Surely it worked in the past on the basis of the girls not knowing that they could refuse to give their names. They were quite right, because, if they did, they were taken to the police station. Now it is proposed to take away the power to take them to the police station and to tell them that they need not give their names. Will it work?
    The Attorney-General: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman for this reason. When he talks about the girls he means the large number who are normally frequenting the streets. I am talking about this system in relation to its application to the new entrants. I do not believe that they will have the knowledge of the tricks of the trade that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. However that may be, I can say to him that the police who have to administer this system do not want powers of the nature which he suggests.
    In the second part of his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed a great dislike of the whole of this cautioning system. He advanced as an argument in favour of his new Clause that it would provide an alternative at the same time as the caution, and he devoted a considerable part of his speech to the kind of alternatives that would be available to either a magistrate or an authorised person. I think that correctly summarises the point which he made.
    My answer, quite simply, is that we hope and believe that under the cautioning system which is envisaged help and assistance can be given at an earlier stage, namely, immediately and without bringing the woman before any other person either the next day or at any other time. As I sought to explain, the efforts of the police when they find one of these girls starting this way of life will be directed to trying to get her to put herself in the hands of the moral welfare officer, or to get the assistance of the probation

    437
    officer or a woman police officer. It is a rescue operation. Although I may not have satisfied the hon. and learned Gentleman, that really deals, I think, with the main points that he made.
    I do not think that the power to arrest in order to secure that recognisances are entered into could really be any justification for giving a power to arrest for with-holding a name or giving a false name on refusal to come before an authorised person. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) supported my view about that.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West asked me two questions. One was about the giving of false names. That, I think, I have answered. The hon. Gentleman went on to express some doubt about the informality of this procedure. I confess to him that when it first came to my notice I was doubtful about the informality. But on consideration and further reflection I have reached the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that there are advantages about this informality. There is the advantage of flexibility—it is not unusual to talk about the flexible approach—and the advantage, when dealing with these young people, of keeping the matter out of what might be called the ambit of the law and legal rights.
    I agree that a case could be made—as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) sought to do—for saying that we should get away from the cautioning system by bringing these people before the courts immediately, and that that would be the best way of putting them on the right road. That has been considered. We may be right or wrong, but we believe that the system which has been so frequently outlined is preferable. If our approach be accepted, it means that it must be kept informal. We have gone to the extent of providing for a woman who has been cautioned, when she should not have been cautioned, the right to get the matter corrected.
    There there was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). I did not entirely follow her observations. With respect to my hon. Friend, it seemed to me that she had not read this new Clause sufficiently. The effect is clear. It is not
    438
    where a woman is cautioned by a constable but
    "Where a woman is cautioned by a constable, in respect of her conduct in a street or public place, that if she persists in such conduct it may result in her being charged with an offence under section one of this Act."
    That is the caution—
    "if she persists in such conduct it may result in her being charged with an offence under section one of this Act."
    No particular formula is laid down about the words the police constable should use. I do not think that is necessary. But for the caution to operate she must be told, "If you persist in this conduct, you will render yourself liable to a charge." I find it difficult to think of any wording which could make that clearer, more specific and more satisfactory.
    The hon. Lady may be puzzled by the use of the word "woman" in this context. She may say that Clause I refers to "common prostitute". She may ask why the word "woman" is used in this Clause. I will tell her frankly that the word has been used deliberately here because we want this cautioning system to apply to young girls entering on this occupation before they have become common prostitutes. It is no use waiting until they have become established in the profession before attempting the rescue operation.
    But the conduct which would entitle a police officer to caution her is soliciting or loitering in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution. That is made clear by the last words of Clause 1. If the right to caution is challenged, that would have to be established by the police. They have to see what happened and then they have to tell, the woman that if she persists in that conduct it may result in her being charged with an offence under Clause 1.
    The hon. Lady also asked whether some form of slip or leaflet should be given. We considered that. I do not think that it is necessary. This right of appeal is not likely to be used in many cases, because if there is any error it is much more likely to be corrected before it gets to the magistrates' court. To give a slip or leaflet to all those who are cautioned would be unnecessary, in my view, bearing in mind that legal advice is now available and that any woman who considered that she has been wrongly

    439
    cautioned could easily find out what remedy is open to her.
    5.45 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made some interesting observations and put them very shortly indeed. I wish to answer him just as shortly. It is quite true that there is something in the point that this Clause may look a little odd standing by itself with no reference to cautioning elsewhere in the Bill. But I do not think that that overweighs the advantages of the informal cautioning system as we see them. This new Clause will bite only when there has been the kind of caution which I have indicated.
    The hon. Gentleman suggested that this system of cautioning was a small breach of the Bill of Rights and was a ministerial dispensation. There may be something in that, but even assuming that there is, it is a breach which, obviously, has been in existence for a long period of time. The system of a first caution must involve a breach just as much as a system of two cautions.
    Mr. S. Silverman: With respect, I should have thought not. It has never been part of a policeman's duty always to arrest when he has the power. The fact that he does not always arrest would be very stupidly raised against a man as an exercise of the power of dispensation. The difference here is that the Home Secretary has undertaken to Parliament to make this the universal practice. That is the dispensation.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that it amounts to a dispensation. I think that a police constable will always have a discretion in this sense. Suppose a woman is guilty of disorderly conduct. He cannot be prohibited from exercising his discretion about arresting her. He will not be arresting her for this offence. It must be something quite apart from that. It is an interesting point. We discussed it in considerable detail during the Committee stage, and I do not think that it is one which should make it necessary to recast the whole of the system which has been under contemplation.
    Mr. Paget: The point about the Bill of Rights is not a question of arrest; it is a question of prosecution. We have here a direction by the Secretary of State not to prosecute.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that a direction not to prosecute has been given. There would be no arrest and she would not be brought before the court. A prosecution can be instituted by anyone. There is no legal restriction against instituting a prosecution.
    Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that even though he thought I was right, and even though the point were of greater importance, it would still not be thought right by the Government to recast the whole of this machinery to meet that point. It is not necessary to recast the whole machinery. Earlier, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the informal procedure was better, and no one contests that. But even though we make it statutory, it could still be as informal as was wished.
    The Attorney-General: I am not sure about that, but I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and we have covered much of the same ground. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will forgive me if I express the hope that I may soon be able to terminate this speech and that we may make further progress with the Bill.
    One other point was made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that the Home Secretary had no means of seeing that the wishes of the House, about the adoption of this system, were carried out, and, apart from the express statutory power, that is a valid point which has also been made by other hon. Members. I can say this to the hon. Gentleman. Some time has elapsed since my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his Second Reading speech and the point cannot have escaped the notice of chief constables. My right hon. Friend has already received assurances from no fewer than 12 chief constables of some of our major provincial cities that they will put this system into operation; and he has no reason whatever to suppose that other chief constables will not be equally willing and desirous of putting it into operation.
    If this system works, as we hope and trust that it will, in saving people from this way of life, I do not believe myself that one has any reason to anticipate any reluctance on the part of the police anywhere to seek to implement it in order to save these young girls from disaster. Having taken some time on this new Clause, which, I am glad to note, meets

    441
    the wishes of many hon. Members, I hope that we may now get on and make progress with the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to
    Clause read a Second time.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg formally to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 18, after subsection 2, to insert:
    (3) Unless the woman desires that the proceedings shall he conducted in public, an application under this section shall be heard and determined in camera.
    Mr. Weitzman: I am in the very unusual and happy position of dealing with an Amendment to this new Clause, which has instigated much of the discussion that has taken place, and which, I understand, will fall on receptive ears.
    What prompted us to put down the Amendment to the new Clause was the fact that was mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). The new Clause moved by the Attorney-General, which has just been given its Second Reading, makes it clear that a woman can, within 14 days of being cautioned, if she so wishes, apply to a magistrates' court for an order directing that no entry shall be made of any caution, and I gather, and I am very glad to see it, that it is only after the court is satisfied, presumably on the evidence, that the record will remain setting forth that caution.
    Our Amendment seeks to have a hearing in private, and, clearly, there is a strong case to be made out for it. I would only repeat that a woman who is mistakenly accused and cautioned, and who resents it, if it means that she has a hearing in public in court, with the possibility of newspaper publicity, despite her innocence, will obviously be exceedingly reluctant to lodge any appeal. The Amendment will do away with any such difficulty, and I am very glad to hear that the Government intend to accept it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

    New Clause.—(CONVICTION OF OFFENDERS UNDER EIGHTEEN.)
    No person shall he convicted of an offence under section one of this Act who shall not at the date of the alleged offence have attained the age of eighteen years.—[Mr. Hale.]
    Brought No, and read the First time.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It may be convenient to discuss this new Clause and the following one "Adjournment of case in certain circumstances":—
    "Where a woman who has attained the age of eighteen years but has not attained the age of twenty-one years at the date of an alleged offence under section one of this Act gives an undertaking at her trial to cease forthwith to exercise the occupation of prostitute the court shall adjourn the case for such a period as it thinks fit and shall if satisfied that during such adjournment the undertaking has been carried out dismiss the charge."—
    together.
    Mr. Hale rose—
    Mr. Paget: I should like to move my new Clause "Cautions" as Mr. Speaker said that the two new Clauses could be discussed together. I should certainly like to move it formally.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I have no instructions to that effect. I understand that the two are discussed together but that there would be no Division on the second one.
    Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when two Clauses of this sort are discussed together, is it not the practice to allow them both to be moved and a Division to take place? This is a matter which we regard as extremely important, and I should certainly like to divide the House, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends will.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have no doubt they might, but it has not been selected. and I cannot do anything about it.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Further to that point of order raised by my hon. and learned Friend, is it not the case that much of the discussion on the Home Secretary's new Clause would have been out of order if my hon. and learned Friend had not been in a position at a subsequent stage to move his new Clause
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly not. It has been discussed, but there was no question of its being selected.
    Mr. Paget: The new Clause deals only with the question of judicial appeals from a caution, and the question whether the terms of the caution should be put in the Bill and whether it should be administered by a constable or somebody else would be wholly out of order on the

    443
    Home Secretary's new Clause. In fact, I think that two-thirds of the debate would have been out of order on the Home Secretary's new Clause but for the new Clause in my name which was discussed at the same time. With great respect, I have very often heard the Chair say, "We cannot have a debate unless there is a Question before the House." As to two-thirds of the debate, if the Question on my new Clause is not being put, there would never have been any Question before the House at all.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, indeed, there was. The first new Clause was moved. I was not in the Chair, but the two were discussed together. There was no question at all of a Division on the second one. I was never given any instructions on that. It is true that sometimes one says, "We will give you a Division if you want it," but that never was the case here to my knowledge.
    Mr. S. Silverman: May I respectfully point out, further to that point of order, that the whole of my speech, almost every word of it, was directed to the single point whether the caution ought to be part of the statutory offence or not, and that was the difference between the two new Clauses—almost the main difference —and the Attorney-General's reply was devoted mainly to that point? I certainly thought, when making my speech, that I was supporting my hon. and learned Friend's new Clause. I think that many of us would like the decision of the House on that specific point, which we cannot get in any other way.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The two new Clauses were being discussed together, and anything that was in order in the discussion of the second one was discussed, but there was no question of a second Division at all. Mr. Hale.
    Mr. Hale rose—
    Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Surely this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs? There was never any division in the House in the ordinary sense of the word on the Government's new Clause. Everybody agreed with it. The Government's new Clause went half way to meet me, and the whole of the discussion and the whole of the difference between us has been entirely on the second Clause. That is what we have
    444
    been debating, and I am sure that it is very unsatisfactory if we cannot vote on it.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be unsatisfactory, but the whole point is that they were being discussed together. The first was being called, and the second one was not being called, for a Division. It has been discussed, but it has not been called. I never asked anybody to move it.
    Mr. Hale: I understood you to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss this new Clause with the following one also in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends. I think there will be no inconvenience at all except my own inconvenience, and I will argue both Clauses, I hope, consecutively and chronologically.
    Perhaps I should be permitted to say a few introductory words. I do not much like the Bill. I am not really in favour of it. I am never in the least annoyed by the invitation from the lady in Old Compton Street who addresses me as "Dearie", though I understand that there is a case for the mother of a young girl who feels that her girl has been concerned. So far as I am concerned, I should much prefer to vote against the Bill, though, in view of the fact that the Bill has every chance of going through, I have quite sincerely tried to draft Amendments to improve it, and have put them in that sense.
    Putting them in that sense, and with no desire to raise controversy, my one main criticism is that no one has troubled to find out very much about prostitution. The Home Office knows nothing about the causes of prostitution, and very few of us know anything about it. Most of the surveys, sometimes with Home Office financial help, have been conducted by independent institutions, and most of us know very little about the fundamental causes that drive an adult girl into prostitution. The theory that used to be favoured on these benches, that it was due to the over-exercise of the jus primae nocti by lords of the manor, has now been abandoned, and we now realise that the issue is rather less political than that.
    6.0 p.m.
    We know at least a little about the things that drive a young girl into this

    445
    condition. We may have our own views about the girl of 25 who is making a substantial income out of prostitution and handing it over to Mr. Messina—who appears to be outside the scope of the Bill. Perhaps I would be out of order on this Clause to speak about him, but it seems a suitable opportunity to say that I think it is a pity that Mr. Messina is outside the scope of the Bill. It may be that he is covered in another Amendment to the effect that if the women are prosecuted so should these men be, but I respectfully suggest that a Bill that draws a heterosexual line here is almost indecent—
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think that he will be glad to know that, thanks to the assiduity of the Opposition, the maximum penalty for those living on the earnings of prostitution has been increased from five years to seven years.
    Mr. Hale: I should like to discuss the question of how one could make these people disgorge the profits which they make out of the trade, but I think that both sides of the House now want to discuss the problem of these young girls.
    A survey was organised by an organisation calling itself the British Institute for Social Biology, which has a very distinguished membership. The survey was published under the general editorship of Mr. C. H. Rolph, who does not mind anyone revealing that he is Inspector Hewitt. He has had distinguished experience as a policeman and as a social reformer. He is a man of distinction and has quite singular ability in this connection. That survey conceded at once, as it must inevitably be conceded, that such facts as one can gather are never very conclusive; that such study as may be made produces suggestions and information rather than final determinations. But there are one or two facts about this problem of the young girls that are constant in all available information.
    Many of these girls—indeed, a very high proportion of them—are the sort of bad girl of 15 who has got into trouble at home, has quarrelled with her parents, committed a criminal offence and gone to an approved school. That is the background—and one knows the trouble that
    446
    the approved schools have in dealing with those girls, and it is no criticism of the schools to speak of their failures. The fact remains that we have a great deal of failure in all our efforts to deal with the problems of youth.
    There is another curiously constant factor. We get the case of the girl running away from home and getting some form of work. I am not making any reflection on a very honourable occupation, but time and time again we find that a girl goes as a young waitress behind the counter of a cheap all-night caf´ that pays bad wages, where she is exposed to a fair amount of obscenity late at night from customers who have had a drink or two and who make financial proposals to her.
    Then we have the wretched business of the colony in Stepney that seems to accept young girls with rather more freedom than do most places. So many go there, are given a little training by older girls. then go to Hyde Park—where they do not need the support of capital—to embark on this sort of life in the worst possible conditions. I have no great objection to the kind of establishment described by Guy de Maupassant, but I have great objection to young girls hawking their bodies about Hyde Park. often being compelled to grant their sexual favours against a tree, and then drifting home with what they can get to try to pay the rent.
    What can we do about it? We must be fair to the police. They perform a very difficult task, and perform it very well. I think that most prostitutes would say that the police are not brutal, although, in some districts, the police arrest them fairly often, which is a bit tough. Nevertheless, the figures show that the police now try to exercise the caution. Where they find a young girl on the streets they try not to arrest, and, considering the number of these youngsters one sees about the streets, the number who are arrested early in their career is remarkably small. That is a decent thing, and it is something for which we can admire the police.
    There is everything to be said against labelling a girl under 18 years of age as a common prostitute. That is just as indelible a label as was the scarlet letter in the American colonies. And there is no necessity for it, because the girl can already be dealt with as one in need of

    447
    care and protection. I am not quite sure, offhand, whether the upper age limit is 15, but that could certainly be amended. I do not regard the ages that I have suggested as being necessarily the wisest. I speak only on the issue of principle, but we can give these girls advice, and a chance.
    When we used to discuss labour and health legislation years ago, thousands of Tories would get up—I do not want to make a derogatory comparison, but as there are not the thousands of Tories in this House I must count them, as prostitutes are counted, by the number of their appearances and not per capita—and say, "But this is stopping the whole field of social service. All these Measures are robbing people of their right to serve the community voluntarily."
    I must say that I always listened to that argument with a certain amount of sympathy. I do not want to see people debarred from making a contribution, by personal service, to the well-being of the community. I believe that if the Home Office would try, it would find many thousands of people in London prepared to find a home for a girl under 18 whom they think might be saved. I believe that sincerely, and I do not see why we should not do it. Therefore, I say that if we are to make a serious attempt to deal with this problem we should draw one or two lines of demarcation by age.
    Let us be fair about this. We know that girls of 16 and 17 will be hawking themselves in Hyde Park tonight, and they are bound to be doing that in some sort of organisation. It may not be a Mr. Messina, but a gentleman in Stepney, or an older lady somewhere else, but they do not get organised in this way on their own. Therefore, if anything is to be done for them we must get them away from that sort of thing. But once a girl has been condemned as a common prostitute, once that is on the records and once it has been published and made known to her parents, her family and the neighbours, there is not a fat lot that one can do.
    Unfortunately, it goes a little deeper than that. If one condemns a young girl as a common prostitute she usually dare not go home at all. Whatever chance she had of going back to her parents is often stopped by the fear of the con
    448
    tumely and hostility that will be heaped on her when she goes back.
    The other of my new Clauses that we are discussing deals with girls between the ages of 18 and 21, and here I must tell hon. Members that I am not under any illusions. Of course there can be hard girls of 19 and tough girls of 20, and there may be girls for whom there is not much hope. But I am thinking rather of the community at large, and the community would like to be satisfied that these girls are given a chance. We have a responsibility here and we should make sure that everything is done to give them a chance. And all we can say to girls of 18 to 21 is, "Are you willing to give it up? Will you make an effort?"
    We have probation officers. We have moral welfare organisations. In addition, we have something which is now of absolutely vital importance in that there has been a complete change in the background public opinion attitude to this subject. The sort of moral indignation which afflicted so many people thirty years ago has gone. Organisations like the Church of England Moral Welfare Society are doing some very constructive, thoughtful and progressive work in this unhappy field. We shall not now have the background of everyone's finger being turned against the young girl. She can be told: "You have a chance. Why not take it?"
    All that I suggest is that the courts can say to young girls under 21, "Here is the probation officer. Have a talk with her. Are you prepared to give an undertaking that you will give up this life? We shall not necessarily accept it, but before we impose a final conviction upon you we will adjourn the case and see if you carry out your undertaking. If you do not, you will be brought back and be liable to conviction."
    I cannot see why that should not be tried. I know the kind of arguments that the Home Office sometimes make against any proposal of this kind. I am not trying to be unfair. I know that the Home Office does some very progressive work, but few people will deny that a passionate desire for change is not the animating view of any Government Department. Even when it exists, it is always a passionate desire for change in some other Government Department.

    449
    Those are the two main questions. I want to say one concluding word about girls of 18. I spoke about the common factors. We have never found out how those factors arise. Speaking from a fair experience of sexual crime, I say that there is one factor which crops up time after time. It is the girl who reaches puberty prematurely. It is the girl who has become sexually developed and has her menstrual periods at an unusually early age. One can say that, because she is developed, she is probably exposed to suggestions for intercourse which would not be addressed to her if people knew that she was younger, or at least they would less frequently be addressed to her. From that, one can say that she is more apt to intercourse. In this connection, there is a very clear correlation to be found in nearly all the court descriptions of the over-developed girl who has never had the maturity of mind to exercise the judgment she might have been able to exercise with a little more experience.
    I implore the Home Office to take this problem very seriously and do something about it. It should be conducting a special survey into the incidence of prostitution among young girls, into the connection between prostitution and delinquency and into the connection between prostitution and the impossibility of obtaining a roof under any other conditions, which is yet another factor. The Home Office should be seriously engaged in trying to find out why it happens. It should also be trying to stop it.
    This is a serious and constructive suggestion as to how something can be done. If it is desired to use the voluntary spirit, let people be asked if they will help by offering prostitutes decent homes. I know the great public spirit which exists. I know that it is very difficult for a decent family to say that they will try and reform a tough old prostitute. If they did, they would be undertaking a frightfully difficult, almost impossible, task. Most of us realise that there is a stage beyond which there is little hope or chance of reformation But for the tiny, young girl, why not?
    I earnestly commend these two fairly short and simple propositions to the consideration of the Home Office, and I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mrs. Lena Jeger: I beg to second the Motion.
    The Government have made it clear that their main purpose in bringing the Bill before the House is to do something about the condition of the streets of our large cities, especially London. I believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that Parliament will take a more constructive attitude to the problem and take the opportunity in this legislation, however much we disagree with its chief tenets, to do something preventive and constructive.
    I support these two new Clauses because I believe that the only point at which the drift into prostitution can be arrested is at the beginning. Society has to accept that once the girl becomes settled down to this weird way of life, talks with women police officers and moral welfare workers can do very little to change her path. The only hope is at the beginning. I feel that many girls have not deliberately chosen this job but have drifted into it through a number of accidental circumstances. Over some of those circumstances they have no control. It is very easy to condemn them, but I am sure that many experienced people will agree with me that the failure is not only theirs. The failure is, to a large extent, the responsibility of society. It is for all of us to see what measure of blame we bear, and what measure of help we can give.
    For instance, I know of many families in my constituency living in one room. where adolescent boys and girls front early childhood have shared the life of their parents. They are children to whom the sex act is a frequent and familiar occurrence, often unaccompanied by any love or tenderness. What sort of background is that with which to provide young people with a fair and honest assessment of the significance of sexual relations?
    We must ask ourselves what is the failure in our educational system that, with all the money we are spending, with all that we are trying to do, young people arc leaving school with so little training for life that we are confronted with this problem.
    I was very impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said in moving his new Clause

    451
    about the girl who matures early, because this links up with the problem of the schools. There is now a measurable decrease in the age at which puberty begins. That has been made clear by many medical authorities. Therefore, our young people are often faced with a dilemma which they themselves cannot possibly understand, in that they are maturing physically at an earlier age and yet we are keeping them at school longer. Often, we are keeping them at school longer in overcrowded classrooms. Very often they are living in districts where there are lamentably few opportunities for the sort of activities which it would be much more healthy for them to follow. Many organisations and local authorities are trying to provide increased facilities for games and recreation of all sorts among young people, but we know what a problem that is.
    Then there is the girl who has left home after a quarrel. Perhaps she has had a row about something quite unimportant. She may come to London from another town, or she may move from one part of London to another. She does not know where to go or what to do. Very often she has not much money. It is when she is standing hesitantly at a bus stop or at a railway station that suggestions are made to her about somewhere where she can spend the night or a cafe where she can be given a cheap meal. The whole thing starts as easily as that.
    I often wish the local authorities would use the powers they possess more fully to provide hostel accommodation for young people away from home. The L.C.C. has done a great deal in this respect, but nothing like enough. All the voluntary associations in London—and I am very glad that there are large hostels, including the Y.W.C.A. and the Y.M.C.A., in my constituency—are faced with ever-lengthening waiting lists of young people who have to be turned away because no room can be found for them by these reputable organisations. At 15 and 16 years of age they are adrift in London looking for somewhere to live. All these problems are part of the background which has led my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and myself to feel that this Bill needs to contain some new Clauses under which we can help these young people.
    452
    As the Bill stands, the difficulty is that a girl of just over 17, after these two chats with a policeman—and, one would hope, with voluntary workers as well—could find herself charged as a common prostitute and even sent to prison. I suggest that if it was the intention of the Government to make it impossible for girls ever to be deflected from this life, it would be to allow the Bill to go through so that a girl of 17 would he labelled as a common prostitute. What hope can any of us have that after that, and possibly after the experience of a prison sentence, she will change her outlook, even if she wants to? How much are we increasing her difficulties? What sort of a job will a young girl get when she comes out of prison after a sentence of that kind? What sort of home will she find?
    It is important to mention that the Wolfenden Committee was very concerned about this matter. The dilemma for many of us is that a great many of the problems that affect the behaviour of young people are not confined to the Bill which we are discussing today, but we have to accept that at present the care and protection age is 17 and under. The Wolfenden Committee said in paragraph 281 that suggestions were put to them that the age should be raised to 21, and proceeded to say:
    "We should ourselves like to see the age for care or protection' raised at least to eighteen, and if it were practicable to raise it even higher this would be advantageous from the point of view of dealing with the young prostitute."
    I cannot see any reason why we cannot have these new Clauses in the Bill although the general question of the care and protection age is still receiving consideration.
    There are special reasons why, in dealing with this problem, the age should be raised if possible to 21. Although I am sure we shall be told that a committee is considering the problem of young people, I would remind the House that the Ingleby Committee has been sitting for two-and-a-half years and I wonder how much longer we shall have to wait for its Report. We were promised, in connection with the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, that remand centres would be set up for young offenders between the ages of 17 and 21 to help this very age group about which we are concerned today, and yet, so far as I know, nothing has been

    453
    done in that connection. Therefore, if the courts so decide, the only possibility will be to send girls over 17 years of age to prison if the Bill stands in its present form.
    I do not believe that there is much that we can learn from America in dealing with this problem. I do not like most American legislation on the subject of prostitution. There is, however, one experiment which has been tried in New York with success, and that is the establishment of a special girls court where girls up to the age of 21 are taken, presented on a petition rather than being arraigned on a complaint. These girls are not charged with an offence but are presented to the judge for him to determine whether their circumstances warrant a mandate of rehabilitation. I should have thought that the time was long overdue when we in this country should try to make some constructive effort, not necessarily along those lines, but in some way which would avoid the possibility that arises under this Bill of girls between 17 and 21 being sent to prison.
    I have an interesting report from the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations on the subject of prostitution which highly commends this New York experiment, and quotes Judge Murtagh, Chief City Magistrate of New York, as saying:
    "Many of the girls who appear in this court are not so emotionally disturbed that they cannot be helped. Supervision by a competent probation officer, diagnosis and therapy, guidance and assistance from various religious and social agencies and, in appropriate cases, detention and certain rehabilitation facilities should enable them to make a readjustment and become normal members of society."
    These possibilities, although they exist latently in this country, may be cut off from a girl once she has got herself into a position of being charged under this Bill, because whatever discretion the courts may have, they must pay some respect to the law and it would be impossible, so far as I can see, under the present Bill in certain cases for the courts to avoid sending these girls to prison.
    The danger lies not only in a court imposing a deliberate prison sentence but arises when girls are fined and, because they are in the situation which I have described—being on the run from home or being without a regular job—they are unable to pay the fine and so are liable to be sent to prison for default. So
    454
    the House would be wrong to think that it is only on the later offences that the question of prison arises.
    It may be, as we were told more than once in Committee, that the drafting of these Amendments is not all that could, be desired, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West will take no offence from that remark. I have tried sincerely to explain the difficulties which are in the minds of many of us about this problem, and I hope that the Government, even if unable to accept the wording of these new Clauses, will assure us that between today and the appearance of this Bill in another place they will give more thought to the possibility of some preventive and constructive element being introduced into the Bill.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Pannell: I have been fairly assiduous in my attendances during the Committee stage proceedings on the Bill, but I did not have the opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, on the Second Reading, or I would have made then the point which I am about to make now, although I cannot express myself with the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
    I do not go quite as far as my hon. Friend in some of his observations to the House. We have had the Home Secretary labouring the point that the Bill was reformative rather than punitive in character. Therefore, we have not just to consider this matter as a nuisance only in the Metropolitan area, but to consider it in relation to the position throughout the country. Although the point has been made that the Home Secretary's diktat has no force of argument with the chief constables throughout the country, we have to consider not only young girls in London, of which there is a large number, but young girls in the country generally, particularly those who travel to London from time to time. Everyone representing a provincial city must know that London has a certain glamour about it. Young girls visit London and come back to their provincial cities which have their own way of dealing with this matter.
    I do not go quite as far as my hon. Friends in favour of legislation dealing with care and protection of young people. I think that many of these young girls would not respond to care and protection

    455
    and that an argument based on remand homes would be a rather better argument to employ in dealing with this matter
    Mr. Hale: I agree with almost everything that my hon. Friend has said, but I used the words "care and protection". as a term of art in the sense of an actual charge in which a girl could be brought before a court as someone needing care and protection up to the age of 17 if she had been found wandering at night or had been known to have had sexual intercourse. All I am saying is that there is an alternative way of dealing with girls up to the age of 17.
    Mr. Pannell: If my hon. Friend is using the words "care and protection" in that general sense, I accept it. I also accept it in the rather narrower sense that I knew it when I was a magistrate. I do not think that that sort of care and protection applies here at all.
    As the Bill stands at present, presumably a girl can receive two warnings from a constable and then be brought before the court as a common prostitute. All that I am arguing is that the latter part shall not apply if she is under 21. Surely we are not going to write off any girl after two warnings, or even after a third warning, as completely irredeemable and label her, before the age of 21, as a common prostitute.
    The thing that plagues me in my opposition to the Bill is that I very much object to punishments being meted out to women simply because they are women. The behaviour that these girls are practising is the sort of behaviour that is sometimes condoned in the case of boys. I am referring to the high-spirited, fruity type of girl. We are not only dealing with girls who go on the streets in the normal way. Some of these girls are grammar school and university types who probably, if allowed to settle down, would render good service to the country and make some sort of contribution to society. It is fantastic that we should treat a superabundance of sex as a sin and say that before the age of 21 we are going to make a girl out to be a certain type. I should have thought that that sort of thing had been left behind. Young people do not accept it at all.
    May I tell a story about a former Member of the House who was in trouble
    456
    recently which caused him to leave the House? I happened to be looking at television when two young people were looking at it and they said, "Poor man, he must have been very ill indeed—an intelligent man like that." That shows a sense of compassion in the young which is not the sort of compassion that was accepted many years ago when Shaw was writing "Mrs. Warren's Profession" and was adducing reasons that were relevant then but are not relevant now. I sometimes wonder whether we know very much about these problems of sex.
    I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will realise that we are not dealing with incipient nymphomaniacs. We are dealing with the sort of girl who has wandered off the road. Sometimes they are girls of high intelligence, generous and not mean types. We are dealing with a form of aberration which may get them into trouble. Surely these girls must not be irrevocably written off in society before they reach the age of 21. If we say that they are to be, and the Home Office assert that point of view, then the Home Secretary is very much less humane than he set out to be on Second Reading.
    Mr. Ede: I want briefly to intervene in the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I support the general idea behind these two Clauses. I am not sure that I can accept the wording of the second Clause, because I think that it leaves one or two questions quite unanswered.
    I want to plead with the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary and with the Attorney-General on the basis that I certainly hope that when magistrates feel that the course of action proposed in the second new Clause would be helpful to the person before the court, some form of words will be provided which will give them the necessary power to deal with that person along the lines indicated in that Clause.
    During my years as a magistrate, I was frequently confronted with young people who evidently found that the fact that they had at last been convicted and were in the power of the court was a shock. That realisation, if properly used, could be very useful in deterring them from continuing in their course. This can be so not only in dealing with these particular offences, but other offences, and it

    457
    sometimes enables them to recover their position as good citizens.
    I feel that this is the kind of thing that should be put into the Statute so that it shall be in the minds of magistrates when they are considering what they are going to do with a girl under the age of 21 who has at last reached the position where she is in the power of the court. There can be no doubt that there are occasions when magistrates in that position may be able, by a show of leniency which does not detract from the feeling of guilt that the person before them is showing, to help that person considerably.
    I think that it would be better if this were in the Statute rather than to rely upon some general power of putting on probation. This particular class of offence may very well be regarded as one to which probation is not really applicable in the ordinary sense. If this were put into the Bill, I think that it would at any rate bring the matter to the notice of the magistrates' clerk, when the magistrates are in their own room considering what they are to do and they say, "What can we do with her?" If this is in the Bill it will be very vividly in front of the magistrates when they consider the answer which they receive from the clerk when they put that question to him.
    Mr. G. B. H. Currie: I am one of those who believe that young people sometimes do not realise the extent of their offences. I believe very much in the course of action which was taken, I believe, by the pioneer of leniency, the late Recorder of Liverpool, Mr. E. G. Hemmerde, who invariably, if it was at all possible, gave the opportunity to young offenders to make good. He did that principally by means of suspended sentence. If a young offender reformed and did not come before the court again, that young offender found that he had a straight course ahead of him in his life.
    I entirely agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I believe that young women who fall into the commission of this type of offence, when the matter is brought to their attention and they realise the full implications of it, will, if given the opportunity, make a fresh break in life and, as regards this offence, go straight for the future.
    458
    The new Clause will give that opportunity. I am not at all sure that one should necessarily limit the age to 21. Some people develop more slowly than others. We have, of course, had this kind of argument about the 11-plus examination, for instance, and in other connections, but I believe it to be true that some people reach the age of discretion even later than the age of 21. I suggest that the first offender and even the second offender and, possibly, the third offender, should be given the opportunity of turning over a new leaf and going straight in the future. The new Clause commends itself to me on those grounds.
    Although I realise that the attractions of prostitution may be great to certain women, I believe that, when the offence and the disadvantages of it are pointed out, many, if given the opportunity, would decide to turn away from it and go straight. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider accepting the new Clause in the Bill. I am anxious that the young person who, for the first time, commits a criminal offence should be given the opportunity, without penal consequence, of reverting to a correct way of life.
    Mr. James MacColl: My right hon. and hon. Friends have used these new Clauses as a peg upon which to hang a discussion of the very important and difficult problem of the young prostitute. In that respect, there is nothing in what they said with which I quarrel. So long as the discussion ends there, I am entirely with them, but, when we come to examine the new Clauses themselves, I am bound to say that I think the House would be most unwise to accept either of them.
    In the first new Clause, it is proposed that the Bill should not apply to girls below the age of 18. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) pointed out, until the age of 17 there is not really a problem at all. The girls can be dealt with under the Children Act and the Children and Young Persons Act as being in need of care and protection, in which case the court has very wide powers. Indeed, so wide are the courts' powers in that respect that I am surprised that some of my hon. Friends who are so devoted to the cause of civil liberties should be happy about their extension to people who are almost adults.

    459
    One of my worries is that I am never quite sure how far it is right and proper to treat older girls with quite as much disregard for their personal liberty as one can have in treating a much younger child. Nevertheless, if it is right and wise to extend the powers of treatment now available far young girls to girls over 17, then the obvious answer is to raise the age from 17 to 18. This is something which is being very actively canvassed before the Ingleby Committee, and no doubt we shall hear something in its report about it in due course.
    One of my hon. Friends asked why the Ingleby Committee had not reported more quickly about this matter. I am not a member of the Committee, although I have given evidence before it on two occasions. I think the answer is that the problem before the Committee is an extremely difficult one, as difficult in its way as the problem with which the Wolfenden Committee was faced. I do not think that the Committee will find it easy, looking at all the considerations, to raise the age to 18. However, if it does so and is able to overcome some of the practical difficulties, I feel that it would be a good thing, if it is likely to mean that remedial treatment will be available.
    6.45 p.m.
    If the new Clause is accepted, the powers under the Bill would be available to the court in respect of offenders past the age of 18. There would be a gap between 17 and 18 in which virtually nothing could be done. I cannot for the life of me see how that could be regarded as being in the best interests of the girls in any way. If we cannot deal with them as being in need of care and protection, I should think that the next best thing, rather than doing nothing at all, would be to deal with them as adults with the powers available to the courts in the way of making proper inquiries, using the services of probation officers, and so on.
    At that stage, I am bound to join with my hon. Friends in what they said about the shocking record of the Home Office in the provision of remand centres and remand facilities for women. If a girl over 17 comes before the court and the court wishes to have a psychiatric examination made, wishes to make inquiries about the possibility of placing her in a hostel or wishes to find some
    460
    place for her, if she has not got an adequate home, there is nowhere for her to go except prison. One of the factors which any thoughtful bench of magistrates has to think about is whether it is wise to risk the effects of a prison remand on a girl of this age, whether the advantages of having the reports will compensate for the risk run.
    This is an administrative matter not a legislative matter at all. It is a matter of fact that, because the opposite sex has, on the whole, kept out of delinquency, the facilities available for women are much less than those available for males who offend in sufficient numbers to use them. Even in the remand homes—perhaps this is trespassing a little because we are dealing there with people under the age of 17—the fact remains that, quite recently, in London it was impossible to remand a girl for reports without sending her as far away as Liverpool or Glamorgan. To try to administer the humane service of care for girls or to provide for adequate examinations in those conditions is virtually impossible. It is an administrative problem, and it will not be altered by changing the law.
    The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) told us what was the practice of the late Recorder of Liverpool. All I can say is that, if the late Recorder of Liverpool had found a loophole in the law which enabled him to give a suspended sentence, he found something which lay magistrates have not succeeded in finding. That might well be so; many lay magistrates think that the professional magistrates drive a coach and horses through the law when they want to, and the higher up they are the more they do it.
    I do not really understand the difficulty here, provided that there are the facilities available for dealing with the girls and provided that the magistrates know what they are. If one took the second new Clause seriously, what would happen? If a girl gave an undertaking that she would give up the life of prostitution, it would be mandatory upon the court thereupon to adjourn the case regardless of where she could go, regardless of the pimp who might be sitting outside waiting to pick her up, and regardless of all other considerations of that kind. It would be necessary immediately to adjourn the case.

    461
    If it were possible for the court to proceed with the case, there would be nothing at all to stop a remand for inquiries if there were adequate facilities, as I say, which there are not. There could be a remand for psychiatric inquiries, domestic inquiries, getting in touch with the parents of the girl in whatever part of the provinces she had come from, and so on Those facilities should be made available.
    Putting it bluntly, it seems that these two Clauses are very valuable in drawing attention to the problem. It is a serious problem, for which the right hon. If he provided the facilities, he could go a very long way towards solving some of the biggest difficulties. I am afraid that not even the right hon. Gentleman could solve the problem of the young girl who likes the profession and is prepared to go into it. Short of that, if anything on the lines of the new Clauses were put into the Bill, I think that it would be mischief-making in its effect, and I should very much regret to see it done.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): We have had a very interesting and helpful debate. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are equally concerned that we should pursue what methods we can to deter young women from going into a life of prostitution. I appreciate that the intention of the first new Clause is to ensure that prostitutes or, rather, girls under 18 are dealt with in some way which does not result in their having a conviction specifically as a common prostitute on the record against them.
    One feature which we have strenuously pressed in Committee and in the House has been the cautioning system, the whole intention of which is to try to catch these girls at the outset, as informally as possible, to prevent their ultimately coming to court on conviction. It is the desire to persuade them by conversations with welfare officers or probation officers, or, indeed, by providing facilities for them to go back to their own homes, to change their course in life. I appreciate very much what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and the hon. Member for Holborn and
    462
    St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) said about young girls who fall for the bait of the "big city". Indeed, a great deal of work is done in that sphere.
    Our whole intention in the cautioning system is to give the girl two chances before a conviction arises, so that before ever she comes to court and is charged, or a conviction looms ahead of her, she will have ignored the two cautions and deliberately continued to solicit or loiter for the purpose of prostitution.
    Mr. Hale: Why does the hon. Lady say "deliberately" about a girl of 17?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I should have imagined that after two cautions—
    Mr. Hale: We are talking about girls living in Stepney, trying to pay the rent, with men living in the house, girls who have no father and mother and who are "bunged" out to Hyde Park. What is the good of saying that they do this deliberately unless somewhere is provided for them to go, where they can be taken away from this atmosphere? What chance have they of getting away from it? It is all very well to give them a couple of warnings, but unless they are provided with a home or a hostel, or unless their parents are willing to take them back, what is the good of saying that this is a deliberate pursuance? It is a definite drifting. The girl who has no adviser, no home, or nowhere that she can be put, has no chance.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Nothing that the hon. Member has said alters the fact that for whatever cause, these girls will have deliberately continued in the path of prostitution.
    We are at one in our desire to deter these young girls from pursuing this way of life. To follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham, West and say that no girl under the age of 18 could be subject to the penalties imposed under the Bill would introduce real difficulties. What alternative is there? Up to the age of 17, girls are dealt with as being in need of care or protection.
    Mr. Hale: Perhaps Mr. Speaker would accept from me a manuscript Amendment to change the age to 17.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: If, however, they are over the age of 17 and we take the 17 to 18 age group, if we accepted the new Clause the only offence for which

    463
    a young prostitute could be prosecuted otherwise than under the Bill would be, in London, under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, or, in the provinces, under local Acts, where such legislation exists, for using insulting words or behaviour. If a girl merely loitered in a street frequented by prostitutes and did not actively solicit, it is not clear that proceedings could be brought for using insulting words or behaviour.
    The risk of being prosecuted on that ground would not be as effective in deterring a girl from prostitution as the risk of prosecution for an offence under the Bill, because the penalties are much lower. In London, the maximum is £10 on first conviction and £20 on second conviction and no imprisonment. In the provinces, it is a maximum of £5 and in some areas only £2. That is the small penalty which at present applies.
    We should remember what happens at present. Magistrates' courts may not impose imprisonment on a girl under the age of 17. From the ages of 17 to 21, magistrates' courts may not impose imprisonment unless they are of opinion that no other method of dealing with the case is appropriate. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) hit the nail on the head when he referred to the powers of the magistrates. In this part of the debate, we have been ignoring the wide discretion of the courts.
    It is not axiomatic that the courts would send a girl to prison on the third conviction because a sentence of imprisonment happens to be available as a maximum penalty. When a girl comes to court, the magistrates, having taken all the points into consideration, have a choice. They can put her on probation. If she does not need supervision—if, for example, it is possible to get agreement from her that she will go home to her parents—she may get a conditional discharge. It is for the courts, in the light of the circumstances and of a girl's record, to use the powers available to them.
    7.0 p.m.
    One must remember that, taking the two new Clauses together, the ages from 18 to 21 give a girl a long and wide scope to get into the habit of prostitution. The hon. Member for Oldham, West suggested that few girls came into this classification at a young age, but, in 1957, 1,720 of 15,000 convictions, or about 12 per cent.
    464
    of all the convictions in England under the Metropolitan Police Act and under the Town Police Clauses Act or the Vagrancy Act, were of girls between the ages of 17 and 21.
    Mr. Hale: I said nothing of the kind. I said precisely the contrary. In my view, there were more young girl prostitutes because the police were unusually decent to the young girls and frequently did not prosecute as often in the case of youth. I said that there was a very large number of them. The figures are available.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I apologise for misunderstanding the hon. Member. I thought he said "not such a large number". I accept his correction. In any event, about 12 per cent. of the convictions were of the group between 17 and 21 years of age. Obviously, the courts would be reluctant to impose imprisonment except as a last resort. It can come only after two cautions and not before the third conviction.
    We must be realistic in thinking of the age groups of these young people. Are we likely to deter a girl from continuing in this profession if we say to her, "We will not convict you under the age of 18 and you can, in effect, get away with it by availing yourself of this power"—which would be mandatory on the court under the new Clause to act on—"that you will gave up prostitution. You then go to another area of the country, or to another police area, and you start again"? What possible sanction and deterrent over the four years from the ages of 17 to 21 would there be to deter these girls from continuing in a life of prostitution if they knew that they could not become liable to the wider penalties which are available in the Bill until they reach the age of 21?
    Suppose that a girl of 17 responds to the call to come to the big city. Possibly, she is enticed by the bait of high earnings for prostitution. One of the things that distressed me most, and which was strenuously represented to us when we met deputations from Stepney, was the very young age, particularly in that area, at which these girls come into the profession. Indeed one of the difficulties of the police was to try to establish the correct age and whether girls were of the care or protection age group or even under the age of 16 and not older. because part of their art is to make themselves look older than their age.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says concerning the two new Clauses, but is not the problem that the Government have to consider whether to alter the Children and Young Persons Act by increasing the age from 17 to 18, if not generally, for this particular problem, in relation to a charge under the Bill? Has this posibility been given careful thought? Is it possible to introduce that into the Bill or must it wait for separate legislation? The heart of the problem is whether to amend the age from 17 to 18, either generally or in this limited aspect.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was coming to that point, which, as he knows, is being considered by the Ingleby Committee.
    To revert, however, to the question of the very young, some of the girls—I have been around Stepney and seen them there on the beat—are horrifyingly young. The hon. Member for Oldham, West and we on this side may differ in intent, but I assure him that we are equally sincere in our intention to do our utmost to help these girls. We believe that if the cautioning system is allowed to work, as, we believe, it will, with all the offers of voluntary aid and help from voluntary organisations, probation and employment services which can be offered at that stage when a girl has a conversation in the police station to see what help can be given, we can attain a great deal of what the hon. Member aimed at achieving when introducing his new Clause.
    Mr. Hale: Has not the cautioning system been used for years?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: It has been suggested that we should increase the care or protection age from 17 to 18 and the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South mentioned the recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee that that should be considered. It is part of the much wider problems of the Ingleby Committee, because it is not only in the field of prostitution that we are concerned with the behaviour of the young between the ages of 17 and 21.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is awaiting the report of the Ingleby Committee. This is, possibly, one of the most important items which that Committee has had to consider and on which
    466
    we are earnestly awaiting its report. I do not believe that it would be right either to accept what the Committee recommends merely in this one sphere, or to ignore the many other urgent claims of juvenile delinquency and crime which would have to be covered if the law were altered and the age raised to 18 or any other age. I can, however, assure hon. Members that the matter is under the closest consideration by the Ingleby Committee and that my right hon. Friend will be anxious and ready to study any recommendations from the Committee on this score. We believe sincerely that the acceptance of the two new Clauses would deprive the courts of much of their discretion.
    There is, of course, the girl who is really hardened. One day, I saw three girls charged. I tried to be fair and to pick out the youngest and prettiest. I asked her whether she had any previous convictions. The sergeant looked at me as if I were a poor politician and said, "You might like to count the charges, ma'am" and gave me her card. She was very young—she may have been just over the age of 21—but in three years she had totted up 70 convictions. In the light of that type of record of a very young girl, should we really deprive the courts of their discretion and power by affording a girl a power to give an undertaking, which it would be mandatory on the court to act upon, that she will give up prostitution, or, indeed, with a girl of 18, who may already have been in the profession a year, saying that she should not be treated by the courts on the same basis as others who, perhaps, have not practised as frequently as she has done in the profession?
    For those reasons—not because we are unsympathetic with the intention; we are as anxious as anyone in the House to deter these girls from going into the profession—we do not believe that the two new Clauses would achieve the desired result.
    Mr. S. Silverman: No one questions the sincerity of the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State. No one questions the sincerity of any Member of the House, on either side, whether he is enthusiastic for the Bill or not. in a desire to help in this matter. For all that, however, I am bound to tell the hon. Lady that her speech will have been heard by many Members, on both

    467
    sides, with deep distress and disappointment.
    The hon. Lady picks out a case and says, "Here there is a very young girl with 70 convictions in three years." What becomes of her argument about the reluctance to prosecute? What becomes of the Attorney-General's argument about the efficacy of cautions which have been in operation for many years—most of this century? Surely, the point we are dealing with, the very reason why the Bill is before the House, is that all these old-fashioned remedies have hopelessly failed to deal with the situation.
    And this Bill does not pretend to deal with the situation. The hon. Lady made a very appealing part of her speech that in which she talked about how we were all trying to rescue young girls from prostitution. There is nothing in the Bill at all about prostitution: nothing whatever. This is not a Bill about prostitution. It is not a Bill to prevent prostitution. It is not a Bill to save prostitutes from being prostitutes. It has a much more limited aim.
    The aim of the Bill is not to make prostitution illegal. The aim of the Bill is to shove this ugly thing aside. If only we can produce a situation in which nobody sees it and the whited sepulchre can hide this thing, then there can be all the corruption anyone likes. It is hypocrisy—I know the hon. Lady did not mean it—but, in fact, it is sheer hypocrisy to say that anything done by this Bill has anything whatever to do with rescuing anybody from prostitution or dealing with prostitution at all.
    If we made prostitution an offence—I do not say we can—one could follow the hon. Lady's argument, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) appeals to the Government not, under this Bill, to convict children—because they are little more—under the age of 18, the hon. Lady, in dealing with the argument, must remember what is the offence under this Bill. It is not prostitution.
    We begged the Government, on Second Reading and in Committee, and, I think, today, too, so far as we were able to get rid of this ugly phrase "common prosti
    468
    tute". But if soliciting on the streets is to remain an offence then it should be an offence by anybody and not merely an offence by a class who are relegated by the law to the position of second-class citizens. It is not merely conviction for prostitution which we are begging the Government not to fasten on children of 17. What we are begging them to do is not, before they are bound to do it, to stamp them for ever with this label which hangs on them all their lives of being common prostitutes.
    That is a very different thing from saying that we must not try to prevent of save a girl from a life of prostitution with all its degradation and all its evil. We are saying "At least do not put them into this special class of people from which it is so very difficult to escape once the label is attached" It is only if a woman is already a common prostitute that she can commit an offence under the Bill at all. What the Government are being asked to do is, "Do not hang this label round a child of 17."
    In Committee, we begged of the Government, "Do not prosecute people unless somebody has been annoyed." They would not have it. So a girl of 17 can be convicted under the Bill only if we label her and convict her of being a common prostitute already, and then even though she has not annoyed anybody. We begged the Government to take out the word "loiter" and to be content with conviction if solicitation could be proved. They would not do that. So a child of 17 can walk or stand in a street and be convicted under the Bill of an offence as a common prostitute.
    7.15 p.m.
    We are not now arguing against the general scheme of the Bill. There is another opportunity, and there are other occasions for that. All that we are saying at this point is, "For heaven's sake, if you must do this thing, and you think that you will do any good by it, do not do it to children."
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided:Ayes 90. Noes 163.

    Division No. 87.]

    AYES

    [7.16 p.m

    Ainsley, J. w.

    Holt, A. F.

    Pearson, A.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Balfour, A.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

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

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

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

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Bowles, F. G.

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

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Braddck, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Brock way, A. F.

    Kenyon, C.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Cliffe, Michael

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lawson, G. M.

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

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Deer, G.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Diamond, John

    Lipton, Marcus

    Thornton, E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Wade, D. W.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Moody, A. S.

    Willey, Frederick

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn(Ab'tillery)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

    Moyle, A.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Oram, A. E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Owen, W. J.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Gienvil (Colne Valley)

    Paget, R. T.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Hilton, A. V.

    Parker, J.

    Mr. Hals and Mrs. Jeger

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    McAdden, S. J.

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

    Glover, D.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Codber, J. B.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Ashton, H.

    Cower, H. R.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

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

    Mawby, R. L.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Green, A.

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

    Barter, John

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Black, Sir Cyril

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

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Body, R. F.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    O'Neill, Hn. phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Page, R. G.

    Braine, B. R.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Partridge, E.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Peel, W. J.

    Bryan, P.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Cole, Norman

    Hobson, C. R. (Kelghley)

    Pitt, Miss E, M.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Pott, H. P.

    Cooke, Robert

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Redmayne, M.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Remnant, Hon, P.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S,)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.J

    Duncan, Sir James

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Elilott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Shepherd, William

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Leavey, J. A.

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

    Fell, A.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Foster, John

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Gammans, Lady

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

    Storey, S.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    470

    471

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Wall, Patrick

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Teeling, W.

    Webster, David

    Woollam, John Victor

    Temple, John M.

    welis, William (Walsall, N.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Viewers, Miss Joan

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Mr. Whitelaw.

    Vosper. Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    New Clause.—(INTIMIDATION.)
    No person shall be convicted of an offence under section one of this Act who satisfies the court that he or she has made reasonable efforts to abandon the occupation of prostitute and has been constrained by fear or by threats of any person living in whole or in part upon the earnings of such prostitute.—[Mr. Hale.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hale: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I do not much like this new Clause. I will start with those somewhat unfortunate words. In dealing without principle with a social question, one finds oneself compelled from time to time in seeking to amend it to be pushed into lack of principle. I do not say this in an unfair or critical sense, but no one pretends that the Bill is trying to deal with a social principle. All that the Bill is doing is to put up sentences for one manifestation of the activity of prostitution and covering up others.
    Generally speaking, I do not like, speaking as an old defender, the idea of trying to make people "peach" on one another. There is the additional risk of miscarriage of justice associated with extracted information. Both these objections could be lodged against this Clause as drafted. Here, I rely upon the advice of my right hon. Friends, but I would not be anxious to force this proposal to a Division.
    However, the new Clause raises an issue of importance. The time has come when we ought to ask: what are the Government's intentions? The Bill deals with the girls, but does nothing to the men. The Bill excludes, by its very short Title, even discussion of prosecution of the man who participates in these activities. The man who wants to be flagellated in a flat is exempt from the provisions of the Bill, subject only to the one qualification which has been mentioned, namely, that sentences for living on the profits of prostitution are to be increased. We are doing nothing to solve the very great mystery which is worrying everyone in connection with the pimp. Everyone tells us that pimps exist. Everyone knows
    472
    that it is very, very difficult to bring cases against these men, largely because of the system of organised intimidation which they exercise over the girls. That is one of the difficulties.
    I yield to no one in my admiration for our police forces. I realise as well as anyone how difficult is the position of the police force in operating in areas of prostitution. That is one of the big arguments against prostitution. Nevertheless, questions have been asked in the House by my hon. Friends about named pimps. The Messina case was first ventilated in the House, together with other cases. In a discussion in my own home, a few days ago, with a very distinguished man, I was told of information which he had been given quite casually in the course of conversation about the organisation of certain streets in London. He was told about the number of prostitutes organised to patrol them, how they were recruited, about the man in charge of that particular area, and roughly the income which he was getting.
    Sir James Duncan: Free of tax.
    Mr. Hale: Yes. I drafted a Clause which has not been called to try to extract from these men whatever money they may get from prostitution. Why we could not do that, I do not know.
    If the Attorney-General says that this Clause, as drafted, is not very good, I will agree with him in advance. The new Clause was drafted at short notice because the Bill was rushed from Committee to the House. It was done in circumstances in which Members have no secretarial assistance or information.
    The evidence of organisation of prostitution from above is overwhelming. It is more casual in Stepney than in the West End, but in the West End there is a system of organisation which permits these gentlemen to roam about in their Rolls-Royces and to deliver girls from the cars to the parks. They furnish girls with motor cars from which they can do their flouting and soliciting. They organise the letting of flats and swop girls from flat

    473
    to flat when questions are asked. Streets are divided into territories, and if a girl, who is not pimped by a particular man, is found in his territory, she is liable to be beaten up. It is a little sad to think that we have failed to break this sort of thing. If we want to break it, there is something to be said for using slightly unorthodox means.
    7.30 p.m.
    If a girl comes along and says, "I would like to get out of this flat and escape this life"—I know that many people lie: I have done it myself from time to time—"but if I do what will happen? I will be beaten up. If I go back to the flat tonight I shall be beaten up". I think that the Home Office should be able to say to the girl, "If you want to get out give us all the facts".
    Although this may be an undesirable method, it has to be used. When two people are charged with murder sometimes it becomes necessary to let one go free to get evidence against the other. I know that it is a dilemma, but one has to use the evidence of one person for that purpose. I do not like it and I do not say this with any enthusiasm, but I suggest that one has to do something like this.
    Devise your own methods if you like. We have got to say to the girl, "We are prepared to give you a chance. This is not a promise that will be forgotten in a month's time if you give us the information that will let us deal with the people running this". Although there is a gulf of opinion that divides us on many things, I think that I am speaking for both sides of the House when I say that we are in favour of dealing with the people who batten on these women with all reasonable measures that can be used to wipe out that side of the problem.
    Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Motion.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), began his speech with a sentence that rather surprised me. For once, I find myself in complete agreement with him; and I hope I shall on many other occasions.
    Mr. Hale: If it was a surprise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is also a surprise to me.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member said that he did not like the new Clause. I do not, and we do not.
    I am in sympathy with a lot of what the hon. Member said, but I think that his argument was devoted to something other than what the new Clause covers. I am not seeking to make technical points; that is not my object. We have to consider the wording of the Clause. The House should bear in mind that the Clause gives a defence to the prostitute if she satisfies a court that she has made reasonable efforts to abandon the occupation of prostitute and has been constrained by fear or threat by any person living in whole or in part on the earnings of such prostitution. That would be a complete answer to the charge, irrespective of the conduct of the prostitute.
    One really could not accept that. The fact that she acted under pressure, or continued under pressure, must be a mitigating factor for the court to take into account when passing sentence, but if she was a common prostitute when charged, and the evidence shows that she was loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, it cannot, in law, be an answer to the charge to say that she acted in that way, and committed a criminal offence, under threats or compulsion.
    The hon. Member's speech really seemed to be directed to another subject, if I understood him correctly, and I listened carefully to what he said. He was really contending that some attraction should be offered to the prostitute to provide evidence whereby those who organise this vice can be brought to justice. I am sure that there will not be a single dissentient in the House to bringing those who organise this vice to justice, but I would not be speaking frankly if I suggested that the Clause would assist in one degree to the achieving of that object.
    I can say that the woman who comes along and asks for police help and guidance, or the help of the authorities, in abandoning her way of life, and for protection from those who are organising it, will get every possible assistance. There is no reluctance whatsoever to instituting proceedings against those who make a living, and sometimes a fat living, out of the sufferings of others.
    I hope that the hon. Member will feel that our approach to this problem is not

    475
    only reasonable, but thoroughly sympathetic. It was because of our detestation of the conduct of those who live on organised vice that in the Bill as introduced we substantially increased the penalties for those who live on immoral earnings. We felt originally that the House might perhaps not desire a higher penalty than we then proposed. The Opposition were entitled to put forward an Amendment and, on reflection, we agreed with it. It is no bad thing to have a very substantial penalty as the maximum which can be imposed for conduct of that sort.
    If I may say so, I think that the hon. Member has served a useful purpose by ventilating this subject, because it has given me an opportunity of perhaps getting some publicity for the actions that the authorities would take, and will take, should any prostitute invoke their assistance in the abandonment of her present way of life.
    Mr. Paget: As I formally seconded the Motion, I think I have exhausted my right to speak again without the permission of the House, for which I ask.
    Mr. Speaker: My attention has been drawn to the fact that the hon. and learned Member has really exhausted his right to speak because he seconded the Motion, unless he has the leave of the House.
    Mr. Paget: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but in opening I said that I had exhausted my right by formally seconding the Motion, and I did ask the leave of the House.
    I want to speak for a few minutes only because I feel that all this talk about how opposed we are to pimps and people who exploit these girls comes oddly from those who have brought in a Bill which I think everybody recognises as being really a pimps' charter.
    I think that my hon. Friend exaggerated a good deal when he talked about the degree of organisation of street women. At one time, during the heyday of the Messinas, it was fairly extensive, but I am told that not one in twenty of the girls in the West End is at present in an organisation. The one thing which makes organisation in any branch of commerce difficult is the existence of a
    476
    free market. When the free market is closed the organisation becomes a necessity and this evil will be two or three times as great as a result of this Bill.
    Mr. Hale: It would be ungenerous of me not to say this. In the whole of my Parliamentary career I have never been so deeply moved by a personal tribute as I was when the Attorney-General was generous enough to say that I had served a useful purpose in tabling a new Clause because it enabled him to make a speech. In the circumstances, I will cover my pride by begging the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause.—(WITNESSES.)
    No person shall be convicted of an offence under section one of this Act except upon the evidence of at least two witnesses each testifying to material particulars.—[Mr. Hale.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hale:Ibeg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    There are two points on this Clause, one of which is an administrative one. I do not know what the police think about this, but I have said that the police face very special difficulties in this matter. It is a great tribute to the Metropolitan Police Force that there has been no major scandal, as far as I can recollect, in connection with this matter for many years. We all remember a period when there were a great many such scandals. I do not think anyone would suggest that this situation does not give rise to temptations and possibilities of corruption. Therefore, without having any ground for saying it, I would suspect that on the whole the police would prefer to act in couples in dealing with this matter. It is a protection to each policeman against misrepresentation and unfounded allegation. The policeman's reputation is just as much at stake as anyone else's in this matter.
    Curiously, in his system of cautioning, the Attorney-General has provided for two policemen. Admittedly, one makes his diagnosis and calls his associate into consultation, but there is a second witness to the cautioning. I think it is desirable that there should be a second person—not necessarily a policeman, if a civilian is willing to testify.
    This is a genuine appeal to the sincerity of the House. In the 1930s a Bill was

    477
    introduced to provide that small fines could be imposed on motorists for exceeding the speed limit in a built-up area. The House said, "Many hon. Members are motorists and this is the sort of thing for which they might be pinched." Therefore, the House provided that there should be no conviction for speeding except on the evidence of two witnesses. Ever since then, two witnesses have to occupy a police car when a motorist is pulled up for this offence. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, until a decision of the Court of Appeal got round it by deciding that a clock or a speedometer was a witness. The Attorney-General appears to indicate assent. Here, for the moment, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I are at one, so down with these interruptions.
    Is it not reasonable to suppose that the sort of security we provide for the elderly motorist who might be liable to a fine of £2 or £3 should be provided for a young girl who is facing the possibility of being convicted and labelled as a common prostitute? I suggest that this is a perfectly reasonable Clause.
    Miss Jennie Lee: I beg to second the Motion.
    It was very distressing to hear a Government spokesman refuse to accept the previous proposed new Clause. It is a good rule that those who do not pretend to have expert and detailed knowledge of a subject should sit quietly and listen to those who have, but there are some factors which are known to all of us and it is extremely worrying to think that the Government, in trying to deal with the nuisance of soliciting at street corners, should be said to be in danger of creating a pimps' charter or, in other words, an underground industry.
    I hope that, having taken that line which I regret on the previous Motion, the Government can accept this Clause. I cannot see what possible objection can be taken to making not only sure but doubly sure before there is a conviction for this offence. We can think of all kinds of circumstances in which there might be a personal vendetta. There could be a vendetta in prosecuting a policeman. There might be all kinds of circumstances in which women might be wrongfully convicted or at least unnecessarily exposed to the risk of conviction. The police frequently work in couples,
    478
    and I hope that the Government, in common justice, will be very careful before they say that any woman can be convicted as a common prostitute on the sole evidence of one witness.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Attorney-General: Perhaps I should begin by thanking the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) for giving me the opportunity of making another speech, but last time I was really seeking to thank him for giving me the opportunity of bringing out the attitude of the authorities and their willingness to help. I am afraid that I cannot say anything of the same character on this proposal. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) referred to the Bill as a pimps' charter. I do not think that description is in any sense justified.
    Miss Lee: I said that a colleague of mine, who has been giving much more detailed time and study to this matter, said that it was capable of being a pimps' charter. I said that many of us in the House who have the responsibility to make decisions are at least afraid that the Bill might so become, and that fear strengthens our desire that the present Clause should be accepted by the Government.
    The Attorney-General: I think that the Clause is totally unrelated to that point, but I may be allowed to say that a Bill which increases to a maximum of seven years the punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution can hardly be accurately described as a pimps' charter.
    The proposal made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been the subject of serious consideration. We would not wish to cast any doubt on his sincerity in relation to this matter, or, indeed, on the sincerity of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock. I agree that there are exceptions in our criminal law where the evidence of two witnesses is required. One example is in a case of perjury, but these exceptions are very few, and in connection with the offence which we are now discussing the courts for years have been able to act on the evidence of one witness. If we imposed on the police the necessity of calling two witnesses in each one of these cases in order to secure a conviction, it would be a tremendous and unreasonable burden on police resources. The Clause would

    479
    make two witnesses necessary in every case and we know how difficult it is to get any independent witnesses to come forward.
    Mr. Hale: I honestly think that at the moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking a little away from the subject. Everybody knows what happens. In some areas prostitutes are picked up by the police twelve times a year and in others six times a year. The police go along and, "Mary, we shall be coming for you tonight at 10 o'clock." Mary says, "Can't you leave it until 11 o'clock? I've got a bit of business until then." Time and again these girls go to court and say by way of defence, "It was not my turn until next Thursday".
    The Attorney-General: That very case demonstrates that the attendance of two witnesses is wholly unnecessary. In the very type of case he has mentioned, obviously there will be no contest; it is merely a complaint that she has been arrested too soon.
    I come back to the argument which I was advancing to the House, that this would place an unreasonable and unnecessary burden upon the police, particularly in the kind of case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If the enforcement of this Measure is made unreasonably difficult in the terms of the number of police man-hours spent in observation and in giving evidence to secure each conviction, the Bill will fail in its purpose.
    I emphasise this to the House. In the type of case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman there is no need for more than one witness. In other types of case a magistrate might well not be satisfied on the evidence of one witness alone, in which case he will dismiss the charge. There may be a real conflict of evidence and the magistrate will be, and rightly, reluctant to convict someone, particularly if the evidence is not satisfying beyond all reasonable doubt.
    Therefore, it would be a retrograde step to impose on the courts an obligation to hear two witnesses in every case to establish a question of fact which may not frequently be seriously disputed. If the court is not satisfied by the evidence which the police adduce, the
    480
    duty of the court is to dismiss the charge.
    I am sorry to have disappointed the hon. Gentleman by the reply that it has been my duty to give, but I am afraid that I cannot meet him on this proposed Clause.
    Mr. Paget: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in making his reply, has forgotten what the Bill is about. When the fine was £2 it was a simple matter—the girl always pleaded guilty and one witness was ample. I am finding great difficulty in discovering the logic of the Government here. We have had a long and careful debate on the question of caution, and for cautioning the Government explained that one policeman was not enough. It was said that a policeman had to observe the girl loitering and soliciting. He then had to fetch another policeman, the two of them had to observe the girl loitering and soliciting, and then she was given a mere caution. Now the Government say to us that when we are proceeding to something which is much more serious than a mere caution, a conviction involving a sentence of prison, one policeman is enough. In all conscience where does the logic come in?
    Mr. Greenwood: I hope that the Attorney-General will reply to the arguments advanced, particularly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Would it not be the case that if the defendant pleaded guilty there would be no need to call witnesses in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has suggested? On the other hand, if the defendant pleads not guilty I should have thought it would be a fairly elementary provision that there should be adequate evidence of this kind in the interests of the police themselves.
    It may well be that in cases of this kind the women accused may in their turn accuse the police of attempting to blackmail them, and they may make allegations of corruption against members of the police force. So I should have thought that any police witness would be in a stronger position if it were necessary for two to give evidence of the conduct about which a complaint is made.
    The argument of my hon. and learned Friend is unanswerable. The Government are saying that two policemen are

    481
    necessary if there is to be a caution but that only one policeman is necessary if there is to be a conviction. May I add that, as I read the proposed Clause, it is not necessarily a question of having two policemen but of having two witnesses.
    The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, I will reply shortly to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that before there is a conviction there must in every case be adequate evidence to satisfy the magistrate trying the case. I also agree with him that where there is a plea of guilty that is an admission of the offence charged, but where there is a case of a common prostitute with a long history of convictions, who may plead not guilty but who will not seriously contest the charge, it would be unnecessary to have a statutory obligation to call two witnesses. If there were a statutory obligation this would have to be done in every contested case, and that would lead to a much greater strain on the police authorities.
    If only one police officer gives evidence, the magistrate may say that it is his word against her word and that he is not satisfied.
    Mr. Paget: Would that be satisfactory?
    The Attorney-General: It is something which happens in many criminal charges, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Paget: The Attorney-General can avoid that by accepting the Clause.
    The Attorney-General: No, I will not do so, because the proposed Clause makes it compulsory to call two witnesses to secure a conviction in every case in which there is a plea of not guilty. For the reasons I have advanced, I am not prepared to accept that as a statutory obligation. This has been carefully considered, as we have considered all the proposed Clauses and Amendments.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) sought to contrast this with the cautioning procedure. There is this difference, which is important. The cautioning procedure is intended to apply, as I have said so often, not to persons carrying on this trade as a profession and hardened to it, but to
    482
    new entrants. That is where particular caution must be exercised and persuasion —not improper persuasion—and it is especially desirable there, in dealing with that one situation, that two constables should be present. since they can help each other to achieve the common object of us all.
    However, as regards giving evidence in court, the position should remain as it has been for years past and as it is in all our criminal law, apart from a few exceptions, that the evidence of one witness, if it establishes the offence charged to the satisfaction of the court adjudicating, will justify a conviction.
    Mr. S. Silverman: With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I doubt whether he heard the argument addressed to him in support of this Clause. If one may adopt the language of another game, the reply he has made seems to me to be rather off-side. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself introduced, and persuaded the House to accept, a new Clause this afternoon. The new Clause provides for an appeal if a purely administrative caution were administered. The caution must be a general caution, as I understand what the Government have told the House repeatedly. Prosecutions under Clause 1 will not be brought until two cautions have been administered and that, as I understand it, applies to everyone who may commit an offence under the Clause, whether a new entrant to the profession or not.
    Supposing a girl, whether a new entrant or not, takes advantage of the new Clause and goes to a magistrates' court, the new Clause provides that the court shall determine the issue between them according to the ordinary procedure as though she had been arrested, as though a complaint had been made. I do not think it is explicit in the new Clause, but one infers that since the Government have said repeatedly that there must be two policemen present before the caution is administered, both of those would have to give evidence in a case where there was an appeal against the caution. That must follow.
    If the police offered only one, I would expect the complainant to succeed. Both witnesses would surely have to be called. Is it not anomalous, is it not rather odd that in order to maintain a caution on the register we need the

    483
    evidence of two police officers, but that in order to send a common prostitute to prison for three months in a contested case one will do? How can that be justified?
    8.0. p.m.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to justify it by saying, "But in the second case we are dealing definitely with one who is already in the class of common prostitute." But that, surely, is what makes it necessary to have the guilt abundantly and conclusively proved, if it is challengd. It is true that in the majority of cases there is no defence, and no need to call any witnesses. It is exactly in the very rare case when a woman who does not deny that she is a common prostitute nevertheless denies the particular offence that the issue has to be determined with the greatest care.
    If only one witness is necessary by law the whole weight of the inference drawn by any court would be against the accused. It would begin with the court knowing that there is a long string of convictions against the woman. It would begin with its being accepted on both sides that she is a prostitute, who may very well have been guilty on this occasion. If, therefore, the court is left with only one word against the other word it will be the most natural and reasonable thing in the world for that court to say. "We are not going to believe that the policeman is lying, or that he could be mistaken. Here is a woman who is confessedly a common prostitute. If it is one word against the other word, we prefer the word of the police officer to the word of the common prostitute." In other words, if only one witness is necessary the defendant can hardly ever succeed.
    It is in these cases especially that we need to have the evidence for the prosecution reinforced and redoubled if we are going to avoid injustice.
    Mr. Albert Evans: If the evidence for the prosecution is given by one policeman only, and there is an element of doubt in the minds of the court, there might not be a conviction, but if the evidence against the accused is supported by another policeman, possibly after consultation with his fellow officer, even if there were some
    484
    element of doubt against the word of two policemen the court might be more reluctant to discharge the prisoner.
    Mr. Silverman: The question which my hon. Friend is not facing is, in what circumstances will a doubt arise? If there is the evidence of one policeman against the defendant, and the policeman and the defendant are equally of good character, so far as the court knows, subject to their both giving nothing away in cross-examination and with the onus of proof on the prosecution it is reasonable to think that there will be an element of doubt, it being word against word, and the court will be in duty bound, as I see it, to give the benefit of that doubt to the defendant and acquit her.
    What I am trying to explain—and I am sorry that I have done it so clumsily —is that in this type of offence, which cannot be committed except by a common prostitute, where the case consists of one witness saying "Yes" and the other saying "No", if the witness saying "No" is known to be a person of bad character, and she admits it to be so, we would not expect many courts to feel any real doubt about the matter. Therefore, the case would be heavily loaded against the defendant unless the prosecution were bound to produce evidence from more than one witness. That is particularly important in this Bill—much more important than it ever was before, because of the vastly increased penalties and because, for the first time, we are imposing sentences of imprisonment. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think again.
    Question put and negatived.

    Clause 1.—(LOITERING FOR SOLICITING FOR PURPOSES OF PROSTITUTION.)
    Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the first "or" and to insert "and".
    This Amendment is a singularly short one, but of very great importance. It raises the whole question of the object of the Bill. Subsection (1) says:
    "It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution."
    The House will be aware that until now the law in this matter has always demanded that there should be evidence

    485
    that somebody was annoyed or that there was conduct which was capable of annoying someone. That test is being taken out. There has always been the argument that different standards of conduct cause different standards of annoyance. I am frequently solicited in the Library of the House of Commons by a voice whispering in my ear, when I am trying to concentrate and study, "Would you like a pair for tonight?"
    I am much more annoyed by that invitation, at that time, than by an invitation from a lady in Cumberland Street, addressed to me in a much more mellifluous voice, and which it is much more simple to refuse; I merely have to pass on. Similarly, a heavy lorry, stationary in Old Compton Street, is much more of a nuisance than a girl standing on a step there.
    This matter has gone well outside the sphere of being a subject about which one could be facetious, because these girls can now go to prison. The first fundamental proposition I would make is that putting a girl into prison for three months will not do her any good, and will not do the prison or any other woman in the prison any good, either. Until the Home Office devises a place for reception the question of detention should be ruled out.
    The Amendment raises the question of the sincerity and attitude of the Measure. Throughout the Committee stage no one explained why the provision in subsection (1) was being introduced. No one has said that there is suddenly a need for it. The Attorney-General has said that, on the whole, there are not nearly so many prostitutes as people think. People talk about the magnitude of this problem, but when we read of Mayhew's days and of Charles Booth's researches into the houses in London, and read that the whole vast area where Waterloo Station now stands was one vast stew, where a girl of 10 could be bought wholesale for a few shillings and transported without anyone raising any question, we get a little better picture of the importance of the matter.
    What is the Government's attitude? I read a Press cutting this morning, discussing the somewhat irrelevant topic of my interest in poetry. Perhaps I may recall the only poem that I ever learnt in its entirety, apart from the somewhat irreverent one about Yuletide celebrations in a public institution, to which I need
    486
    not refer. The poem which I learnt begins as follows:
    "She was poor but she was honest,
    Victim of a rich man's game.
    Now she is selling penny matches,
    Isn't it…"
    a deplorable pity?
    If we are to agree to the Government's proposal we need a new verse to the poem, many as there are already. We should add:
    "He was old and he was beastly,
    Oozing lust and full of drink,
    And he bought a maiden's virtue,"
    Then, as a chorus of Parliamentary Secretaries:
    "Let us put the girl in clink."
    Surely that is a fair statement. The Parliamentary draftsman has decided that the act of fornication can be committed between male and female without the male being involved. I would like to see a Clause introduced to provide that the man as well as the woman should be convicted if he takes part in this offence.
    If these girls are to be selected for special punishment, and as objects of special detestation, we should be honest and say whether we are opposed to it or not. It is not an easy subject to deal with, or to speak frankly upon, but we now talk about it in a new atmosphere. In my constituency some of the most profoundly religious people I know are concerned about the rather horrifying characteristics of the Bill. Some very decent and highly moral men of ethical standing say that they find something utterly distasteful and repulsive in these provisions.
    Let us see what provision we are making for these girls. We may think that they are enemies of society, to some extent. Many people think that, but however distasteful we may think this sort of thing is, we must bear in mind that if we take it away matters may get worse. Many people argue that if we take it away it may be worse for decent girls living in towns. At least, it is a matter about which we know little.
    We are increasing the penalties, and we are decreasing the amount of evidence needed to a very marked extent. We are saying that it is no longer necessary to prove any offence, and that all that we need is evidence of loitering or soliciting, coupled with the words,
    "for the purpose of prostitution"

    487
    which is an opinion in a police constable's mind, and no more. Any girl can now be brought before a court, subject to the provision that two cautions have been administered to her. The cautioning system is not embodied in the Act, and we can only hope that it will work. Subject to that, any girl is liable to be convicted on evidence either that she loitered or that she solicited.
    8.15 p.m.
    It might be said, "I heard a couple of words which sounded like, 'Come on dearie' "That is soliciting. Or it might be said, "I saw her standing in Old Compton Street and not moving about." That is loitering. There may have been no annoyance. She may have done nothing to antagonise anybody. All that would be on the evidence of one policeman. That is evidence which can be given against the girl who is charged on the charge sheet with the offence, having been described as a common prostitute. Nobody would dream of charging a Member of Parliament with speeding and then saying, "He is a fast-driving Member of Parliament and we are, therefore, sure that he was speeding."
    I know that it will be said, "These girls keep appearing before the courts. We take the money from them and they earn it later. What does it matter?" The fact remains that some prostitutes leave the profession. We are trying to encourage them to do so. The fact remains that they are liable to be charged years later if they visit their old haunts. A girl who has been convicted in 1959 under the Bill can be brought back thirty years later and charged as a common prostitute if she is seen loitering. That is a fact. I suggest that we should make the law as we intend it to be.
    What is the position of a girl charged under the Bill who wishes to plead not guilty? What can she say? The evidence against her is that of one policeman who says, "I saw her standing in the street. She is a common prostitute. She was loitering. She was waiting for customers." That is all. Alternatively, he may say, "I saw her follow a man and say something to him. He appeared to be a stranger. It sounded like an invitation." That is all that is needed under the Clause. No one need say another word.
    It is said that these girls always plead guilty, and it is true that often they do
    488
    plead guilty. That is not the case about which we are very much worried, although it may be that many girls plead guilty because they feel that there is little chance of an acquittal anyway. It is difficult for the magistrate to acquit on the police evidence. Let us face that fact.
    Let us take the case, however, where the girl says, "I want to plead not guilty and I will go into the witness box." She will be asked whether she was in Old Compton Street and she will admit that she was. Asked what she was doing there, she may say that she was waiting for a friend. She will be asked, "What sort of friend? Male or female?" She may say, "I was waiting for my boy friend". Next, she will be asked, "Were you standing about?" "Yes, I was", might be the reply. What more can she say? What other answer is she to give?
    Never before in the history of this country has a grave criminal charge—and it is a grave criminal charge, carrying loss of reputation and three months' imprisonment—been put in terms so vague and so impossible to describe. All this can be established by a mere collection of words. In my view, it is a deplorable proposition, and in this respect this is a deplorable Bill.
    I am glad that later some of my hon. Friends will speak on the question of penalties, but at the moment we are talking about the offence. I do not want to speak for much longer, and, in conclusion, I ask the Government how much more difficult it would be made for the prosecution if we substituted the word "and" for the word "or" and made the phrase read "loiters and solicits". How difficult would it be for the prosecution and how much should we add to their troubles? Surely we ought to be able to say before we arrest a girl for prostitution that she has been hanging about the streets and soliciting. Surely it is the essence of the charge that both those two elements should exist. Surely we cannot present a charge which merits a conviction unless we can say that it contains both those elements.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The effect of the Amendment would be that the prosecution would always have to prove both loitering and soliciting on every charge in every case instead of merely either loitering or soliciting. Although there are many occasions when women are doing both, there are many other occasions when clearly they are only loitering for prostitution but are not soliciting in any sense, unless, perhaps, by some meaningful motion of the eye. That would probably not amount to soliciting in the eyes of the law.
    Mr. Alan Fitch: The term "loitering" has been used a great deal. Is it not open to wide interpretation
    Mr. Renton: There are many words which Parliament uses in legislation which are open to more than one interpretation, but in the context in which it is likely to be used in these cases I think that the meaning of "loitering" is absolutely clear. Indeed, it is the first time I have heard it suggested that "loitering" is other than a perfectly clear word. When the Wolfenden Committee considered this matter they did not consider that there was any ambiguity. The word means "loitering", and we all know what loitering is.
    Mr. Hale: Is she loitering if she is standing still?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I think so. A person who is standing still on the street or moving slowly about the street or even wandering up and down the street might well be considered by the courts to be loitering, but in this, as in so many cases, it is a matter for the courts to interpret, although I do not think that they would have any difficulty in interpreting this word.
    As the Wolfenden Committee and the Macmillan Committee found, there is no doubt that a public nuisance arises. Here one touches on a later Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). The obvious presence of prostitutes on the streets for the purpose of their trade and their loitering for the purpose of prostitution, without any overt act of soliciting, are among the things which it is the object of the Bill to prevent.
    490
    There are many occasions on which a woman may be both loitering and soliciting. There are other occasions on which a woman may be achieving her purpose by loitering without overt acts of soliciting. There are yet other occasions, perhaps more rare, in which there may be soliciting without loitering. An example which comes to mind is that in which a woman uses her own house as the place where she carries on her trade. She does not loiter in the street to get her customers, but watches from a window of her house and then goes into the street and solicits a man when she sees him passing by. That is a very clear case of soliciting without loitering, and it is a case that it is right for us to cover in the Bill.
    Loitering and soliciting are separate actions and must be made the subject of possibly separate offences. That is why we have used the word "or" in the Bill. The existing law dealt with the matter in the same way. It is clear from reading its Report that the Wolfenden Committee considered that loitering and soliciting were separate offences. For those reasons I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: I beg to move, in line 7, at the end to insert:
    so as to constitute a nuisance
    It is necessary to look at the Amendment in the light of other provisions of the Bill. Indeed, without straying from the rules of order, it is essential to consider one or two other things which the Bill does which make the Amendment al, the more necessary.
    The Bill changes the existing legislation on the basis of the advice of the Wolfenden Committee by removing any need to prove annoyance. This was done mainly on the ground that the need to prove annoyance had become a dead letter. In my opinion, one of the reasons it had become a dead letter was that in relation to the value of money the penalties were derisory, and for that reason very few of these cases were contested. Under the Bill very heavy money penalties can be imposed and a woman can be sent to prison. It is a great pity that the Government eliminated the need to prove annoyance at the same time as they

    491
    were increasing the penalties to such a harsh extent that the number of contested cases is bound to increase.
    Although very often the annoyance question was a dead letter, it was not without some use on the Statute Book for occasions on which a woman honestly wished to contest the charge. On a previous occasion I referred to a case I heard in Marlborough Street Police Court in which a girl had contested a charge on the grounds that she had not annoyed anybody. She had in fact met her customer at an appointed time and an appointed place, and she won her case.
    The fact that a citizen, a prostitute or not, can demand that evidence of annoyance or nuisance must be produced is a very real protection. Now that has gone. Furthermore, the Bill introduces a second-class citizen into our legal system. These penalties are to refer only to women who are common prostitutes. That is another reason why I think Parliament, which is as responsible for the rights of these women as citizens as it is for the rights of any other citizens, should take great care today to see that by allowing this Bill to go through in its present form we do not deprive these women of the elementary rights of citizens of this country.
    The words we suggest would impose in the police the need to prove that the woman had loitered or solicited
    "for the purpose of prostitution so as to constitute a nuisance".
    That is a very tiny shred of restraint we are asking to be placed on the police. We have been told over and over again that the Government are not opposed to prostitution. Prostitution is not illegal. I hope that loitering in a street is not illegal, otherwise we would all be in great trouble. It is to be illegal for the common prostitute, whose profession is not illegal, to loiter in the street without doing anyone any harm, without annoying anybody and without constituting any nuisance. This raises very grave matters of civil liberties. However intolerant hon. Members may feel about the behaviour and way of life of these women—and, I hope, of their customers—we must be jealous of the traditions of civil liberty in this country. A great danger in this Bill is that we are depriving a defined class of people of their most elementary rights.
    492
    8.30 p.m.
    I was interested to read in the United Nations Report on prostitution—which I hope the Joint Under-Secretary has seen —a reference to a similar attempt in France. There in 1953 the prefect of the Department of Rhŵne decided that prostitutes loitering in the streets were constituting a great nuisance in his Department and, under certain powers conferred on him, he laid it down that prostitutes should not be allowed to loiter in certain streets in the City of Lyons. There was an appeal in that case and the Government of France ruled that the prefect had acted wrongly, explaining as follows:
    "In France the legislator alone has power to encroach upon the liberty of the individual;"
    Mr. Renton: Would the hon. Lady be so good as to say from which page of the Report she is quoting?
    Mrs. Jeger: Yes, from page 21. The Report goes on:
    "the freedom to come and go at one's own discretion is one of the aspects of individual liberty and implies the freedom to move about in a public thoroughfare. In the particular case, the effect of the prefect's order.…however praiseworthy its intention, was to proscribe in respect of one category of citizens a kind of ban on their presence, tantamount to a general or quasi-general, unlawful and excessive prohibition."
    I think that a very interesting Report from a country which has lived with this problem for a long time. On the next page of the same United Nations Report we find a reference to the Consolidated Convention, to which I hope the Government of this country are a party, Article 46 of which provides that:
    "persons who engage or are suspected of engaging in prostitution should not be subject to special registration or to the possession of a special document or to any exceptional requirements for supervision or notification."
    I contend that we are making special and exceptional requirements for prostitutes if the Bill stays in its present form. It is they, and they alone, who must not loiter, who must not—as we have just heard from the Joint Under-Secretary—either walk up and down, stand still, move an eye to look out of their bedroom windows and then walk up to a man, in a street, outside their own houses. It is they and they alone who must not do these things. I submit that unless we can work into this Bill the very modest measure of protection for which we are

    493
    asking today, it will be a terrible disgrace on the Statute Book of this country.
    We had long discussions in Committee on the question of retaining the need to prove annoyance. We were defeated, and I shall not weary the House by repeating those arguments. In putting forward this Amendment today we are honestly trying to help the Government to do what Ministers insist they are trying to do. On 18th March the Minister said this Bill deals:
    "with an evident public nuisance"
    Further he said:
    "we must now legislate on the assumption that it…"
    prostitution—
    "is a public nuisance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 18th March, 1959; c. 228–34.]
    If that is what the Bill is about, why should the Government be opposed to putting the words "public nuisance" in the Bill? If it is a public nuisance which the Government want to stop, the Government must say it is the nuisance with which they are concerned. The result of that in the few or many disputed cases before the courts would be that the accused would, in the elementary traditions of British justice, have some kind of defence.
    The Bill chisels away every possible ground of defence. What is the position of the woman who is a common prostitute and does not argue about it? What is her position when she goes out on normal errands? I raised this point in Committee. I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman what would happen when a prostitute did not feel like working, and went out to look in the shops or to do some shopping or to see her grandmother? The hon. and learned Gentleman had a very kind answer. He said:
    "The hon. Lady was rightly anxious about the prostitute out shopping. She made her point vividly by saying that even prostitutes have grandmothers and might wish to visit them. I assure the hon. Lady that a prostitute out shopping is not likely to be even suspected of an offence. If by some mischance she is suspected, she will have a very good defence. She can tell the court that she was out shopping. She can tell the court she was not loitering or soliciting. The court then will be very ready to believe her."
    I put to the House—
    Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Lady continue the quotation and tell the House my next few sentences?
    Mrs. Jeger: Yes, indeed. I was afraid of wearying the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman continued:
    "It is up to the women themselves. When they give up the habit of street soliciting and carry on their profession without that, they will be able to walk about on all occasions without any anxiety."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee F, 18th March, 1959; c. 233.]
    There the hon. and learned Gentleman is giving his blessing to the call girl and to the expensive tart kept in a West End flat or in a smart hotel. The hon. and learned Gentleman is indicating once again that it is only the Cinderellas of the profession, only the most poor and, in many ways, most inefficient who are to be deprived of their elementary rights of citizens.
    Mr. W. Edwards: They are selling their bodies.
    Mrs. Jeger: It is a very modest request that those who accuse these women should prove that they have been a nuisance Without that it is not honest for the Government to say that they are not making prostitution itself an offence.
    One appreciates the findings of the Wolfenden Committee, and anyone who cares about the standards of contemporary society must be concerned at the apparent deteriorating condition of certain streets and districts. I agree that the Government have a duty to prevent the public advertising and parade of prostitution when it reaches the point of constituting a general nuisance. It is proper at that point to maintain, as the Government have, that a nuisance is created.
    Therefore, there is no difficulty for the courts to find that nuisance. The courts are dealing with these problems of public nuisance every day. The Macmillan Committee quite rightly differentiated between the individual who was annoyed by a prostitute and the general nuisance created by a number of prostitutes congregating in certain areas who, while perhaps not individually guilty of an offence, were collectively a nuisance.
    We have tried to help the hon. and learned Gentleman by recognising the differentiation and by accepting, though

    495
    very sadly, our defeat on the Amendment dealing with annoyance which we tried to move in Committee, but we ask him to look at this last possibility. Surely if he has the confidence, which he has often expressed, in the police of this country he cannot maintain that it is impossible for the police or members of the public to testify that a nuisance has been created. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) would find many members of the public ready to testify that a nuisance has been created.
    Mr. W. Edwards: May I tell my hon. Friend that it is not my job to go around Stepney observing prostitutes. That is the job of the police. If she likes to do it in the district where she lives, well and good.
    Mrs. Jeger: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is the right of any citizen—
    Mr. Edwards: I have not got the time.
    Mrs. Jeger: — to go to court if he wants to give evidence. He should not be prevented from so doing, although normally of course one would expect the police would be able to provide evidence that a girl's behaviour amounted to a nuisance. Otherwise what is the position? Under the Bill we could have a situation in which one solitary prostitute was sitting on the sea shore by herself waiting for a sailor, and being arrested.
    It may be that the sailor had asked her to sit on the sea shore. How can it be maintained that there is any offence to the public, that there is any immorality in a girl sitting peacefully on a bench in a park, perhaps, or maybe looking in shop window waiting for a boy friend who happens to be late? I only say that she might be doing that, and she should be given the chance to say so. Under this Bill she cannot plead in her own defence that the circumstances were such as I have described. Therefore, the Government cannot say that this Bill has been drawn with the main object of dealing with this public nuisance if they are afraid to put into the Bill anything relating to public nuisance.
    Obviously when street walking assumes a self-evident character it is easily recognisable. We have been told that
    496
    time and again. But I maintain that it is not for the law or for Parliament to say to whom we shall speak, whether we must be introduced before we can speak to each other, or what we shall talk about when we do engage in what may be casual conversation, even if that conversation goes on between a prostitute and a customer.
    I have referred to what I think is the important right of the prostitute to protection under the law of this country. We have heard a great deal about the problem of the respectable woman who might be wrongly accused under this Bill. We recognise the efforts that have been made with the cautioning system to deal with any mistakes which may be made by the police, but I should have thought that the basic protection for the respectable woman or for the girl who is not doing anybody any harm but is just seeing the bright lights would be to accept the Amendment so that she has some grounds for her own defence.
    8.45 p.m.
    I have considered whether there are any serious difficulties, and, although I am sure we shall be told of some, I cannot conceive of any which measure up to the danger in which we are placing the civil liberties of a number of people if the Bill goes through unamended. I recognise that there is difficulty over the annoyance provision in securing individual witnesses of the annoyance. I have in mind in moving this Amendment that the magistrates in these nuisance cases would only require the police to give some evidence of generally bad, offensive behaviour. I believe that there are plenty of precedents for this. The courts are dealing every day with cases of nuisance. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), when speaking on an earlier Amendment, I do not much like this Amendment and I would much rather have kept the nuisance provision in the Bill.
    In trying to consider this matter, I found one case which I thought might interest the House. Recently an ice-cream vendor admitted having repeatedly emitted musical notes of a certain loudness sustained over a certain length of time. It was held that such loud noises so prolonged and so frequently repeated contributed a self-evident nuisance. It was decided by the court that it was unnecessary for the police to establish that

    497
    any particular individual had been annoyed; it was sufficient that a self-evident nuisance had been created.
    I should have thought it would not be beyond our courts to administer this Bill with the Amendment that we have suggested. Otherwise, we are confronted with a situation in which, from the start, defence is undermined because there is no defence left to the woman who is a self-acknowledged common prostitute. The hon. and learned Gentleman may say, "That serves her right". If that is so, the Government should be bringing in a Bill saying that she should not be a prostitute, but they are not doing that. It is absolute hypocrisy to say that prostitution is all right except for those who may be loitering on the streets.
    The Amendment to make it an offence if one loitered and solicited has been rejected. Therefore we are left with a situation in which loitering itself becomes an offence in the law of this country. I think that it is a very sad day, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that even at this late time he is prepared to make some concession in the best traditions of civil liberty in this country.
    Mr. C. Pannell: The dilemma was posed in Committee by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that the difficulty running through the Bill is to balance the rights of the prostitute as a citizen and the nuisance that she causes. Therefore, this Bill is not against prostitution, but is against the nuisance. It seems to me that, put as baldly as that, somewhere and somehow we should deal in the Bill with the element of nuisance.
    The Minister himself cannot escape the charge that the Bill as it is is a piece of sex and class legislation. It is directed against women for no other cause than the fact that they are women. It says nothing at all about the nuisance of a man walking up and down, nothing at all about the soliciting of women and young girls, nothing about kerb-crawling which is punished in the provinces. It says nothing about all those things. It merely leaves the common prostitute defenceless before the law on this issue. I am not asking about the aggregation of them which may become a nuisance. I am speaking here about the sort of occa
    498
    sions on which it could be said, to use a nautical expression, that they are on their lawful occasions.
    A prostitute may be known to the police. She may have been warned once or twice. On the next occasion, she is due to go up again. She may be walking down any road, going to the railway station, going to meet anybody under the sun, and, without her causing any nuisance at all, a policeman with time on his hands may make it a third offence and take her before the court. That really is the situation.
    Little credit is due to a democracy for the way it metes out justice to the self-respecting and seemly in society. The test of a democracy is how it deals, generally speaking, with those who are despised. It is a truism that the humanity of a country, the civilisation of a country, is measured not by how it acts on first-class issues of peace and war or nuclear weapons, but how it acts towards people who find it difficult to defend themselves. Our civilisation is tested—
    Mr. W. Edwards: With prostitutes?
    Mr. Pannell:Isay to my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) that he must be careful about these things.
    Mr. Edwards: I am careful.
    Mr. Pannell: I have no doubt that on occasions my hon. Friend has cracked a joke. He has cracked his jokes here and there. He takes a very poor view of these people because they are a nuisance to his constituents. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Edwards: That is very kind of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Pannell: No, it is not. I have respect for him, and I hope that he will have respect for me as a person holding a point of view different from his own.
    Mr. Edwards: I will tell my hon. Friend all about it in a moment.
    Mr. Pannell: All right. At least, I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me, as one holding a certain belief, to express that belief, however misconceived he may consider it.
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot stop my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Pannell: I am not trying to stop my hon. Friend. He is trying to stop me.
    The civilisation of our country is tested by how we act towards those who cannot hit back. The humanity and civilisation of our country can be tested by the way we treat our pit ponies, by our kindness to animals, by the work of the Curtis Committee and our treatment of under-privileged children. These are the things which stamp our civilisation. The prostitute, the person most abused by men and the most despised, has in the last analysis certain rights before the law. If we ignore that principle, we ignore the principle for which the Home Secretary is anxious to fight.
    These things move in cycles. A hundred years ago, in the garrison towns of this country, a woman could be asked to submit to a medical examination. If she refused to submit to the medical examination, she could, however self-respecting she was, be denoted a common prostitute. In fact, once she submitted, the fact that she had been examined discredited her before the law, and, on the other hand, her continued refusal led to continued terms of imprisonment. That is a matter of history about which the Victorians wrote.
    Josephine Butler said that she would not have a woman undervalued for no other reason than that she was a woman. There was a great outcry 100 years ago to have licensed brothels in this country, and steps were taken towards that end. The Minister for War at the time fought a by-election in Colchester on the issue and was defeated. The greatness of Josephine Butler and the women's movement lay in their opposition to this kind of approach. Once the right to set up licensed brothels was admitted, that meant recognising women as second-class citizens. This has been the classic issue on which the emancipation of women has been fought over the years. There have been some noble names in the trade union and Labour movements associated with it.
    I do not deny the intolerable nuisance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney refers.
    Mr. W. Edwards: My hon. Friend had better leave me alone, or I shall be on to him.
    Mr. Pannell: Surely my hon. Friend does not really think that I shall go around in terror of anything he may say. All I am trying to do is to address him and the House on this matter. Stepney is one of the places in which prostitution has been an intolerable nuisance. After all, the Bill contains so much of what my hon. Friend wants and has given him so much with which he is in agreement.
    Mr. Edwards: It could go further.
    Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend may say that. All I am saying is that, at the end of the day, there must be something to be proved against these women. We must not leave them completely unregarded and at the mercy of any police officer who may come along. A woman may just be standing in a doorway or doing anything. No word is said at any stage about the intolerable nuisance caused by men in this respect, men battening on women.
    The issue is plain to me. I see this as a matter of principle bigger than the matter of nuisance itself. As I have said before, we do not discriminate against men because of the shape of their noses. That is anti-Semitism and, generally speaking, I suppose that we consider that obscene. We do not discriminate against men because of the colour of their skins. That is the colour bar. Nobody stands up and asks for that. In just the same way, we should not discriminate against women just because they are women. This is really the classic issue here, and it is very plain to me.
    When I have been mixed up in the past with the agitation for equal pay, what I have done I have done on the principle that women should not be divorced, simply because they are women, from rewards of merit comparable with those received by men. In just the same way, women should not stand before the law in a position inferior to men merely on the basis of their sex.
    Sir Hugh Linstead: The discussion on this matter seems to me to touch one of the most vital questions of the whole subject. It was a question which worried me throughout the whole of the period that the Wolfenden Committee was sitting and during our discussions in Standing Committee upstairs. It is basically, as the hon. Member for

    501
    Leeds, West (Mr C. Pannell) has said, the question of how far it is necessary in this type of legislation to discriminate against the prostitute.
    The arguments in favour of not discriminating against the prostitute have been very strongly and well put tonight. I was much influenced by those arguments during the sittings of the Wolfenden Committee to the extent that I went so far as to draft a note of dissent and It was at one period in favour of taking out the words "common prostitute" from the law.
    After we had completed the hearing of our evidence, however, and particularly after we had heard what the local authority representatives had to tell us about the conditions of their streets and of front gardens, about the behaviour of prostitutes who stay in the streets with their customers and about parents who have to go out and clean up their front gardens before they can let their children go out to school in the mornings, I was forced to the conclusion, as, I think, every country in the world, alas and regretfully, has been forced to the conclusion, that there must be some discrimination against the prostitute as such, deeply though everybody must deplore it.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Hale: Is it right that a lady should be convicted of soliciting in Compton Street because some other lady had to clean up her front garden in Stepney? What has the cleaning up of front gardens to do with the question of whether we want to clear women out of the streets of the West End of London, where there are no gardens any way?
    Sir H. Linstead: If the hon. Member will listen to the rest of my argument, I think he will see where it is leading. That being granted, it is clear to me that we must not take any step in this discrimination beyond what is necessary and we must be certain that the woman has whatever rights can be conceded to her as a woman even if she has to be discriminated against as a prostitute.
    The difficulty was well put in Committee by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), whom I am glad to see present tonight, but he confused the issue of what the charge against the women will be and
    502
    how it must be proved. To me, that seems to be the fundamental question. As it was put to us in Committee upstairs and as the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) put it tonight, it would be almost impossible for a prostitute to loiter without being in danger of being charged and convicted, because it would be her word against that of the policeman, and, on the whole, the court would tend to believe the policeman. That, however, oversimplifies the law and the nature of the offence.
    The nature of the offence is threefold. The woman must be a common prostitute. She must be loitering or soliciting, and for the purposes of prostitution. The magistrates and the police who appeared before us to give evidence were clear that they would not regard it as sufficient to prove that a woman was known to the police as a common prostitute and was loitering or soliciting and, therefore, one was entitled to infer that that loitering or soliciting must be for the purposes of prostitution.
    It will still be necessary, even with the absence of annoyance, for the third prong of the offence to be proved, and it can only be proved by the police giving evidence that they saw a woman who was known to them to be a common prostitute loitering or soliciting and actually speaking to or going off with men. Unless each one of those three prongs of the fork is proved, I am quite certain that the vast majority of magistrates would refuse to convict. If only one or two magistrates refused to convict on police evidence which is not complete in all those three respects, I am quite certain that there would at once be a proper presentation of all these cases as they are presented now by the police.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Has not the hon. Gentleman overstated his case a little? If a police officer proves that a woman is a common prostitute, if he proves that she was loitering in a street in which she had previously been known to ply her trade at a time when the trade is normally being plied, does the hon. Member seriously suggest that such a woman would not be arrested and convicted unless she went off with a man? Loitering was introduced precisely to save the prosecution from proving any such thing.
    Sir H. Linstead: I say that seriously to the House, and there will be magistrates in the House who will agree with me about it, for the very reason that the police would then prove that the woman was a common prostitute and was loitering. They would ask the magistrate to infer from that that she was loitering for the purposes of prostitution. But the magistrates would say, as they have said on many occasions in the past "We decline necessarily to draw that inference. She may have been loitering for the purposes of looking in a shop window, for the purposes of catching a bus or of meeting a friend." Certainly, some magistrates at present take that view, and I think that it will be the general view taken by all courts in the future. If so, the police will conform to that practice, and I am certain that a common prostitute will not be convicted unless there is evidence showing that she has spoken to potential clients, thereby proving the third prong of the triple offence that has to be proved.
    Mr. W. Edwards: It appears that the name of my constituency, if not my own name, comes into this discussion. It is not my intention to make a Second Reading speech, which appears to have happened in two out of the last three speeches. They had nothing at all to do with the Amendment. I have listened to the same argument for hours and hours in Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. South (Mrs. L. Jeger) could repeat time and again what she has said tonight because she has said it so often in the past. It is not my intention to delay the Third Reading, although I propose to speak on it if called. However long the House sits, I shall remain here to see the Bill through. Perhaps some of the lawyers whom we have in our midst will be conspicuous by their absence.
    Having been irrelevant up to now, like some of the previous speakers, perhaps I may now come to the subject under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South puts her case in a very sweet way, and even leaves a lot of people with the impression that a prostitute is a very decent person.
    Mr. S. Silverman: She is often a damned sight more decent than her customers.
    Mr. Edwards: I do not know about her customers; perhaps my hon. Friend does. I am also certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) speaks with great sincerity, but I do not think that he comes down to earth.
    As I have said, I will speak on the Amendment because I do not want to keep the House here all night. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South referred to France, and, possibly, if she had had sufficient time, she would have referred to countries all over the world. and said that the Street Offences Bill, if passed into law, will be one of the most wicked offences against the liberty of the person in this country.
    I am not concerned with France. I am concerned only with the nuisance caused in this country. I am concerned about my own constituents and the people of this country. I do not see why we should make loopholes which will enable prostitutes to create a nuisance. My hon. Friend says that their loitering in the street does not cause any harm. I do not think my hon. Friend can say that prostitutes, standing about where there are blocks of L.C.C. flats, with young boys and girls going to clubs, or prevented from going to clubs because of prostitutes hanging about the streets of Stepney, do not constitute a nuisance.
    My hon. Friend may not agree that such loitering is a nuisance. I do not know whether she has anything like this in her constituency. Perhaps there are not a lot of ladies in her constituency earning lots of money through selling their bodies. What happens in Stepney, however, is that prostitutes hang about and create difficulties for working-class people—not wealthy people, but the working-class people of Stepney.
    Does any hon. Member on this side of the House think that I am going to refuse to support the Government when they are trying to eradicate that nuisance? I have a duty to my constituents to see that this nuisance is eradicated as quickly as it can be done.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: I think that my hon. Friend ought to be fair. The purpose of the Amendment is to empower the Government to deal with the nuisance that these people are creating.
    Mr. Edwards: I can answer that by answering the point that was put to me. My hon. Friend said that if somebody in a certain street off Commercial Road in Stepney were annoyed because of the presence of these prostitutes and their ponces and pimps in the cafes he could go to the police. There is, however, one thing which my hon. Friend does not understand if she thinks that is the case. The ordinary working-class men and women of Stepney are not police informers. They would rather have some sort of fisticuffs in such cases than go to the police.
    In addition to that, scenes are taking place, and, indeed, have taken place for a long time, which are detrimental to the young children there. My concern is for the interests of the young children of Stepney as against the interests of the prostitutes who go into Stepney. If my hon. Friends prefer to take the part of the prostitutes against the young children of my constituency, I must join battle with them. If accepted, the Amendment would make it more difficult to drive these women off the streets of Stepney than is the case today. It would make it more difficult because of the evidence which would have to be accumulated before any police action could be taken.
    I hope that the Government will stand by their guns and reject the Amendment and will see that the Bill goes through in its present form.
    Mr. Paget: I am bound to say that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) seemed a very odd one. He first said that his constituents preferred fistcuffs to going to the police. if the nuisance is such as he describes, one would have expected to see a lot of prostitutes with very black eyes, and that would be at least one solution.
    My hon. Friend said in the final words of one of his perorations that he owed it to his constituents to save them from this nuisance. I can understand that, but I would ask him these questions. First, are the prostitutes in Stepney a nuisance? Secondly, does he want to get rid of them because they are a nuisance? Thirdly, if that is the position, why does he object to proving that they are a nuisance? That is all the Amendment provides for.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. W. Edwards: My hon. and learned Friend has asked three questions. I think that I have answered the first two. As to the third, I said that the working-class people in Stepney feel that if to prove that nuisance they have to run to the police they become police informants and they are not prepared to do it.
    Mr. Paget: It seems an odd attitude of mind to think that anybody who gives evidence for the prosecution is a police informant. If that were said, it would be rather difficult to convict any murderer. [Interruption.] When this private discussion has concluded, perhaps I may be permitted to go on to say that of the contested criminal cases those in which police evidence only is given are a very small minority. Is everyone who gives evidence, other than a policeman, a police informer? In any case, does the necessity of proving a nuisance make it necessary to call people other than the police? Cannot the police recognise a nuisance? Cannot the police tell the court whether girls in a certain street are or are not a nuisance? Is not that the problem with which we are dealing?
    If my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney assures us that in certain areas in Stepney the presence of girls is a nuisance and that is why he thinks he owes it to his constituents to get rid of them, is his perspicacity beyond that of the policemen of Stepney? Why on earth cannot a policeman in Stepney go before the magistrates, if that is so, and say, "This girl was soliciting in an area where in my view soliciting is a nuisance". If that evidence were given by the police, have we any reason to think that the magistrates would not accept it?
    Mr. Hale: I was trying to deal with the point that if one reports a serious offence one is a police informer. In "Women of the Streets" the British Social Biology Council states:
    "Stepney also is predominantly young prostitutes' district. It is one of the most popular resorts for absconders from schools…."
    Cases are quoted of girls who go there and find places to receive them and start them off as prostitutes before they start in the West End. Several individual examples are quoted and the Council states that if people reported these matters at an earlier stage there would be a chance of avoiding

    507
    the worst. It is evident that there is a considerable demand for prostitutes in Stepney among male persons.
    Mr. W. Edwards: From other areas.
    Mr. Hale: I accept that, but I would not say that every crime in Oldham is committed by someone from Yorkshire.
    Mr. Edwards: I have the greatest respect for the legal profession, but when I hear my hon. Friends who are members of that profession speak on these matters I realise, and have realised for some time now, that it is only a matter of time-wasting with no serious effect on the case at all.
    Mr. Paget: I have a good deal of sympathy with Stepney and with my hon. Friend's constituents, but the more I hear about them from him the more I begin to suspect that the nuisance does not come from the prostitutes but from my hon. Friend's constituents. They seem to provide the demand, and having provided the demand—
    Mr. Edwards: Why attack the working class whom my hon. and learned Friend is supposed to represent?
    Mr. C. R. Hobson: Why all these sneers at the working class
    Mr. Paget: As far as I can see, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney attract many young girls, presumably because they provide a market, but they regard giving any assistance to the police in dealing with what they describe as a nuisance in their area as acting as police stooges. Having that evidence from my hon. Friend, I am bound to reflect that it begins to look to me as if the nuisance resides rather among his constituents.
    Mr. Renton: This interesting and important Amendment moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), which has aroused such controversy on the benches opposite, really raises two separate questions. The first is whether this offence should be considered to be a public nuisance and the second is whether it is a nuisance which should be proved in every case or whether, by the way we draft the Bill, it should be inferred for every case.
    508
    Both questions were considered by the Macmillan and Wolfenden Committees. Both Committees decided that it was undoubtedly a public nuisance. The Macmillan Committee considered that it should be proved in each case, as the hon. Lady has suggested, but the Wolfenden Committee disagreed with that view, and in doing so it said:
    "But in recommending that it should be an offence for any person 'to frequent any street or public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation so as to constitute a public nuisance' they"—
    That is, the Macmillan Committee—
    "recommended—somewhat inconsistently it seems to us—that the evidence of one or more of the persons aggrieved should be essential to a conviction."
    The hon. Lady cited a recent United Nations report on prostitution. I hope that it had not escaped her notice that the report states:
    "It is generally agreed that loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution constitute public nuisances and should be proscribed in order to safeguard public order and decency."
    May I say in parentheses that the quotation made by the hon. Lady from a note relating to France in that report merely bears out that the view in France is that although it is a good thing to make street soliciting an offence, it should be done by the legislature, as we are doing it here, and not by a prefect's order.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his reference to the United Nations report, that the public nuisance should be proscribed. That is why we have moved this Amendment. All we are asking is that the Bill shall proscribe a public nuisance in terms.
    Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Lady holds that view, because one might have doubted it from her speech and from some of the other speeches we have heard. The Government emphatically take the view that the presence of prostitutes offering their wares on the street is injurious to the public, and for the sake of the record I should say why we consider that to be so because it has a bearing on whether or not this should be specifically proved.
    First, we say that it offers ready temptation to young men. Secondly, it suggests to young women an easy way of making money. Thirdly, as the hon.

    509
    Gentleman the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) has mentioned, it makes it impossible for decent people to take their families through certain streets and thoroughfares without some embarrassment. Fourthly, it interferes with the right of the public to go about their business without having what may be called an injurious or offensive parade before their eyes. These are matters about which there is strong public feeling and the public is at least as much entitled to protection as are those women who choose to live by trading in immorality and by advertising their trade on the streets in this way.
    If we once establish that this is a public nuisance the question whether or not it should be proved or inferred in every case is a fairly easy one to answer, because the conception of a public nuisance is nothing new to our law. It was a misdemeanour under the common law, and some common law misdemeanours have been given statutory effect. Parliament has also declared various other things to be public nuisances by Statute. I can give one or two examples, by way of analogy. There is street betting, and there are nuisances which are injurious to public health under the Public Health Acts. In the non-statutory field,
    "showing on the highway a picture or exhibition which is disgusting or offensive"
    is a common law misdemeanour.
    In all those cases it is necessary to prove only that the act itself was committed. It is not necessary far the prosecution to go on and prove that that act was by law a public nuisance, or was in fact a public nuisance, because the law, either by common law or by statute, has declared, presumed and inferred it to be a public nuisance.
    Mr. S. Silverman: But is not the difference that in all the cases which the hon. and learned Member has cited the events which are deemed to be nuisances are themselves offences against the law? If we made prostitution an offence against the law we could apply this argument, but we cannot until we do so.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Member is not correct. Betting is not illegal in this country. But street betting is an offence, and it is a rather good analogy. I am glad that the hon. Member has raised
    510
    the point, because the hon. Lady said that the Government are not opposed to prostitution, and I go with her only so far as to say that we are not making it illegal. We are not making prostitution itself an offence against the law. But we are making street soliciting an offence against the law, just as Parliament in the past has made street betting an offence against the law. In both cases the nuisance is inferred, and does not have to be proved.
    Mr. C. Pannell: In the case of betting, a policeman must go into court and say that he saw money pass. He must give evidence to that effect. This element is absent from what the hon. and learned Member is putting forward tonight.
    Mr. Renton: In the case mentioned by the hon. Member the policeman goes into court and says that he saw money pass, and that a betting transaction occurred. What he does not have to do—as he would if the hon. Lady's Amendment were accepted—is to prove to the court that there was a nuisance.
    Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman must agree that the policeman has to prove that betting took place, whereas in this case it is not necessary to prove that prostitution took place.
    Mr. Renton: It has to be proved that there was loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, and it is that, in itself, which the Wolfenden Committee described as a self-evident public nuisance. That is practically common ground. At any rate, it is the view of the Government and the majority of hon. Members, and it is the basis upon which we are legislating.
    The point that I am now considering is whether it should rightly be inferred in accordance with the precedents that I have mentioned or, on the other hand, should be subject to proof in every case. In paragraph 255, the Wolfenden Committee said:
    "In our view both loitering and importuning"—
    in the sense of soliciting—
    "for the purpose of prostitution are so self-evidently public nuisances that the law ought to deal with them, as it deals with other self-evident public nuisances, without calling on individual citizens to establish the fact that they were annoyed."

    511
    The words "individual citizens" might need explanation in the context of this discussion.
    If the hon. Lady's Amendment were accepted it would be necessary either for the police or other citizens to give such evidence. For the reasons that I have given, which are supported by the authority of the Wolfenden Committee—and I concede that the Macmillan Committee came to a different view thirty years previously—we feel that our proposal is more consistent with the existing law in this matter of public nuisances, and that it would be wrong to place a specific obligation upon the prosecution in every case.
    We are grateful for the interesting discussion which has taken place. It was worth having this as a separate discussion, because it raises a quite separate point from the discussion we had in Committee on the subject of annoyance to individual citizens and to inhabitants or passengers in the street where the offence occurred. For the reasons which I have given, we feel that it would be inconsistent with the broad purposes of the Bill, and with the precedents, to accept the Amendment.
    9.30 p.m.
    Sir Frank Soskice: I apologise for prolonging the debate. I sought to rise earlier, but I was not successful in catching the eye of the Chair. I shall be very brief. My approach is very similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). I do not believe that with the Clause in its present form we are giving prostitutes a fair chance. They may be prostitutes, but everyone would agree that they must be given a fair chance before the law.
    Subsection (i) says:
    "It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit … for the purpose of prostitution."
    The magistrate who deals with the case will have the person charged brought before him and that person will, in the first place, be described in the summons as a common prostitute. The police will be entitled—indeed, they will be obliged—to deploy evidence of a general nature describing the person as a prostitute. They will be able to say that on this, that and the other occasion, they saw
    512
    her loitering for prostitution. and that she was well-known as a prostitute in the area. That is the first point which will be before the magistrate.
    The magistrate must then ask himself whether on this occasion she was loitering for the purposes of prostitution. If a magistrate has before him evidence that a woman is a well-known prostitute and must ask himself whether on a particular occasion described in the summons she was actually loitering for the purposes of prostitution, I put it to the House that it will be very difficult for him not to accept the evidence of the police witness against her.
    A known prostitute is said by a police officer to have been soliciting on a particular occasion for purposes of prostitution. I say nothing against any magistrate. All magistrates are admirable in their endeavours to administer justice. We are, however. putting them in a difficult position if we ask them to adjudicate upon evidence of that sort.
    Either my hon. Friend or the Joint Under-Secretary of State proferred the defence for a prostitute that she might say that she was visiting her grandmother.
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras South (Mrs. Jeger) said that. I made the comment that the woman was right to draw attention to it. I said that she had only to tell the court what she was doing and there was no reason to suppose that the court would disbelieve her if her story were genuine.
    Sir F. Soskice: That precisely points the position. A lady who is sworn by the police to be a well-known prostitute is seen in a street on a particular occasion and the police officer says that on that occasion she was soliciting for purposes of prostitution. She is asked what is her answer and she says that she was going to see her grandmother. Is it suggested that that defence will be believed?
    Sir H. Linstead: Surely it is not sufficient for the police officer to say that she was soliciting. He would have to say, "I saw her approach and speak to a number of men".
    Sir F. Soskice: The hon. Member's sincerity and understanding in these matters is greatly respected by everybody. He said that he was convinced in the Committee by the fact that there were,

    513
    as he described it, three prongs to be demonstrated. He was satisfied by evidence of magistrates that magistrates would regard the third prong as having been established only if it could be shown that there was evidence that the woman had approached some male person. The third prong, in his argument, was the intent to invite to an act of prostitution.
    I am very sorry, but I do not accept that evidence of the magistrates which convinced the hon. Member. May I say, without I hope undue conceit, that I have appeared in the course of my life in almost every magistrates' court within a radius of fifty miles of this spot, and I do not feel able to accept the evidence which satisfied the hon. Member. I do not think it is the case at all. There may be evidence of gestures and glances which may reasonably satisfy any honest police officer. A police officer can make a genuine mistake.
    If it is said of a woman who has been described as a known prostitute that a police officer has seen her in a street on a particular occasion, and if the officer has said, perhaps quite erroneously and under a genuine misapprehension, that she made a gesture or a glance or a movement towards some male person without actually speaking to him, and if that is thought by the police officer to be soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, it will be very difficult for the magistrate in those circumstances to resist the conclusion that he ought to accept the police evidence and reject the woman's evidence.
    Everybody will agree that, whatever she is, a prostitute must have a fair deal. Even if she were the worst of criminals she ought to have a fair deal. My anxiety is that on the Clause in its present form a prostitute might be unjustly convicted.
    Mr. Peter Rawlinson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the need to prove a nuisance would give a prostitute more protection?
    Sir F. Soskice: I am coming to that. I preface that by saying that in Committee upstairs my hon. Friends and I sought to eliminate the words "common prostitute" and to substitute the word "person". We were unsuccessful. Having been unsuccessful, we seek to insert the requirement that a nuisance should be proved in order to give some safeguard to the prostitute.
    514
    In the case which I have instanced of a known prostitute being said to be soliciting on a particular occasion, it is at least some safeguard, which may result in her being acquitted instead of being convicted, if it is not possible for the police officer either by calling the person said to have been annoyed or by giving satisfactory evidence of his annoyance to prove a nuisance If he cannot do that, a woman who is innocent may be acquitted—and a woman who is innocent ought to be acquitted.
    The punishment under the Bill can be imprisonment. Consequently, these offences will be hotly contested. Women will struggle desperately to establish their innocence. My reason for urging upon the House, contrary to the Minister's view, that these words should be accepted is that if it is necessary for the prosecution to prove not only that a woman is a common prostitute and that she is soliciting on a particular occasion but also that she caused nuisance to some outside person, some passer by, then some protection is afforded.
    The prosecution may accomplish the first and second steps because of the reasons which I gave earlier, but it will not be as easy for them to establish the third prong, as the hon. Member for Putney described it. To do that they must be in a position to say that there was a gesture of annoyance or irritation or some vituperate language uttered by the person approached by the woman, or they must be able to call the person annoyed. The policeman's own evidence may suffice, but whereas it will be easy for him to establish the first two limbs of the offence, it will not be as easy to establish the third limb—that a nuisance was created by the woman on that occasion.
    I hope that I have not taken too much time in deploying the reasons why this causes me personally a lot of anxiety, which I know is shared by not all but a number of my hon. Friends. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this matter, because he has an opportunity to do so between now and the time the Bill reaches another place.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 148.

    Division No. 88.]

    AYES

    [9.40 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Holt, A. F.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hughes, Emrys, (S. Ayrshire)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

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

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Brockway, A. F.

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

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Ho1bn & St. Pnes, S.)

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

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Diamond, John

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Thornton, E.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Wade, D. W.

    Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Forman J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Moyle, A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Oram, A. E.

    Willey, Frederick

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Paget, R. T.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Parker, J.

    Grimond, J.

    Parkin, B. T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hale, Leslie

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Mr. Charles Pannell and

    Hannan, W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Mr. Sydney Silverman.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Page, R. G.

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

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Arbuthnot, John

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

    Partridge, E.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peel, W. J.

    Ashton, H.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir dames

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Atkins, H. E.

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Pott, H. P.

    Barter, John

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Batsford, Brian

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Holland-Martin, C.J.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Redmayne, M.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Ridsdale, J, E.

    Cole, Norman

    Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Cooke, Robert

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Corfield, F. V.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Shepherd, William

    Currie, C. B. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

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

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Drayson, G. B.

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

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Storey, S.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Elliott.R.W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Temple, John M.

    Farey- Jones, F. W.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Finlay, Graeme

    McMaster, Stanley

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Gammans, Lady

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Wall, Patrick

    Glover, D.

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

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Webster, David

    Goodhart, Philip

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Cower, H. R.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Green, A.

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

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Woollam, John victor

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Bryan and Mr. Whitelaw.

    Miss Vickers: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "three months or both" and insert "fourteen days".
    516
    Moving the Amendment does not give me a great deal of pleasure, because I do not believe in women being sent to prison

    517
    for prostitution. In Committee, we tried to get imprisonment deleted altogether. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend, in discussing the penalties, said:
    "The present maximum penalty in London is 40s. for the first and any subsequent offence. In urban areas outside the Metropolitan Police District it is a fine of 40s. or 14 days' imprisonment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 1276.]
    This is the reason for my Amendment. I fully realise that there is already permission to sentence women to 14 days' imprisonment in the rest of the country. It may not be possible to change that. I have no objection to the fine of £10 or £25, but I object to it being £25 and/or imprisonment up to a maximum of three months.
    The Prison Commissioners have stated that short sentences are useless for training. There is no hope of changing anyone's ways in three months. Fourteen days should be the third and subsequent penalty, but no one will say that in 14 days any change can be made in the habits of a person.
    It is very unfortunate for a woman to have to spend three months in prison for this offence. There is no chance of training her for any future profession. If she has reached the stage of being sent to prison she is not likely to be reformed. She will simply wait until she is released and start her trade again. During the period she is in prison she will not get any stamps on her employment card. Obviously, people will know that she has this conviction against her and that will make it all the more difficult for her to enter another profession.
    Many people far more knowledgeable of these matters than I am are opposed to long sentences of imprisonment. I should like to quote from the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) who, during the Committee stage, referred to the views of the Magistrates' Association. He said:
    "The Committee knows that I have had some association with the Magistrates' Association. This matter has been discussed by the appropriate committees of the Magistrates' Association. They were very concerned, in the light of their experience, about the penalties which might be included in the Bill. The matter ultimately came before the committee dealing with the treatment of offenders. There was a long discussion on the question of imprisonment for prostitutes. As a result of their discussion—and they were men and
    518
    women with very great experience of court work and matters of that kind—they decided against imprisonment by 21 votes to 6. When the decision of the committee was put before the Magistrates' Association the decision of the committee was upheld."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 25th March, 1959; c. 275.]
    The hon. Member was asked whether stipendiary magistrates were represented on the committee of the Magistrates' Association and the answer given was in the affirmative. That was a valuable opinion and one which I should like the House to consider today.
    It is possible now to send women to prison for 14 days. I understand that. in 1957, 211 prostitutes were imprisoned, 122 for the first time, while 89 had had previous convictions. Altogether, I understand that 42 per cent. of the prostitutes who went to prison had had previous convictions in that year, and that, in 1954, 54 per cent. of the prostitutes who went to prison had had previous convictions. I do not think that even a sentence of 14 days' imprisonment has had any deterrent effect.
    The Wolfenden Committee, in paragraph 280, said:
    "We are aware that the courts have power to remand a convicted offender, in custody if necessary, up to three weeks, for the purpose of enabling enquiries to be made or of determining the most suitable method of dealing with the case. We understand, however, that some courts are reluctant to use this power of remand in relation to an offence for which they can ultimately only impose a fine."
    Magistrates are able to impose imprisonment, on remand, for three weeks and I contend that if this Amendment is accepted so that the ultimate penalty is 14 days magistrates may be less reluctant to put these women on remand. The possibility of imposing a shorter term of imprisonment may help magistrates in making up their minds whether or not to put girls on remand for three weeks. They have power already to do that and I hope that as a result of this Amendment they will do so.
    I have had a number of letters from voluntary organisations, including the Salvation Army, who are very anxious to help in this matter of remand and in giving help to these girls. They have done excellent work in helping unmarried mothers and I suggest that their assistance will be very beneficial in this respect. I know that my right hon. Friend

    519
    has been trying very hard to keep people out of prison. I was very grateful to him when he supported the Maintenance Orders Bill which was designed to keep men out of prison. Here we have a Bill which will put a whole category of persons into prison, and I suggest that we should think again.
    Earlier in the debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that there are very few new entrants. I am interested in that point of view. After all, there is a demand for prostitutes. If we are to keep these women off the streets for a long period, in other words, for three months, we shall, I suggest, be getting more new entrants coming in to take their place.
    I suggest that we are creating an even greater problem by putting these women in prison for such a long time. I also think that if these girls are in organised rings, it may be cheaper for those who are looking after them in those rings to allow them to go to prison and employ other girls during that period, rather than continually paying their fines. That is another reason that I would put forward for having imprisonment for a shorter period than three months. I wonder whether, if in the women's prisons three women had to sleep in a cell, this proposition would have been put before the House today.
    I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider this suggestion very sincerely in the hope of recognising that the law of the land at present gives courts power to put women in prison for 14 days.
    Mr. Fitch: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do not want to weary the House very long by deploying more arguments, because I had the privilege of moving in Committee an Amendment deleting the term "imprisonment". Unfortunately, that Amendment was defeated.
    There are three points which I should like to make. In discussing a subject like this I do not think that we can be dogmatic, because human beings do not react in the same way under similar circumstances. If we were purely material objects we would. The threat of imprisonment may, in certain circumstances, deter some girls, but not in other circumstances.
    520
    It is interesting, when looking at this from that point of view, to study some of the figures. In 1954, 54 per cent. of those who were sent to prison for offences connected with prostitution had been there before. In 1957, 42 per cent. of those who were sent to prison for offences connected with prostitution had been there before. This means that in about 50 per cent. of the cases, imprisonment did not prove to be a deterrent.
    When we were discussing this in Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary suggested that I was confusing people of a certain psychological make-up with those who were psychologically unstable. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) quoted from a book, "Society and the Criminal", by Sir Norwood East, in which he suggested that many of these girls were psychologically unstable. I believe that prison is no place for people who are psychologically unstable.
    I should like to look at this from the point of view of the magistrate. The threat of imprisonment, I believe, will mean that more girls will plead not guilty. That means that proof will have to be given. We have no legal definition, we are told, of a common prostitute, but if cases are to be fought then surely we shall have to have some sort of definition. I am sorry that the Government, in framing the Bill, did not consider a more gradual grading of fines—fines at £10 to start with, £15, £20, and then possibly £25. The passage of the Bill into law will mean that magistrates and police will waste a lot of time.
    Thirdly, if it does deter, what then? Will it deter a girl from prostitution? Certainly not. It will merely deter her from public prostitution, shall I say, or public soliciting, and she will take up undercover work. We shall witness the extension of the call-girl system, the sort of thing experienced under prohibition in America, with the springing up of vice rackets, making the whole thing big business. We may do what we set out to do, namely, clear the streets of prostitutes, but we may quite shortly find ourselves having to deal with even more serious problems.
    I do not believe that imprisonment will be effective in any way. We must go far deeper into the problem. I hope that the fears which many of us on this side who

    521
    oppose the Bill have, that we may have the same kind of system as there is in America. will not be realised; but I am afraid that they will.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: The Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth. Devonport (Miss Vickers), who has, I know, taken a very great interest in this subject, is based on the assumption, which is unwelcome to her, that there shall be a penalty of imprisonment under the Bill. The only point raised by her Amendment, I think, is what the maximum period of imprisonment which can be awarded by the courts should be. Whenever Parliament fixes a maximum penalty, we should, I suggest, consider whether it is large enough to cover the worst type of case which is likely to come before the courts for the particular offence. It is a matter of judgment and a sense of proportion in each case, bearing in mind what the purpose of the penalty is.
    As the Wolfenden Committee said, and as the Government accept, imprisonment in these cases, unfortunately. can have only two purposes. One is simply to deter, and the other is to create a sort of sanction to help the probation officer. It is felt that girls will more willingly accept the advice of the probation officer if the possibility of prison is lurking in the background. Those are the two purposes of the penalty of imprisonment in this case.
    What should the maximum be to cover the worst type of case? As my hon. Friend pointed out, outside London it has been possible to award a maximum of 14 days, and the courts have awarded that maximum. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) said, quoting some figures, that imprisonment was not at present a deterrent. He will find from the figures he quoted that the success rate is not so very bad, bearing in mind that it was a maximum of only 14 days imprisonment, and the result might have been even better if some of the cases. the worst type of case, could have been covered by a higher maximum penalty.
    We were right, I think, in accepting the Wolfenden Committee's recommendation that there should be a maximum of three months. After all, for the worst type of case, we need to have a
    522
    sufficiently stiff penalty to make it clear to the really persistent offender, the type of woman who, after many convictions and, perhaps, a short sentence of imprisonment, and after being given every chance, still persists in this way of life. We are entitled to bear in mind that we are dealing with matters in which, so far as the offender is concerned, there is very often a great deal of money at stake in her immoral earnings. I must cover myself; I say her "immoral" earnings, not her "illegal" earnings.
    It is a matter of judgment and proportion, a matter on which people can legitimately differ in detail. But the broad recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee that three months should be the maximum is, we feel, about right.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Wigan, who said that we should have had a more gradual scale of penalties rising from £10 to £15 to £20, and so on, I will remind him that the penalties now laid down, both the financial penalty and the penalty of imprisonment, are maximum penalties. It will be for the courts, if they wish, in regard to either fines or imprisonment to make their own scale or upgrading as the offences become more frequent.
    For those reasons, my advice to the House is not to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. Perhaps, in the light of what she has heard me say, she may even feel inclined to withdraw it.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) will resist the blandishments of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State. It seems to many of us—I think that this is an anxiety shared by hon. Members opposite—that it is a very serious step indeed to increase the penalty for this offence to as much as three months. In my view, imprisonment is a sanction which should be kept for the more serious types of crime, for instance, crimes of violence, crimes involving fraud, and other such offences. The Government now propose to have a penalty of three months' imprisonment for something which is not in itself illegal but which is the offence of doing something perfectly legal in an illegal way. I believe that three months' imprisonment for that is quite excessive.

    523
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there were two justifications for action of this kind. First, he said, it would be a sanction to help the probation officer. I think I am right in saying that, on Second Reading, I quoted the view of the National Association of Probation Officers that imprisonment as a sanction to help the probation officer was not a very welcome innovation. Nobody can say that the threat of imprisonment hanging over a woman is really the best basis for treatment by the probation officer.
    The other sanction to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred was that of being a deterrent. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) has effectively disposed of that, in spite of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. I remember on Second Reading quoting cases of prostitutes in provincial cities who had as many as seventeen previous sentences of imprisonment. I find it difficult to believe, as the Joint Under-Secretary believes, that a woman who already has seventeen sentences of imprisonment would be any more deterred by the fact that it would be possible at the discretion of a magistrate to give her a sentence as long as three months.
    I do not believe that that has been effective in the provincial cities. I do not want to list them, but hon. Members who travel widely about the country must know of the state of affairs which at present exists in many of our provincial cities although for forty or fifty years they have had the power to send prostitutes to jail.
    A third justification for imprisonment would be if it were a cure and a means of stopping women from leading this form of life. The Joint Under-Secretary conceded, however, during our discussions in Standing Committee that he himself did not regard it as a cure. That cuts the ground right from under the feet of the Government in making a proposal of this kind.
    My last point is that if we start increasing the number of prostitutes who are sent to prison, we shall be introducing a disturbing element into prison life. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of healthy prison administration that we should increase the number of women of this
    524
    kind who go there. It would increase the possibility of corrupting other women and it would open up to prostitutes other ways of earning a living at the expense of society. For these reasons, I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport will follow the courageous course that she has taken so far and will ask for the opinion of the House upon her Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: The Joint Under-Secretary did not seek to answer in any way the points put by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers). I will repeat them to him. The first was the long sentence which puts these girls away. Since there is a demand that creates supply, that merely means more prostitutes. That is simple logic. The next point made by the hon. Lady was that girls being away for a certain amount of time in jail would not be any inconvenience to the pimp who runs the stable, if I may put it that way. One is a little reminded of the words once used by Lord Clanricarde: "The Irish are the most extraordinary people. They think they can intimidate me by shooting my agents."
    What we are considering is how long the sentence should be. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave two reasons. One was that the sentence would provide the probation system with a sanction. I do not think he would seriously suggest that fourteen days is not enough for that. Secondly, he suggested that it should be a deterrent—a deterrent to what? The Government, through the Home Secretary, who does not seem to be looking in much on the Bill, assured us that this was not an attempt to stop prostitution. So we do not want a deterrent to stop prostitution. It is to be a deterrent to stop the girls practising their business on the street. If the police choose to enforce it, is not fourteen days amply sufficient to make the girls exercise their business elsewhere? That would probably mean joining an organisation, but it is amply sufficient if the police choose to use it.
    Then, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the worst case, that of the girl who persists in going on the streets. What is that girl to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred as the worst case? She has probably done it all her life, her Ma did it before her and she is

    525
    a little bit crazy, or she would not go on doing it after getting a sentence of fourteen days several times. What are we deciding? In the case of a crazy, oldish, ageing girl of this sort we are deciding whether to leave her to support herself or whether to support her at the public expense and demoralise our jails in the process. I believe that for the real purpose which the Government want—that is, to clear the streets—fourteen days, if the police are prepared to use it, is ample and that anything over and above that is an added social nuisance.
    Miss Vickers: I am not at all satisfied with what my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has said, but in view of the fact that I do not seem to be getting much support from this side of the House and of the Divisions we have had earlier, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Question put, That "three months or both" stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 49.

    Division No. 89.]

    AYES

    [10.16 p m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Altken, w. T.

    Harrison, Col, J. H. (Eye)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Arbuthnot, John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pott, H. P.

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Ashton, H,

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

    Profumo, J. D.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Barter, John

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Redmayne, M.

    Batsford, Brian

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Bryan, P.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Butler, Rt. Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cole, Norman

    Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Cooke, Robert

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. O. E.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Shepherd, William

    Corfield, F. V.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dutwich)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Storey, S.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Llnstead, Sir H. N.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Drayson, G-B.

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

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Temple, John M.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

    Elliott, R.D.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Vosper, Rt Hon. D. F.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    McMaster, Stanley

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Wall, Patrick

    Fletcher, Eric

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Webster, David

    Gammans, Lady

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

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Glover, D.

    Nabarro, C. D. N.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Wilson, Geoflrey (Truro)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'c.'o

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Cower, H. R.

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Woollam, John Victor

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)

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

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Green, A.

    Partridge, E.

    Mr. Brooman-White and

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Peel, W. J.

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

    NOES

    Awbery, S. S.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Grimond, J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hannan, W.

    Oram, A. E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C,

    Hayman, F. H.

    Paget, R. T.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Holt, A. F.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Forman, J. C.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire^

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

    Parker, J.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wade, D. W.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Silverman, Sydney Nelson)

    Thornton, E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Usborne. H. C.

    Soskice, Rt, Hon. Sir Frank

    Vlckers, Miss Joan

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Fernyhough and Mr. Fitch

    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out "of" and insert "to be".
    During our Committee discussions some doubts were expressed as to whether subsection (3) of the Clause enlarged the powers of arrest that constables possessed. I informed the Committee that there was no intention to enlarge the power but that the Clause was necessary to remove doubt cast by a decision of the House of Lords on an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal.
    To make it quite clear that a constable can only arrest in respect of conduct which he himself has seen, we are altering the wording so that it will read:
    "A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he finds in a street or public place and suspects, with reasonable cause, to be committing an offence under this Section."
    I think that that removes all possibility of doubt about the interpretation of the Section and brings it back into line with
    528
    what the powers were thought to be before the House of Lords' decision cast doubt upon it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Hale: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, at the end to insert:
    "and who refuses to give her name and address".
    The Amendment has already been substantially covered in debate and the point that I desire to make, which I do not regard as a small one, has already been discussed. The opinion of the House against it has already been expressed and at this late hour, for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides, I shall not develop my arguments but be content, saying that I shall not press the Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    10.26 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the third time.
    We have had a very frank and comprehensive debate on this subject, and we have come to the last stage on a Bill in which we have been engaged on a problem of public order and of public decency. Like very many matters of this kind, it has raised, on the one hand, the problem of the liberty of those whose conduct it is sought to restrain and, on the other, the liberty of those to whom that conduct is offensive. We are called upon to endeavour to work out a fair balance between the two and do what seems to be right in the public interest.
    I should like to remind the House of the situation with which the Government were faced when we introduced the Bill. We had and still have in London about 1,800 women practising prostitution, loitering and soliciting day after day in the streets.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: And men.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The activities of these women are concentrated mainly in the West End, in Soho, Paddington, the neighbourhood round the railway stations, and in Stepney. There are, of course, other places in which they also operate. The penalty in the Metropolitan area of £2 was first legislated in 1839. Hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that that penalty has become farcical in the light of present-day conditions and that it is no deterrent at all. In the main areas where prostitution so widely applies, large numbers of women have been carrying on their sordid and immoral trade openly on the streets through which ordinary people pass and through which wives and children go on evening outings or to and fro on their regular business. It has been strongly represented to my right hon. Friend, and not least by deputations from the constituency of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards), in representations from that area supported by all the churches and by members of all parties, and by hon. Members from other constituencies that the condition of our streets is an outrage to all ordinary decent people who cannot go about their business with their wives and children with-
    530
    out having this trade flaunted in their faces and without having prostitutes plying their trade on their very doorsteps.
    The existence in our city of the open and blatant advertising and pursuit of prostitution created a moral danger to which the Government could not close their eyes. The existence of the nuisance has been recognised by the Macmillan Committee, the Wolfenden Committee and the Church of England Moral Welfare Council. In fact, it is one of the few points upon which those three bodies agree. But the law must deal with individuals. It is impossible to deal with the nuisance created by the plurality of prostitutes except by dealing with each of them separately, and the justification of the Bill is that the public are entitled to have the nuisance removed by effective means. On the other hand, we have been careful not to inflict injustice on prostitutes.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: Oh.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), has interjected persistently, but I am not aware that she has been present throughout much of the rest of our debate today.
    Mrs. Jeger: It was I.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: While the Government consider that they have a duty to provide an effective means of removing the nuisance created by prostitutes, we are anxious that everything possible should be done to prevent new-corners from falling into the trade. It is for that reason that I believe the cautioning system will be valuable and that the arrangements that have been made to allow for an appeal against that cautioning will meet with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    But it is the very essence of preventive measures that they should be applied early, and in this case as soon as the girl is thought to be soliciting and before she becomes committed to prostitution. It is also important that a girl should, if possible, be helped without having to appear before a court or arrested, and I believe that the experienced police officers—often they will be women police officers—and moral welfare workers and probation officers to whom the girl will

    531
    be referred where it seems suitable to do so, will be able to help her effectively if she is willing to be helped.
    If she is not willing we must accept that, unless and until the sanctions which can be applied to her if she reaches the point of committing an offence under the Bill become available she cannot be compelled to accept help.
    My right hon. Friend has been most anxious to meet those who thought that there should be a formal means of applying to have the record of a caution expunged, and today we have inserted an Amendment to that effect. Nevertheless, I would like to re-emphasise the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General when he said that if any woman should unfortunately be cautioned in error she would in the first place report the matter to the chief officer of police in the ordinary way, and I repeat the assurance he then gave that the Commissioner of Police is most anxious to ensure that any caution given in error is at once removed from the record, irrespective of whether the woman in question lodges a formal appeal.
    The Bill is limited in its extent. It is intended to deal with a very specific problem—a clearly limited nuisance. This nuisance, as I have already said, is the public behaviour of prostitutes. We are not attempting to deal with all forms of behaviour which are an offence against public order in the streets; there are other and more appropriate statutory provisions for dealing with them. But so far as men are concerned, in the Bill we have increased the maximum penalty far living on immoral earnings from two years' to seven years' imprisonment, and have accepted the Wolfenden Committee recommendation to increase the fines from £5 to £20 for the first offence and from £20 to £50 thereafter, for allowing prostitutes to frequent refreshment houses. Further, we have provided for the forfeiture of licences on first conviction instead of later, which we think will go a long way towards preventing the abuse, which was current—not least in areas like Stepney—of the exchange of tenancies or licences to avoid forfeiture on a conviction.
    My right hon. Friend carefully considered what was said during the debates
    532
    upstairs, and he has considered anxiously whether we could meet the obviously strongly held sentiments of hon. Members opposite. We have introduced or accepted Amendments where we thought it possible to do so, notably in providing for an appeal against a caution. Where we have not felt able to agree to Amendments it has been because my right hon. Friend thought that they were attempts to transform the Bill into quite a different kind of Measure, and one which we thought would be less effective for dealing with the clearly defined and limited problem with which this Measure is concerned.
    I hope the House will agree that for its limited purpose—which we have never attempted to deny—this is a workmanlike Measure, which will equip the police to remove what is injurious from our streets, do much to discourage newcomers and give the public freedom once more to go where they will and know that their children can go through the streets of their own neighbourhood without seeing a public trade in immorality paraded there.
    10.35 p.m.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood:I regard this as a thoroughly bad Bill. It is a Bill to which many religious leaders are strongly opposed. It is a Bill to which the Church of England Moral Welfare Council expressed the strongest opposition, and although the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary calls the Churches into evidence in support of the Bill, she must be well aware that her right hon. Friend received a deputation representing eighteen women's organisations, including the Mothers' Union and the St. Joan's Social and Political Alliance.
    But, in spite of my strong opposition to the Bill, I hope to set an example to others by restricting my remarks to the space of five minutes so that we can come to a decision within a reasonable time. In spite of our efforts on the Bill, we have obtained only two concessions from the Government. The first is that they have agreed to increase the penalty for living on immoral earnings from five to seven years. The second is the rather belated concession today which has made the practice of cautioning less offensive.
    In spite of these concessions, however, our basic objections remain. We believe that the Bill is a vicious piece of sex

    533
    legislation, and I want very briefly to summarise why we come to that conclusion. First, we object to the retention of the term "common prostitute" because, as hon. Members have said earlier today, it imports a note of prejudice into any proceedings against these women. Any magistrate who knows that a woman has already had two cautions is going to start with a bias against the defendant.
    We believe, further, that retaining the term "common prostitute" retains the double moral standard between men and women to which Josephine Butler was so strongly opposed. It penalises the women and does absolutely nothing to prevent the activities of those men who at present are making our streets a disgrace by pestering wives and daughters. I can see hon. Members on both sides of the House who have told me that their wives and daughters have complained about the activities of kerb crawlers.
    We can take up the time of the House to impose further penalties on these women, but apparently we are unable to do anything about the men. We resent the dropping of the provisions relating to annoyance, and we deplore the fact that in future it will be possible to send women to prison for three months for reasons which I adduced a few minutes ago.
    There are two overwhelming objections. The first is the one on which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) put his finger when he said that the test of a democracy was the way in which it treated its minorities. I believe that to be perfectly true, and the more depressed and weak the minorities may be the more important it is that we should preserve the highest traditions of the country in treating them equally before the law.
    I will, if I may, help to conclude the education of hon. Members opposite in Tory democracy by quoting what Burke wrote to Fox nearly 200 years ago. He said:
    "People crushed by law have no hope but power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws."
    I believe that that is what the Government are doing in these circumstances, and that, far from redeeming these women, the tendency of the legislation will be to drive them further along the road to degradation.
    534
    The last point I want to make is that we are prepared to increase the penalties and are prepared to have suitable fines imposed upon these women, but we believe that the severity with which the Government are now dealing with the problem will only serve to push it into the background. As I put it on an earlier occasion, it will create a vicious network in the background which will be strengthened by the proposals of the Government.
    I should like my last words to be those of the New Statesman, which summed up its attitude as follows:
    "If this law is accepted, society will be deliberately planning to make its vice more discreet, probably more profitable and almost certainly more corrupt."
    If that is what the Government want, they can have it. For myself, I will have no part in it.
    10.40 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I welcome the opportunity of trying briefly to refute the comment of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) when he referred to the Bill as a vicious piece of sex legislation. I shall not try to rehash all the arguments which we have had in the many sittings of the Committee—I attended every one—but it was pointed out by those who support the Bill, as I do, that a man soliciting women can be prosecuted in the same way as a woman can be prosecuted. He can be prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act.
    Mrs. L. Jeger: Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not wish to deceive the House. If a woman is bringing an action against a man on the ground that she has been importuned or that he has made a nuisance of himself, she must give specific evidence of the dates and the occasions and must show that this has taken place persistently. It is misleading to make such a comparison between the position of men and women under the legislation.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: I cannot see that it is in any way misleading. I was referring to the action which the police are able to take and should take against a man, just as they take action against women.
    I will not repeat all the arguments which took place between the hon. Lady

    535
    and myself in Committee because it is now a late hour, but one point which has not been made previously is that if the police will do their duty and prosecute men who are soliciting women the punishment for the man is incomparably greater than for the prostitute. For the man the punishment lies in the disgrace of the conviction. Hon. Members smile, but I cannot see that it is any disgrace for a professional prostitute to be convicted for prostitution—or, at any rate, it is very little disgrace—and to be fined.
    I have a newspaper cutting in my hand, and although I will not give details of the persons concerned, I will say that it reports a case in one of our large cities in which a kerb-crawler was prosecuted and convicted. According to this report, the defendant having been stopped asked the policeman to call his sergeant and ask him "to forget it this time." He said,
    "I will shoot myself if the facts are reported."
    Later he added,
    "I must admit that I am guilty. Can you do anything about it? I would like to apologise."
    Later his defending counsel said,
    "The prosecution has been a very great shock to the accused and very salutary. His greatest humiliation has been in making a clean breast of the affair to his wife and his employer. He has been completely forgiven by both He is heartily ashamed of himself, and so I ask you to take a lenient view of the case."
    It is obvious that the punishment to such a man, when the facts become known to his wife and to others in the neighbourhood, is incomparably greater than that which a professional prostitute will suffer from a conviction.
    I do not want to go further into that point made by the hon. Member for Rossendale. Everything I heard in Committee convinced me, as I had believed earlier, that the Bill will succeed in its comparatively limited object. We must remember that its object is limited. That has been forgotten throughout these debates. Its object is to drive prostitution off the streets of this country and not to stop prostitution.
    Sir Leslie Plummer: And drive it into flats.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: I believe that it will drive prostitution off the streets.
    536
    I am sure hon. Members are wrong to suggest that this is not such a serious evil as all that. Hon. Members have said, "It has always been very bad and it is no worse today." My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) pointed out that at 12.30 a.m. in 1881 there were 500 prostitutes between Piccadilly Circus and Waterloo Place, that there were today only 300 more, making a total of 800, which, in view of the increased population, represented little change.
    From experience which I have had in this matter in many capitals of Europe and many seaport towns, I believe that the position on the streets of London is a far greater disgrace than in any other place I have seen. I was assistant naval provost marshal in the nineteen-twenties in Malta. Although in Malta prostitution was not run by the Government, there was a system whereby any person who wished to act as a prostitute had got to have the approval of the police to do so and then had to reside in a certain area. There were only three streets where prostitutes were allowed to reside and to practise. Those streets were either a cul-de-sac or streets into which no one went unless it was for the purpose of making use of the services of a prostitute. I had the responsibility from a Service point of view of looking after that area. It was not pleasant. I have seen night after night queues of thirty or more men outside a brothel where only one woman practised.
    The point is that no one need have seen that sort of thing unless going there to make use of the prostitutes, whereas in London, where we do not have any form of Government control of prostitution—and I am sure no one on either side of the House would want it—if we allow prostitutes to practise in the streets, owing to the general construction of London they will be in those streets where ordinary people are going about their normal business and amusements. People cannot get away from this scandal; it is quite impossible. Whether they are going to and from theatres or cinemas, to restaurants, underground stations or bus stops in the West End, it is there before them. It is seen, and must be seen, by our young men and women, by adolescents and school

    537
    children. It is an absolute scandal that it should be so seen.
    Unless all that is put a stop to, as I believe it will be by this Bill, those young people are bound to think that we of the older generation and we in this House condone that sort of thing. It is rather well summed up by an old couplet which hon. Members probably know:
    "Vice is a monster of such frightful mien,
    As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace."
    I am absolutely sure that 'this Bill will succeed in what, admittedly, is its limited object of driving this evil underground so that our young people will not be contaminated by 'the sight and the apparent condonation of it. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading.
    10.49 p.m.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I hope the House will forgive me for intervening in this debate for a few minutes. The only reason I do so is that I am in the unhappy position on this Third Reading of taking a view which I think is contrary to that of most of my hon. Friends.
    I share a great deal the regrets expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) about the failure of the Government to accept a large number of Amendments which were moved by my hon. and right hon. Friends for the improvement of the Bill. I do not think it is a perfect Bill in any sense. It is full of defects, and I regret profoundly that the Amendments which were suggested by my hon. and right hon. Friends, both in Committee and on Report, have not been accepted. I think this Bill was capable of a great deal of improvement. I support the recommendation put before members of this House by the moral welfare associations of the various Churches.
    I find myself in this position on Third Reading. I do not think I have to judge whether I shall vote for or against the Third Reading merely on the emotional grounds of my resentment at the Government's failure to accept improvements to the Bill. As I understand my duty, it is merely to consider whether the law of England is better as it now stands, or whether it will be better if this Bill, with all its imperfections, is passed into law. On that question I can only exercise my
    538
    judgment to the best of my ability, and my view is that, with all the imperfections in this Bill, I feel obliged to support it on Third Reading because I think it will produce some improvement in the law.
    I support the Bill for two main reasons. First, because I think it will do something to eradicate from our streets, particularly from the streets of the West End of London, what is really a national disgrace. Maybe it will drive vice underground—I do not know, but I do care. I am not sure whether vice underground is better than vice above ground. If it is driven underground, there may be a problem we shall have to deal with. But, apart from that, I am convinced that this Bill may do something to deter people from entering the profession of prostitution, and if it does that it will be a good thing. Therefore, for my part, and with great regret at the limitations in the Bill, I am prepared to support the Third Reading.
    10.52 p.m.
    Mr. William Shepherd: I want to say how much I appreciate the Government having carried this Measure through. I asked them a long time ago to do this, not. I think, on excessively emotional grounds. I think that the condition of our streets in the West End is something lamentable and, without being excessively emotional about it, that we ought to put it right, and I am grateful to the Government for taking the action they have taken to do just that. I realise the limited extent of the Measure. Hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite have been excessively sympathetic towards prostitutes generally and have tended to put that sympathy before getting rid of this admitted evil on the streets. I prefer to get rid of this evil on the streets than indulge in excessive sympathy for prostitutes, though I readily admit that I prefer to see the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the harsher attitude of some years ago.
    I believe that the allegation that this is a sex Bill designed against women is a false concept. All that we are doing is really to stop the sale of prostitution in the streets. It is really a street trading Bill as such, and it is not normal to prosecute the man who buys a pound of apples off a barrow from a street trader. One can prosecute the man who has the barrow for street trading, but not the

    539
    individual who buys the apples from him. All we are doing here is to stop street trading in prostitution. The argument that we are indulging in discriminatory sex legislation is not supported.
    I think there is a real danger in the Bill that it will inevitably drive vice into different channels, with the establishment of the call-girl system on a much more extensive and organised scale than at present. We have not faced the consequences of that in the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear.] I do not complain about that, because we will probably have to deal with that when we see the developments. But we ought to realise that one of the inevitable consequences will be a tendency to organised vice on the call-girl lines on an extensive scale, and we may have to give attention to that aspect in the future.
    I am glad the Government have brought in this limited Measure. I am satisfied that it will reduce the volume of prostitution on our streets and that it will reduce the temptation to young women to enter this trade. I wish the Measure a speedy passage onto the Statute Book.
    10.56 p.m.
    Mr. W. Edwards: I am not a newcomer to this sort of discussion. It was in 1957, I believe, on the occasion of an Adjournment debate, when I had the temerity to say to the present Home Secretary that if prostitution were to take place in Saffron Walden on a scale similar to that prevailing in Stepney he might wake up and do something about it. Something has been done about it since 1957, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on paying the greatest possible regard to the views of all working-class organisations and religious leaders in Stepney by introducing this Bill.
    Stepney has been referred to frequently. Deputations have been led by myself and by two mayors of Stepney to the Home Office because of the problem which has existed there and which has greatly worried the working-class population in Stepney during the last few years. Obviously, I should be one of those to retract what I said about the Home Secretary in 1957, and I congratulate him upon the presentation of this Bill. I do so because I am absolutely certain that the net effect of the Bill will be to take
    540
    a lot of these girls off the streets and make them do a decent job of work. In the past girls have been able to laze about in the streets and sell their bodies; then they would be taken to court where they were fined £2 and they would not worry about it.
    I understand that that has been going on for the past hundred years [An HON. MEMBER: "For 4,000 years."] It might be 4,000 years, but if that sort of thing occurs in front of children and young people in Stepney, whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, I am in favour of stopping it. The only way to stop it is to make it more difficult for these people to carry out these activities.
    All the Bill does is to impose a heavier fine on the lady who allows herself to enter this life—and in London, only after she has received two cautions. But in these days when there is plenty of money, particularly in London, where prostitution prevails, it is the easiest thing in the world for some of these ladies to get £10 or £15 a night. The fine now proposed will be a bigger deterrent than the £2 fine, but it certainly will not cripple them at all.
    What I like about the Bill, if I may say so without wishing to appear ruthless or heartless, is the provision for imprisonment. I never want to see anybody in prison, but unless we have a law in this country under which people can be put into prison there will be little hope of our being able to survive as decent citizens. I am sure that the provision for a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment is the best thing that could have been done, solely because it will grip these girls at the right time. The more we in this House do to see that girls do not tread this shocking path the more we shall be doing our duty to the mothers and fathers who bring them into the world. I am all in favour of the provision for imprisonment, although I hope that it will have such an effect upon the young people that they will decide to earn an honest living instead of selling their bodies.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) talks about "our basic objections" to the Bill. He says that religious leaders and all sorts of other people are opposed to it. I have found no religious leader in Stepney who says that he opposes the

    541
    Bill—not one. The religious leaders who, perhaps, oppose the Bill do not know the first thing about what is taking place. In the same way, with respect to many of my hon. Friends on this side who have taken a line different from mine, they do not know the first thing about it. They have looked at it completely from a theoretical or, in many cases, a legal angle.
    When one has the honour to have members of the legal profession serving on a Standing Committee, as I said on an earlier Amendment, by the time those hon. and learned Members have finished talking we do not know the first or last thing about the Amendments. They are the sort of people who really have not faced the facts of the situation.
    There is only one complaint I have about the Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary would not accept an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). I think that the Bill will clean the streets of London, the streets of Manchester, and the streets of other big cities by imposing these very heavy deterrents upon the girls who think that they see an easy way of life; but I should have liked to have dealt with the men behind the scene in order to ensure that those who live on the earnings of the girls were thrown out of the country.
    Somehow or other, the Home Office, I am much afraid, has had to give way to the Colonial Office. To the Home Secretary I say that, if even the problem confronts him at any time in the future, he should put his principles into practice. I am quite certain of what his principles are. He does not want these stinking people who come to this country and earn money from the bodies of women to be allowed to remain. They should go back to the Colonies, which are under the control of the Colonial Secretary. We may be able to deal with that matter at a later date.
    The Bill has been amended in some ways. The penalty for living on the immoral earnings of women, one of the worst diseases one can be afflicted by, was two years' imprisonment before this Bill, was put up to five years, and then I had the greatest pleasure in supporting my right hon. and hon. Friends in increasing it further to seven years. I would have made it more than seven if that had been
    542
    possible. We have got to face up to the situation. In the West End and East End of London, in the suburbs of Essex and Kent, and in other large cities, it has worsened much more than was the case before the war. I do not believe for one moment that this Bill does away with the liberty of the subject. Those people who will be affected by the Bill have no need to be if only they will live clean and honest lives.
    11.7 p.m.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I had the pleasure of following the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) on Second Reading, when he made a briny and breezy speech.
    I agree with his last observations about ponces. The great majority of ponces and pimps in this country are not Englishmen. They are principally Maltese, Ghanians and Jamaicans. Over two-thirds are men who come from these territories, and there are a small number of Sicilians and Italians. As the Colonial Secretary is here, may I say that I hope the day will come when we shall be able to ensure that these men are sent back to the territories from whence they come? They are a pest to this country, and the crime of poncing is a singularly un-English crime.
    I shall refer later to one or two effects of Clause 3, in which the penalty is raised to seven years' imprisonment in respect of ponces, because, inadvertently, we have covered another class affected by this Bill.
    As I see it, this Bill will achieve its purpose, which is to remove the public nuisance and the indecent shame of prostitution in the public streets. It is utter nonsense to say that this is a vicious piece of sex legislation. If the hon. Member who said that understood the Bill properly, he would understand that his remark was nonsense.
    This Bill in no way seeks to create inequality between the sexes. It is a Bill designed entirely to remove women from the streets. Therefore, the question of inequality does not arise. it is a crime to engage in acts of gross indecency in public. It is a crime for a man to commit any act of indecency to a woman in public, and he can be sent to prison. If he does it in the privacy of his own flat, it is merely making a pass at the woman. In this Bill we are merely doing

    543
    for women what the law has already done for men. As the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) pointed out, in Nottingham they have been able to remove men for loitering, as we are now providing for women. So much for that.
    The only other matter with which I want to deal briefly tonight is this, because it is entirely new material and it is important that the Government should fully appreciate the effect of their Clause 3. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself are at issue on one grave matter of principle. He and other hon. Members have expressed the sincere view that when the prostitutes are driven off the streets a call-girl system will be set up which will lead to far more grave corruption. I join issue, and always have done, with the hon. and learned Member in that regard, but I do so subject to one matter.
    Clause 3 provides that the penalties for living on the immoral earnings of prostitution shall go up from two to seven years. I expect that almost the whole of the House of Commons is under the illusion that that refers to ponces. Unfortunately, it does not. It also refers to a number of other people who can be found guilty of the same offence, although the offence which they may perpetrate on the community is one of minimal content.
    The difficulties that will arise now are these. When we get the prostitutes off the streets and into flats it will be found that they have to get their clientele somehow, and when they seek to get their clientele they will do it in one of three ways. The first is by giving their cards to the taxi-cab drivers and hotel porters. The second way is by putting advertisements in the local shops. For example, in Shepherd Market, not only will the local taxi drivers be given the cards of girls who happen to live in that neighbourhood in flats, for which they pay, but the girls will seek to put up small advertisement cards in the little shops immediately surrounding the area. Thirdly, they will seek through their former clientele to give their telephone numbers to night clubs, restaurants and anywhere else from whence they think they may be able to achieve their clientele. That is what they will seek to do.
    544
    Unfortunately, through difficulties, I failed to be able to devise any Amendment to Clause 3 to exempt from the previous law the position which arises in those cases. I point out, however, that if these girls are unable to operate from their flats because they are hindered from being able to achieve the advertisement which they need for their business there will be great difficulty in operating the Bill successfully because, in practice, it will mean that they would rather go back on the street than be unable to operate their business.
    I do not believe it was meant that under Clause 3 a person should be convicted and sent to prison for a period of five years because he takes a tip, not from a woman but from a man, for the purpose of offering the name of a woman who will give her services as a prostitute. I do not propose now to argue the legal position but merely to state that I am quite satisfied from the law as it stands that a hotel porter or a taxi driver who gives the name of a prostitute to a man and takes a reward from the man would none the less be guilty of the offence of living on the immoral earnings of prostitution.
    I draw attention to that not only so that it may be investigated when the Bill goes to another place but, far more than that, so that the Home Office may take due note and be careful that the Commissioner of Police does not start prosecutions for living on the immoral earnings in the case of people of that class, because, if so, and if the girls are unable to operate their business behind closed doors, they will come back on the streets again and the Bill will not succeed.
    The way in which the Bill was handled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading and has been handled with the new Clause concerning cautions which has been put into it not only has been humane and constructive but will achieve the purpose which my right hon. Friend and the Government seek. I regard it as a thoroughly good Bill, but I agree that there is the possible danger of organisation in the trade. If it is avoided—there is no organisation worth talking about left in London now that the Messinas are out of business, for it was they primarily who organised the trade here in the past; as they are out of the way, these girls

    545
    will remain independent—there will always be professional call-girls—we shall undoubtedly reduce the in take enormously. The intake that comes into this profession at the moment comes in primarily at Hyde Park in the case of London. With the removal of the girls from the streets we shall reduce the amount of prostitution, to the benefit of the community. We shall drive it from the streets and, if with equal humanity we do not drive the girls back on the streets again, we shall secure all the objects for the attainment of which the Bill will prove a valuable instrument.
    11.15 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: I find the prospect of every taxi-driver and porter taking the prostitutes' cards much more degrading than the spectacle of these girls on the streets. I opposed the Bill on Second Reading because I thought it was a very bad Bill. I now think it a considerably worse one. So far, the fines have been increased to a level at which they are completely trivial in comparison with the girls' earnings, but not at all trivial in comparison with police wages. By that increase in the fines we have provided no deterrent at all but we have raised largely the level of corruption.
    We have provided for a prison sentence, and by that, in effect, have provided that a girl at a certain stage of her career must leave the streets and employ agents to get her custom. On Second Reading, I thought that at least the Bill would achieve its end by clearing the streets. I am now convinced that it will not. I will give the House my reasons for so thinking. By a cautioning system, which, I believe, was dreamed up during Second Reading and which has been wholly unconsidered, we have provided a system by which a girl will have at least a year's run before she gets into the gaol zone. At the same time we are clearing all the best pitches for her. Nothing on earth could make this trade so attractive to the girl. We are removing the experienced competition. As it becomes experienced, we are clearing all the best pitches and giving the new entrant a year's run on them.
    I assure the House that there will be plenty of new entrants to fill those pitches. We shall see the streets just as full, but in the process we shall be seeing new girls, new entrants into this profession. Therefore, we shall have more prostitutes
    546
    and not cleaner streets. We shall have more corruption, more organisation and more organised crime.
    11.19 p.m.
    Mr. Rawlinson: I have had the privilege and opportunity of listening to several hon. Members and have now had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on both Second and Third Reading. The more I have listened to hon. Members the more I have realised that this is a subject on which one needs a great deal of expertise. I find, having listened to all the speeches, that I prefer the robust common sense of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) to what I hope I may be allowed to call the academic twitterings of some hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. This is an action which the Government were obliged to take by the common sense of the people of this country who were refusing to continue to accept a situation which had become a thorough menace to all those who occupy or visit the capital city. Having said that, I have considerable reservations about what the effect of the Bill will be, and I have said as much in the past, and in the debate on the Wolfenden Report.
    This seems to me a Bill which is designed solely for public order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, there are certain things we are permitted to do in private which the country says we may not do in public. "Do it in public and it gives offence to us," says the country, "and if you wish to do it, go off and do it elsewhere." That seems to me to be the reasonable and sensible course, which the Government have taken in promoting this Bill.
    I do accept, however, and agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said. If we accept the Bill we have to accept also the consequences. If we drive this off the streets we still do not abolish it. Not even the holy alliance of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, my hon. Friends the two Joint Under-Secretaries of State and 600 Members of the House in 1959 is going to abolish the oldest profession. The oldest profession is going to persist.
    But it will not be paraded in the streets. It will not be there for people

    547
    to see. As some hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who have been concerned about this problem know, it was the practice for large sections of schoolboys to go round the streets watching the activities of these ladies and on occasion to become involved with these ladies so that they themselves were the subjects of criminal prosecutions. There has been paraded before those boys of tender age an obvious, ugly temptation to which some of them succumbed. That is, of course, only a minor point to make in this tremendous problem which the House has to face in considering the Third Reading of this Bill, but nevertheless there was that temptation.
    To hon. Gentlemen opposite who may say they do not take into account or care about that aspect of the problem, I say that this is the right Bill to achieve this very limited purpose. I think it is a Draconian Measure. I think it had to be a Draconian Measure to succeed in its object.
    I have no fear about conviction of the innocent, that innocent people will be convicted in the manner suggested. It is many years since the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), for whom I have the greatest respect, was last in a police court. I do not think that what he had to say about his experience in the police courts would occur today. If that lady was on her way to her grandmother and did not pass the time by soliciting—if she did pass the time by soliciting she would have been properly convicted—then I am quite satisfied she would be able to prove it and would not be convicted of this offence in a magistrates' court.
    I think organised vice will certainly arise. We have seen recently in the courts examples of how organised it has been in the past, and we shall see it again in the future. But that is what we are doing deliberately by this Bill. We are saying that the market place shall not be in the streets but shall be somewhere else, and that what formerly existed on the beats in the streets of London shall now move into various flats and rooms.
    The Bill appears to be trying to do two things. By increasing the penalties by Clause 3 it appears to be trying to deal with the alternative, because the
    548
    alternative means the creation of an extended system of poncing, and the ponce, though no one is particularly attracted to him or the role which he plays, plays a very important and very human and psychological part in this problem. There are many cases, as is well known, of prostitutes who will give evidence in defence of the ponce. The prostitute is the last person to wish to see the ponce convicted because the ponce represents to her not only her business agent but also, in many cases, someone for whom she has an emotional and human attachment which she does not wish to see severed by the action of the court.
    By Section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act it is an offence
    "knowingly to live wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution."
    The onus of proving that he was not doing so knowingly is put upon the accused. By case law, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies has said, even if a man receives payment not from the prostitute but from a person with whom he has provided her, he is nevertheless liable to be convicted of an offence under Section 30 of the Act to which I have referred. It has also been held that if a person lets a room at an inflated rent for the express purpose of allowing a woman to carry on her trade of prostitution that person can be convicted. The increase in the penalty to a period of imprisonment for seven years is an attempt to deal with the problem of the ponce, and I do not think that that problem can be effectively and properly be dealt with in this way.
    I also agree that the increased burden will be placed on the police forces. The police are aware of the extent to which the possibilities of corruption will exist when vice is highly organised on a large scale. There will also be an increased burden on the courts. All this is the price we pay for a Bill which will succeed in driving these people from the streets.
    I do not think that this House can be confident that this is the final solution to the problem. It should be approached as a worthwhile experiment which the Government were right to make—an experiment to try to increase public order and public decency. But this is a Measure which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the officers at the Home Office will watch very carefully

    549
    Having given a proper lead, it will be my right hon. Friend's desire to amend the law if necessary hereafter, and to give a further lead if it should be found that the alternative situation, which I feel must arise, creates in its turn very serious and grave problems.
    11.27 p.m.
    Mr. Parkin: The hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) have painted a clear and concise picture of the sort of developments they would like to see take place, which makes it quite unnecessary for me to speak about the alternative which is in the minds of some of those who attack the Bill. If I had said that all hon. Members opposite were in favour of the sort of system outlined by those two speakers, I should have been accused of prejudice and exaggeration. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) made a passionate plea for the tout. If that is what hon. Members opposite expect. I can only take comfort from the concluding words of the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), that he regards the Bill as an experiment. I had always hoped that it would be.
    But whatever form a Bill on this subject takes, everything depends on the dynamic administrative energy of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary's immediate predecessor had the reputation of being a rather lazy man. We had debates on this subject from time to time, but nothing happened. The present Home Secretary—and this is my real complaint about the Bill—has thrown away a rather unusual opportunity. He had the benefit of a long period of work done by welfare bodies throughout the country, and hon. Members have spent considerable time in studying this intractable, dreary and distasteful subject. Now we have a pitifully inadequate Bill, which misses the opportunity of dealing with many aspects that one would have thought ought to be dealt with, such as the use of property and the indirect problem of immoral earnings.
    On such an important matter as cautioning the Home Secretary did not think it worth while explaining to the Standing Committee what he had in mind in his Second Reading speech, and even today the Attorney-General was given the job of opening and closing the debate on
    550
    the matter. He had to say, of course, that he was not responsible for the police, but had been given to understand that that was going to happen. I cannot help feeling that the momentum of reform which we understood was ablaze in the belly of the Home Secretary when he went to his new office has been somewhat slowed down. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has missed an opportunity and has not given us a better Bill to begin with and has not helped us to improve it in Committee and on Report. I can only hope that he will enjoy a happy weekend in Paris.
    11.30 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am intervening only briefly at the end of this day on which we have concluded the Report stage and are now concluding the Third Reading of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) hoped that this was not the final word. I think that we should all approach the Bill in a spirit of modesty, because we are dealing with a fundamental problem of human nature—morals. I do not think that any law, however excellent, can settle any moral problem, and I say immediately to my hon. and learned Friend that I would not regard this Bill as in any sense final but as a weapon which will help us to deal with a blatant blot on our civilisation, especially in our capital city.
    I am surprised that in the course of the debate there has not been more realisation of the very severe difficulties which we are facing in our streets. While I would like to pay a tribute to the spirit which has been shown in the course of the Report stage on both sides of the House, I should have liked to have heard a little more account taken of the seriousness of the position which we are facing in our streets. Nobody who walks through our streets can but be impressed by the difficulties of the present situation. It was to deal with those difficulties, which, I think, are obvious to all, and which must have an effect on our younger generation and which give us cause to worry when any of the younger generation go through the streets, that we accepted the findings of the Wolfenden Committee.

    551
    That, I think, is the answer to the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), namely, that we have accepted in toto the findings of the Wolfenden Committee. It is rather peculiar that when a Government accept the findings of a Committee which they have set up they should be criticised and that when they do not accept its findings they should also be criticised. In this case, I think that we were right to accept the findings of the Wolfenden Committee. They are practical findings which, I hope, will deal with a practical problem.
    I do not think that the Committee's findings or the Bill completely solve the moral issue. I think that they deal with the practical aspects of the problem. They do not solve the moral issue, and I have never thought that they did. I did not think so when I first read the Wolfenden Report and I do not now. But I am sure that the Bill is the only way in which to deal with the matter.
    I have had to face up to the need for a thoroughly practical Measure. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) rarely speaks, at any rate in a summing up or conclusive manner, without quoting my great aunt Josephine Butler. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in the easy target which he has on this occasion. That is why I am taking part in the debate.
    In answer, I should like to say how much I owe to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my hon. Friends the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department for the work they did in Committee, and to the members of the Committee, in considering the Bill. It has been an extremely hard tussle, and in facing the conclusion reached I had also to face up to my own family tradition. What I decided was on the best possible advice, that the women with whom the Bill deals are very different from those with whom my great aunt had to deal, very different indeed.
    The women with whom we are having to deal now are those making very considerable fortunes per week. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) is perfectly right in quoting the sums which they earn. We are not dealing with the poor, pushed out by the circumstances of a capitalist society to
    552
    earn their living by prostitution. We are not dealing with that at all. We are dealing with girls who deliberately go into this trade to make a living—and to make a far greater living than do those who do an honest day's work without prostituting themselves or entering into immoral practices. The more the House realises those facts the better. We are not dealing with the same problem as occurred in Victorian days. It is because I have been able to face that problem that I was able to introduce the Bill personally, otherwise I should have hesitated.
    I hesitate less in the later stages of the Bill because of the new Clause which we introduced today. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who is never backward in coming forward in our debates, had a talk with me yesterday about his new Clause, which I considered with him very carefully. Whatever work he thinks I have not done in speaking in the House on Report and Third Reading, I have done work behind the scenes, which I think is the right place for a Minister in charge of a Bill to work.
    I sympathised with him about his new Clause, but we could not introduce it and it is not in order for me to discuss it on Third Reading because it is not in the Bill. The reason that we did not accept it was that we thought that cautioning was better not made statutory, as the hon. and learned Member, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and others desired. We thought it better to leave it to the police to operate it and to introduce the right of appeal in our new Clause.
    The new Clause was amended in accordance with the wishes of right hon. and hon. Members opposite so that the proceedings can be held in camera. I am satisfied that, as amended, the new Clause is a great improvement from the point of view of personal liberty, and as personal liberty has been at stake on Second Reading and throughout the other stages of the Bill, I think that we have made an improvement in the Bill. I am glad to see this improvement and to note that the hon. Member for Rossendale is in favour of it.
    I was gratified in the Third Reading debate to hear speeches from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

    553
    Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux), the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Stepney—lour speeches in succession—in favour of the Bill. That is not bad. In addition, there has been support from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom, who always enriches our debates on these disagreeable topics. When we add those speeches we find that we have had quite a good finish to a very disagreeable Bill and a very disagreeable discussion.
    It is to the credit of the House that we have been able to face this problem. How it will work out I cannot say. In dealing with moral issues it is impossible to say what the force of legislative provisions will be, but my contact with the Metropolitan Police leads me to believe that the Bill can be operated to the advantage of all the matters we have in mind.
    I know that there is some anxiety in respect of the provincial police. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that 12 chief constables have agreed to operate the scheme. I shall shortly be meeting chief constables at their annual meeting and the provincial police at one or more meetings. I undertake to the House that I will discuss with them the operation of
    the Bill in the Provinces and in the other forces of the country. That is the best way to do it.
    In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden), I cannot at this late hour alter the whole system of our relationship with provincial police forces, but I can guarantee to make the system work as well as possible. In meeting the other chief constables and the other police forces of the country, I will do my best to make the system work not only in the Metropolis but also in the Provinces.
    The hon. Member for Rossendale quoted Edmund Burke in a particularly moving way. What I remember about Burke's writings especially is his reference to right character, and it is right character that we are seeking to ensure in the Bill. If we fail we can stand at the bar of posterity and be responsible for our actions. I believe we shall have a partial success. If we have a partial success, we can take the wisdom of the House in the future, build upon what we have done, and perhaps have a more creative result after the initiative, which has demanded some courage, and which I hope the House will now support.
    Question put That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes, 25.

    Division No. 90.]

    AYES

    [11.40 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Altken, W. T.

    Elliott, R.W,(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Ashton, H.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Leavey, J. A.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Baldwin, Sir Archer

    Freeth, Denzil

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Llnstead, Sir H. N.

    Barter, John

    Glover, D.

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

    Batsford, Brian

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bingham, R. M.

    Gower, H. R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Bowen, C. R. (Cardigan)

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

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Green, A.

    McMaster, S. R.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Bryan, P.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(SaffronWalden)

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Mawby, R. L.

    Cole, Norman

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

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

    Coolie, Robert

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Milligan, Rt, Hon. W. R.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Noble, Michael (Argyll)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hurd, Sir Anthony

    Page, R. G.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'h'gh, S.)

    Pannell, N, A. (Kirkdale)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Partridge, E.

    Peel, W. j.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Wall, Patrick

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Sharpies, R. C.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Shepherd, William

    Webster, David

    Pott, H. P.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir p.(Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Redmayne, M.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Woollam, John Victor

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Temple, John M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Thompson, R. (Croyden, S.)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Mr. Hughes-Young and

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wakefleld, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Mr. Whitelaw.

    NOES

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

    Holt, A. F.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Brockway, A. F.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Cattle, Mrs. B. A.

    Oram, A. E.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Diamond, John

    Paget, R. T.

    Stonehouse, John

    Fernyhough, E.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Plummer Sir Leslie

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Vates, V. (Ladywood)

    Grimond, J.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Hale, Leslie

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mrs. Lena Jeger and Mr. Fitch.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed

  KENYA (CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]
  11.48 p.m.
  Sir Roland Robinson: I should like, at the outset of my remarks, to express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies for coming back tonight specially to reply to the short debate which I am initiating. I know that he left an important banquet very early, and that, having come here, he has, owing to the exigencies of the previous debate, had a long wait.
  The subject I raise—constitutional developments in Kenya—is not a new one. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) and three of his hon. Friends raised the same subject in the debate on the Easter Adjournment. That is nearly a month ago, and that it should be necessary to bring it up again is perhaps indicative of the speed at which events move in African political life today.
  Since Easter there has been a dramatic change in the political situation in Kenya, which was brought about by the well-thought-out and constructive statement of policy made by 46 members of the Legislative Council of Kenya, of all the
  556
  races. Current with that was the resignation of Mr. Michael Blundell from the Council, so that he could lead this multiracial and moderate group in Kenya.
  It seems to me that this move and the accompanying statement of policy are really important, for together they represent the first real multi-racial initiative which is taken by a very wide group of people from all communities. We should congratulate them on doing it, and admire the lead which Mr. Blundell and his friends are giving in Kenya. I feel that they now have a chance to do a great deal to develop and to consolidate moderate opinion in Kenya on a multi-racial basis, and that we in this House should wish them well in the courageous lead which they have given.
  As I had thought fit to raise this matter in the House, I took steps to ensure that Mr. Blundell knew that I wished to comment on the policy that he was bringing forward, and I had a telegram from him this afternoon which says:
  "Very pleased to hear you are raising on the Adjournment the new situation in Kenya. You will be glad to know that a new spirit is gaining ground here and that there are increasing numbers of adherents to moderate and non-racial policies."
  We should feel very encouraged by this new spirit in Kenya and realise that now the time has come when some equally constructive lead should be given in this country and in this House. In my opinion, Mr. Blundell and his colleagues have produced a striking policy which could well open a new era in Kenya. In their

  557
  own statement, they say that they hope it will open opportunity for all, progressively reduce racialism, and help to knit the people of Kenya into a nation.
  I suppose that it is important, when they set out their policy, that the very first subject which they raise is that of the Constitution. They state, wisely:
  "Frequent changes in the Constitution are unhealthy for the stability and the economy of any country."
  Even so, and recognising that, they say that they would welcome discussions initiated by Her Majesty's Government at a convenient date in an atmosphere of mutual trust. They went on to say that they would, of course, be opposed to entering discussions which were designed to achieve domination on a racial basis by a single group. They have rightly nailed their flag to the concept of multi -racialism.
  They have suggested that discussions should take place, presumably in this country, based on four requirements, and I think that it would be helpful if I read these requirements to the House so that we may be up to date in understanding their wishes. They say, first:
  "The responsibility of Her Majesty's Government must be maintained until such time as all races are ready in their attitude each to the other for the adoption of, and thus have become capable of working, a representative parliamentary system suitable for Kenya."
  They add:
  "When the time comes to move from the status of a dependent Colony to a responsible Government, it must be accepted that the Executive will continue to be controlled by responsible people who, although they must be representative of all Kenyans, will not be chosen by racial proportions."
  Secondly, they say that until the goal outlined in the first requirement is reached
  "it is necessary that the opportunity of a share in the Government of the country is available for all races,"
  Thirdly, they say:
  "The civic, economic and political rights of all races must be recognised and the more educated and fortunate individuals must accept a duty to assist the less fortunate and to provide continuing opportunities for their advancement."
  Fourthly:
  "There should be a steady and intentional development to responsible Government in accord with…
  558
  their first requirement. That seems to be sensible advice.
  I do not wish to detain the House by going right through this manifesto of policy, but it seems to me that it shows sound common sense in economic matters and a desire for general progress throughout Kenya, in education, land, and so forth. Perhaps the most striking change of all—indeed, perhaps the most striking change in the history of Kenya—is what is said in the paragraph about land:
  "Land should be regarded as an economic asset available for any individual to develop and not as a tribal or racial reserve. It must be recognised that today there are strong tribal and racial feelings on this matter. We recommend that all land tenure in Kenya should be progressively brought on to the same basis, It is our hope and belief that the various races and tribes of Kenya will eventually develop such integration of interests, standards and traditions that there need be no racial or tribal land barriers. Individual rights of property must be a primary consideration, but generally our policy must be governed by good land management."
  That is a very great advance.
  The whole concept is based on something which we must approve, the building-up of a multi-racial Kenya, a Kenya which is the home of all the races, where each race must make its own contribution to the future and none must have its culture submerged in a mere sea of numbers. I regard this as a great advance towards the conception of the nation of Kenya. I hope that the Secretary of State will tonight have the opportunity to acknowledge this great advance, and that he will take this occasion to make some comment on the manifesto and give his views on the future of Kenya.
  In my opinion, the time has now come when the vast majority of opinion in Kenya is ready for further constitutional discussions. It is not only Mr. Blundell and the moderates. Mr. Ondinga, too, has made it quite clear that he wishes to have discussions. Some would like to have expert help and advice from constitutional lawyers in these matters.
  It seems to me that the time has arrived when a lead should come from this country, and we should announce our plans. We have the opportunity to give to Kenya a clear lead, to show that we will help them in finding a solution of their constitutional problems in such

  559
  a way as to create a nation of Kenya, where the different races and cultures can live side by side and where all can make a distinctive contribution to the future of their country.
  11.58 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: In political affairs we seem to alternate between long periods of fixed positions and very short moments in history when things are fluid, when the course of events can be changed. I believe that this is such a moment in the history of Kenya. Before we all assume the frigid, frozen postures which we usually take up on these matters, I hope that everyone concerned with the discussions which are about to take place will approach them with the boldness which is necessary to achieve something for the good of all the people of Kenya.
  The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) properly referred to the very important advance shown in the statement made by Mr. Michael Blundell. It is an advance, and it should not be under-rated. It is an extremely significant advance. Some of the things which have been said here in this statement have been said by others, without acceptance, earlier. But we ought not to dwell on that now. It is too important a moment.
  I commend to the Secretary of State, also, the statement to which the hon. Member did not refer, the one made by the African Elected Members' Association. It, too, has made its contribution. It is an argumentative document; it does not agree by any means wholly with what is expressed in Mr. Blundell's statement. But I do not put it beyond the bounds of possibility that there will be agreement, at any rate, for a future period of constitutional advance in Kenya. I would go so far as to say that it is possible that the next few weeks could set the pattern for many years in Kenya, if matters are approached in the right spirit by all concerned in the negotiations.
  It would be discourteous to those coming to this country to see the Colonial Secretary to press him at this stage in detail about what he is to say to them. I do not think he would want to tell us in detail, and I would not ask him. I would sooner he had discussions with them before taking up a fixed position.
  560
  I expect that that is what he will want to do. All I would ask from him this evening, and expect, is that he will match the situation with that boldness which we know he can, in making a great move forward.
  I would make one further plea: the state of emergency in Kenya weighs heavily on the political climate, and the two things work in together. If there were an improvement in the political climate it would be possible to remove the state of emergency, and, equally, removing the state of emergency would help to improve the political climate and to make a settlement more easy. I hope that in some way the Colonial Secretary will be able to take the important step in Kenya of relieving them of the burden of the state of emergency.
  This is a great opportunity for all concerned. I do not know whether an agreement is possible. I do not know whether the Colonial Secretary will be able to take the necessary steps. I am sure that this is, however, a great moment in history, if everyone concerned in the negotiations takes advantage of it.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Would my hon. Friend also welcome the Asian statement
  Mr. Callagahan: I understand that the delegation coming to see the Colonial Secretary is made up not only of African elected members, but of a European elected member and Asian elected members, and that is very welcome.
  12.3 a.m.
  Sir Archer Baldwin: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), who raised this matter. This is an important stage in history and in the future of Kenya, and I hope that all parties in the House and in the country will support the steps taken by Mr. Michael Blundell in forming this new party. There is no hope in Africa unless all parties and all races in Kenya agree. This is a grand opportunity for us to show our support and to help the delegation to come to an agreed policy. It is most important that we keep African politics out of the internal politics of this country. We are doing tremendous harm if we use them for our own internal politics, and I hope

  561
  that on this occasion, and in the future, we shall show a bipartisan policy.
  I had the opportunity of listening to Mr. Van der Post, well known for his views on Africa, a few days ago, and to Sir Charles Markham yesterday, and I gathered that they have the feeling that the future of Kenya and Africa generally rests entirely on a multi-racial policy. This is a step towards that, and I wish Mr. Blundell and his party all the success they deserve.
  12.5 a.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I must apologise to those hon. Members who would have liked to contribute to the debate, but I have only a short time in which to reply to those hon. Gentlemen who have spoken.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) has pointed out, Kenya politics have been the subject of a recent debate in the House. He need make no apology for having drawn the country's attention once more to the interesting developments that have taken place since that last debate. I thank him very much indeed for the way he made his observations, and I also thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for his observations and their spirit, which I hope to reciprocate.
  Within a week of the last debate on Kenya. the first policy statement of the multi-racial group of members which asked Mr. Michael Blundell to lead them, was made, and Mr. Blundell had announced his resignation as Minister of Agriculture. Already, I understand, a number of meetings have taken place, at which Mr. Blundell and his colleagues of other races have attended to develop their ideas. I, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, will watch with interest and understanding how this new movement grows.
  Mr. Blundell's resignation as Minister for Agriculture will be a great loss to the farming community of Kenya, particularly to the Africans, for he has supervised in person, with imagination and vigour, the great programme of agrarian reform which has sprung to life while he has been Minister for Agriculture. I can, however, understand and admire the motives which have led him to sacrifice this important departmental position.
  562
  I do not propose at this stage to comment in detail upon the statement or upon the implications of Mr. Blundell's and his colleagues' campaign. My hon. Friend has already said enough to show that what has been said so far in this campaign has been, and will be, welcomed by a great number of people in this country and people, too, who have hitherto held very varying views.
  I would, however, like to make just one point. I think that I can claim that the emergence of this middle-of-the-road group of non-sectional opinion, moderate yet forward-looking, challenging extreme opinion among all communities, undoubtedly sterns from the adoption in the present Constitution of a measure of non-communal representation, a principle which, I know, has long been regarded with favour on both sides of the House. It is the presence of all elected members in the Legislative Council, with a responsibility to all races and not to people of only one class, which has undoubtedly been a stimulus to fresh thought on their problems by many of the people of Kenya.
  There has, however, been another important development. The Minister of State for the Colonies, my noble Friend Lord Perth, has been able to complete his interrupted tour of East Africa and has spent a fortnight there, during the first week of which he was in Kenya. Lord Perth returned to England at the beginning of this week and has been able to convey to me personally not only a full account of the many interviews which he held with all manner of groups and individuals during his stay, but a very valuable first-hand impression of the political scene in Kenya and its needs, as well as an account of the quite remarkable progress being made in other directions, such as education and land consolidation.
  Among those people whom Lord Perth saw were members of the Legislative Council associated with the new group of members led by Mr. Blundell. He also saw, of course, the members of the delegation, with representatives of all races, which, under the leadership of Mr. Oginga Odinga, Chairman of the African Constituency Elected Members, has it in mind to visit me in London. Unfortunately, I was not able to see the delegation earlier, but Lord Perth had two separate and full meetings with it and

  563
  has given me a very full account of its views. I have also read the written records of the talks with great interest.
  Lord Perth also told me in detail of his talks with the group led by Mr. Blundell and with many other individuals. From the picture which my noble Friend gave to me, I have become well aware that in Kenya at the moment there is particular anxiety about the future and an interest in the shape and scope of any discussions on that subject, of the sort which seem to be envisaged in the passage from the policy statement of the all-party group headed by Mr. Blundell, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South has quoted.
  I am satisfied, as a result of Lord Perth's visit, that that anxiety must, if possible, be allayed about both subjects. It is clear, however, that the first—the path of future evolution—is both logically the more important and uppermost in people's minds in Kenya. In the light of Lord Perth's report to me and his advice on the present situation, I would like to take the opportunity afforded to me by this debate of explaining again in more detail, and restating at greater length than I would otherwise be able to do, the views of Her Majesty's Government upon these matters.
  I have on many occasions made it clear that I cannot now foresee a date at which it will be possible for any British Government to surrender their ultimate responsibilities for the destinies and wellbeing of Kenya. To that view I still adhere. Nevertheless, it is perfectly legitimate to ask in what direction Kenya's political evolution is likely to move in the years ahead.
  The aim of Her Majesty's Government in Kenya, as in other dependent territories, is to build a nation based on parliamentary institutions and enjoying responsible self-government in conditions which secure for its people a fair standard of living and freedom from oppression from any quarter. I see no reason why the conditions necessary for the people of Kenya to make a success of responsible self-government should not one day be fulfilled. At present, they are not fulfilled. We believe that there can be no question of relaxing United Kingdom control until it is generally accepted that the continuous co-operation of all the
  564
  individuals now in Kenya in all spheres, and particularly in public life, is indispensable for the maintenance of an effective Government in the country.
  By such co-operation Kenya would become a single nation, drawing on the best traditions, skills and capabilities of all who have their homes there, and on the combined experience and high standards of the past. It would reflect no credit at all upon any British Government to abandon the people of Kenya to their fate when they have no certain prospects of being able to stand on their own feet economically and being able to run efficiently, and without risk of collapse or misuse, institutions of representative government. The responsibility of Her Majesty's Government is to all the inhabitants of Kenya of all races and communities, both backward and advanced. It would be a betrayal of that responsibility if we were to abandon our ultimate authority prematurely.
  At this stage in Kenya's history our duty is to retain that authority but, in the exercise of it, to do everything we can to help the people of Kenya to create the conditions in which we shall eventually be able to hand it over with a good conscience.
  Mr. James Johnson rose—
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue. I have very little time.
  What are those conditions? First, there must be in the territory as a whole a sufficient understanding of parliamentary institutions, and sufficient sense of responsibility in public affairs, to hold out a reasonable prospect that parliamentary institutions, representative of the people, will produce responsible government and not chaos or dictatorship. Self-government, I think we would all agree, is but a mockery if it is purchased at the expense of personal freedom.
  Secondly, there must have been established a sufficient measure of understanding and co-operation between the various communities who have made their homes in Kenya to ensure mutual tolerance and acceptance by all of the right of each to remain in Kenya and continue to play a part in the public as well as the economic life of the country.
  Thirdly—and this is closely linked with both the first and the second—there must

  565
  be a reasonable prospect that any Government to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom surrender their responsibilities will be able to ensure for the people of Kenya a fair standard of living in an expanding economy. This they will only be able to do if they can maintain the confidence of investors in a country which, not having great mineral resources, is particularly dependent on the continued introduction of capital and skill. Without that capital and that skill they cannot hope for a secure economic future or for the maintenance of the standards of living to which its people of all races have attained, let alone that improvement of the standards of the great majority that we all want to bring about.
  Fourthly, a competent and experienced Civil Service is an essential part of political institutions if these are to function successfully for the benefit of the people as a whole. A Kenya Government composed of local people will not succeed in their task unless supported by a well trained and experienced Civil Service which ultimately, and in the natural course of events, would be drawn also from local people. I know that it is the firm intention of the Kenya Government to increase the number of local people holding posts throughout the Civil Service as rapidly as is consistent with the maintenance of the standard of efficiency required by the interests of the Kenya public as a whole.
  I believe that there are two ways in which the Government here can help the people of Kenya to create these conditions. We can materially help by encouraging the growth of education and of all forms of development which will serve to increase the proportion of the people of Kenya who have knowledge and experience and an economic stake in the country and who are qualified to play a useful and responsible part in the conduct of its affairs.
  In the recent past the Government have given much help to this end, and within the general framework of the Colonial and Development and Welfare Acts, and of the new system of Exchequer loans, we shall continue to help as generously as we can. But we can also help by pressing on vigorously with the critically important task of building up institutions of local and central govern-
  566
  ment which will provide a good training ground for responsible government and will be well-devised to secure within a broad framework of democratic government the proper rights and interests of all the different communities.
  The task of promoting constitutional development in Kenya has not so far been an easy one. With the aims which I have tried to outline in this statement we shall continue to apply ourselves to it. We appeal for the co-operation of the leaders of all communities in Kenya. Failure to give it, and, still more, any attempt to secure objectives by unconstitutional means such as intimidation, can only delay progress and make impossible the construction of those sound foundations on which any constitutional structure must rest.
  As I indicated in my despatch of 24th November, the present Constitution is flexible and designed to evolve. As the House knows, various talks have lately taken place between those interested on this subject, both with and without the Governor's participation, and most recently with the Minister of State for the Colonies. In view of all this, if conditions are suitable, the Government will arrange for a conference to be held at an appropriate time to study, against the background of what I have said and of that despatch, what the next step in that evolution should be. If necessary, expert advice will be made available either during or before the conference. At this stage, I do not propose to name a definite date for the conference, but it is intended that it should be held well in advance of the Kenya General Election in 1960.
  There is just one other point I should like to make in the moment or two remaining to me. I should like to say a word at the subject of land, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned. He drew attention to the interesting and encouraging views on the group of members of all races headed by Mr. Blundell on this very difficult and emotional subject. I think that he and the House would like to know that a statement was made this afternoon in the Kenya Legislative Council saying that the policy of the Kenya Government is to aim at progressive abolition of racial and tribal land barriers and that to achieve this a policy will be adopted which is

  567
  designed to ensure that the basis of tenure and management of all agricultural land will be similar throughout Kenya regardless of race and tribe as far as local economic and ecological factors will permit.
  This policy will include suitable safeguards against the economic or political exploitation of all those who hold rights
  568
  in the land, and will, I am sure, commend itself to both sides of the House.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Gateshead Locomotive Works (Redundancies)
  Gateshead Locomotive Works (Redundancies)
  Building and Civil Engineering Workers, Tyneside
  Building and Civil Engineering Workers, Tyneside
SHIPBUILDING
  Orders, North-East
  Orders, North-East
POST OFFICE
  Postmen, Liphook
  Postmen, Liphook
  Old Age Pensioners (Free Radio And Television Licence)
  Old Age Pensioners (Free Radio And Television Licence)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Rescues from the Sea (United States Helicopters)
  Rescues from the Sea (United States Helicopters)
  Recreational Facilities, Woomera
  Recreational Facilities, Woomera
TRANSPORT
  Victoria Tube
  Victoria Tube
CIVIL AVIATION
  High-flying Aircraft (Radioactive Contamination)
  High-flying Aircraft (Radioactive Contamination)
  Captain Thain (Pilot's Licence)
  Captain Thain (Pilot's Licence)
ROADS
  New Motorways
  New Motorways
  Trunk Road Developments (Landscaping)
  Trunk Road Developments (Landscaping)
  Pedestrian Signals
  Pedestrian Signals
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Overseas Forces (Reduction)
  Overseas Forces (Reduction)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  L.S.T.s
  L.S.T.s
  PASSPORT FEES
  PASSPORT FEES
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Steel Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Steel Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Cement Works, Pitstone (Dust)
  Cement Works, Pitstone (Dust)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Cinemas (Entertainments Duty)
  Cinemas (Entertainments Duty)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Brucellosis Melitensis
  Brucellosis Melitensis
EDUCATION
  School Building
  School Building
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Midlands Electricity Consultative Council (Appeals)
  Midlands Electricity Consultative Council (Appeals)
BRITISH GUIANA
  Medical Department (Porter)
  Medical Department (Porter)
  Government Employees (Discipline)
  Government Employees (Discipline)
  School Feeding Scheme (Supervisor)
  School Feeding Scheme (Supervisor)
NYASALAND
  Miss Grace Kahumbe (Trial)
  Miss Grace Kahumbe (Trial)

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

DISPOSAL OF HERR KRUPP'S ASSETS
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesy's Government, with reference to the 1953 agreement for the disposal of an estimated 74 per cent. of the steel, iron and coal producing assets of Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach, whether (1) the Mixed Committee to consider applications for an extension of time has been set up and commenced its deliberations; and (2) how is the Committee composed.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Committee has not yet been set up, but I hope it will be shortly. It will be composed of one British, one French, one American and three German members, and a seventh member to be chosen by the other six.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank Her Majesty's Government for that reply. In view of the fact that there are to be three Germans on this Committee, will the seventh member be a neutral, and will he be chairman of the Committee?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, my Lords. He will be chosen by the other six, and not by me. I do not know who he will be.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Earl kindly convey to the responsible authorities that there is a strong feeling, about which I happen to know, that the seventh member should be a neutral and chairman of the Committee?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think it is our intention to give
840
any instructions to the Committee or to the British member of it.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, if we assume the chairman is neutral, can the noble Earl say whether he will have a vote? It seems very strange that on a matter of this sort, which is designed to give effect to Allied legislation in respect of Krupps, there should be three and three. How do they expect to get agreement? If there is disagreement they will make no progress. Surely, there must be somebody to give a casting vote to ensure a decision.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it must not be assumed that the Mixed Committee will be divided into separate parties. The purpose of this Committee, which is provided for under the Bonn Convention to meet circumstances such as have arisen, is to work out the best solution in the interests of Europe, and there is no reason to suppose that it will be divided nation against nation.
LORD HENDERSON: But is it not the case that the experience is that the Germans do not want to give effect to the legislation dealing with the Krupps combine, and that in the ordinary course of events the three Germans will stand pat against implementing what was intended to be carried through?
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that what matters to-day is not so much whether Herr Krupp should be held to the decision which was taken when there was a different international situation, as the fact that perhaps a strong Krupps organisation is in the interests, economically, politically and strategically of Western Europe?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is of course one of the possible questions which the Mixed Committee will have to consider. It was always contemplated that the deconcentration law might not be able to be reasonably and fairly carried out within a specified time, and it was therefore provided for in the Bonn Convention of 1953 that if it seemed reasonable to give further delay before the law was carried out, a Mixed Committee, which was provided for in the Convention, should be set up; and that procedure is about to be followed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is it now suggested that Herr Krupp should

841
hurl defiance at the 1953 Agreement, and that he should be allowed, with the approval of Her Majesty's Government, to "get away with it"?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: It is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government, but for the four Governments, German, British, American and French, who are to be. advised under the terms of the Bonn Convention by this Mixed Committee.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the sole purpose of the deconcentration law was not to prevent a repetition of the Krupp's complex from growing up into the position of strength and danger which it occupied in Hitler's time, and whether we are to wash all that out in the so-called interests of Western defence? I think we ought to be told that that is not the Government's consideration.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked about the purpose of the deconcentration law which was first imposed by the Allied High Commission in 1950, before self-government was given back to Germany. I think the reasons were that it was considered politically desirable that the ownership of industry should be in the hands of more people and be more widely distributed. The responsibility for applying the law was taken over by the Federal Government in 1953 under the Bonn Convention, subject to the reasonable provisions such as are now being applied, if there was any reason to think that the law could not be carried out within a specified time. I think that in fact all the deconcentration laws have been carried out with two exceptions, one that of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, in regard to which I think about 80 or 90 per cent. of the deconcentration has been carried out, and the other is Krupp, of which rather less than half, about 46 per cent., of the deconcentration has been carried out. What this Mixed Committee now has to consider is whether it is reasonable within the time limits, which have already, I think, expired, to insist on the remainder of these deconcentration requirements, in the general interests of Europe.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I fully understand the noble Earl's reply. What I was really asking for was a repudiation of the proposal made by the noble
842
Lord, Lord Birdwood, that it might be desirable in the interests of Western defence to allow a reconcentration of the Krupp complex, and I think that that would be a very dangerous thing in the interests of Europe. We have had one experience of it and we ought not to have another.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I certainly could not give a unilateral repudiation of that, because we have to act in this matter in concert with our Allies, the Americans and the French.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that people in this country are very concerned at the present state of relationships between ourselves and Germany? They seem to have deteriorated in the last few months. Would it not be as well for the Government to take a bold stand on this matter, to let them know that we want the relationship improved? But it cannot be improved on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it might perhaps equally be said that they could not be improved by the unilateral affirmation on the part of one Government that certain steps should be implemented which might not be considered by the other Governments to be in the interests of Germany or France or Western Europe in general. We cannot make any unilateral statement on questions of that kind. The whole point of this Mixed Committee, which was provided for under the Convention as long ago as 1953, is to consider, reasonably and properly, changes in the economic situation which might necessitate modification, at least in the time-table, of the deconcentration law.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl this question, with the permission of the House—and I must apologise to the House. There has been no suggestion from anywhere of any unilateral statement of the nature now suggested by the noble Earl. May I wind up the subject by asking whether we can have a definite assurance that Law 27 of the Bonn Convention is still in force?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: At the present time Law 27 of the Allied High Commission, which was later taken over

843
by the Federal Government under the Bonn Convention, remains still in force.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it seems a rather curious way to improve Anglo-German relations by further crippling this organisation?

TOXICITY OF LIPSTICK DYES
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what azo or other synthetic dyes are used in the manufacture of lipstick; what research has been done on the cumulative toxicity of such dyes and with what results; and whether any control is exercised over the use of them for this purpose.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I understand that many synthetic dyes have been used in lipstick manufacture for a long time. So far as I am aware, no research has been undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty's Government into the toxicity of the dyes used for this purpose. If the noble Lord has reason to think that any particular lipstick is toxic perhaps he will be good enough to let me know.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Is the noble Lord aware that the Food and Drug Administration of the United States has recently banned no fewer than seventeen synthetic dyes for use in lipstick; and is it not well known that many of these synthetic dyes are cancer inciting?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, in fact I am not aware of any action on the part of the American Government because, so far as I know, they have not done anything further than produce a proposal to ban seventeen dyes. This is very much in the early proposal stages and is far from any form of firm decision.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, if no research.has been done in this country, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the fact that the action taken in the United States is based upon research?
LORD CHESHAM: It may well be, but, so far as I know, the problem which
844
the noble Lord has raised is a new one, and I can only repeat that if he has evidence that there are toxic substances used in the manufacture of lipstick I should be mast grateful if he could let we know about it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I suggest to the noble Lord that he has a commercial attaché in Washington who can provide him with the information?

THE AGRICULTURAL PRICE REVIEW
2.50 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE rose to call attention to the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, 1959 (Cmnd. 696); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Year by year the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, which we describe for brevity as "The February Review", as set out in a Government White Paper is considered in your Lordships' House. It is good that we should set aside a day for this discussion as it affords an opportunity for many noble Lords who have agricultural interests to express themselves personally and freely upon the merits or shortcomings of the Government's proposals. It has always been clear that, whatever views we may hold in any quarter of the House on any other matters, or whether or not the contents of the Review are likely to be beneficial to the farming community and the nation as a whole, we are sincere in our desire to further the wellbeing and to assure the future prosperity of those engaged on the land. Our agricultural discussions are, therefore, invariably models of freedom from animosity or bitterness and without any desire to score any debating point.
Last week we considered the Budget proposals and the economic situation, but only the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, referred at length to the position of agriculture in the national economy. He emphasised the need for an expanding home production in an aim to arrive at national self-sufficiency. Although agriculture must play an important, and perhaps an increasingly important, part in our economy, no reply at all on behalf of the Government was given to his

845
speech. I think the Economic Survey and the Review of Prices are related, and it will not, therefore, be inappropriate for me to touch at any rate upon one or two points which seem to me to be common to both. Naturally, I cannot deal in full with the Review—there will be other speakers from both sides of the House who, no doubt, will take up points which I do not touch upon.
In introducing the Review in this House as well as in another place, both the noble Earl who will reply to this discussion and the Minister of Agriculture, apparently reading from the same brief, made great play upon the part of the weather in arriving at the results of last year's farming activities. I think they over-emphasised the point, and therefore it did not sound convincing and really became somewhat wearisome. Uncertain weather conditions in this country are customary occurrences in the life of a farmer. He grumbles, but he accepts the risks involved and generally carries on. On balance, nature is really not our enemy but our friend, and wet weather may be detrimental to one farm but beneficial to another in a different part of the country. In the end, things generally work out as well as can be expected under the uncertain conditions.
Let me renew the point about home production. Paragraph 9 of the Review states:
"On present prospects no further expansion of gross output is required".
Paragraph 38 of the Economic Survey says much the same, but it comes down definitely on the side of greater efficiency rather than an increase in total output. I can find nothing in the Survey suggesting to any other industry that more efficiency and no greater production is required. Why single out agriculture? From time to time we have been commended on the fact that our output has risen substantially year by year, and that our products reach the market in a better condition. We are getting a little tired of these off-repeated exhortations to become more efficient. According to the Review, our rising efficiency is assessed as being equal to £25 million a year. I do not know whether that figure is correct or not; I have no knowledge of the basis upon which it is founded. But it is a figure which is contained in the Government White Paper. Efficiency in a fac-
846
tory, with workers under one roof, is more easily obtainable than in the open fields, with men scattered over the farm, often in isolation or alone with nature. The yardstick of efficiency in agriculture is not only sound farm management but good production as well, and to me it seems logical to argue that if you aim at higher efficiency, greater production must automatically follow. A stagnant production cannot make for increased efficiency. I hope that efficiency in stagnation is not to become the watchword of the Government.
The limitation of home production assumes other very important aspects. We now provide from agriculture about one-half of our national food requirements. But every additional quarter of corn which individual farmers can produce, or each head of livestock which can be reared, should assist in lowering our food imports and helping in the provision of wholesome and acceptable food for our people. There is still room for improvement in our import position. The Minister has called attention to it with regard to animal feeding-stuffs, but it is no less a matter of concern so far as human needs arise. There is still room for improvement in our general standard of living. I need not refer to starvation overseas, and how welcome would be surplus food from this or any other country.
Paragraph 33 of the Review refers to the Small Farmers Scheme, mentioning the financial assistance which will be given to small farmers to enable them to start a plan for improving the profitability of their farming business. Paragraph 39 of the Economic Survey harps once again on that magic word "efficiency". The small farmer's turnover is such that he has day-to-day struggles to improve his financial strength. It is often a hard and worrying struggle, and he can succeed only by increased production, even though some of it may be by way of poultry and eggs, which apparently do net find undue favour in the Government's order of things to come. In connection with eggs, since I have been in your Lordships' House this afternoon I have received a letter from a small Kentish farmer who complains seriously about the price of eggs and the difficulties under which the small farmer has to make ends meet. In the course of his letter he said that small farmers have to work like slaves and receive less than slaves. Whether or not that is true, I do

847
not know; at any rate that is the information which he passes on. Is it the policy of the Government that the total output from our small farms, including those which do not benefit by grants under the Small Farmers Scheme, should remain at present level? If so, "greater profitability" are mere idle words.
As a final word on this stress upon efficiency in agriculture I am tempted to remind members of Her Majesty's Government of the well-known biblical story of the mote and the beam, and to suggest to them that in home and foreign affairs during the last few years efficiency has not been their strong point. I should not like the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, to think that I include him in that criticism, for I certainly do not. He is one of the "new boys" in the school, and I hope that he will not fall into the uncertain ways of his sixth form.
It will be noted that in the Review the guaranteed price for wheat will be reduced by 6d. per cwt. I assume that this has been done for two reasons: first, so that the total deficiency payment should be lowered, and secondly, so that less British wheat should be grown on our farms in the future. The first reason would be a valid one if we could be assured that the price paid by the merchants and millers to the producers of our wheats will not be reduced in the corn exchanges by 6d. per cwt. If this reduction is made—as I have a feeling it will be—then the taxpayer will still have to face a deficiency payment as heavy as he has suffered during the last year. I expect that this will be in the region of £25 million to £30 million.
Deficiency payments for the present period seem to be running at £8 or £9 a ton—a very high figure indeed. Apparently Her Majesty's Government are not entirely averse to some measure of control, where it is necessary in the national interest, and I should like to see them introduce such control over the cereals. I believe that under existing marketing conditions the merchants and millers are buying home-grown wheat at prices too low in relation to the guaranteed price. As I have already pointed out, this may mean in the future, as in the past, a heavy balancing payment by the Government on behalf of the taxpayer. It is possible to avoid this by controlling prices and, if necessary, throwing upon the first pur-
848
chaser of our wheats the liability of reimbursing the Government the appropriate amounts of the deficiency payments.
I believe that a scheme to relieve the taxpayer in this way could be operated. It may be argued that it would raise the price of bread, flour and feeding-stuffs. But who now reaps the benefit of low wheat prices?—not the consumer; not the baker or the farmer. If necessary a marketing board might be effective. I will give an example of buying and selling of farming products which will interest your Lordships, and after hearing it you may agree with me that it appears that agricultural products are being bought cheaply, processed and then sold to the consumer, to the material advantage of the processer. A reputable milling firm have made public their results from last year's trading. In round figures, profits for the year increased by £800,000—a pretty goodly sum—to no less than £4,610,000. If my rough calculations are correct, this works out to show that this one firm (there may, of course, be some small subsidiaries involved) last year made as much profit as 5,000 British farmers—probably all the farmers in one average-size county, many of whom may have had to work or be available seven days a week the whole year round.
The point I am making is significant and somewhat startling. I have referred to only one concern. There may be others with similar prosperity. We repeatedly speak of incentives but where is the incentive for agriculturists when they become aware that those who process our primary products can reap such bountiful harvests? Is not it time for us to realise that some alteration in the system of deficiency payments could be devised to the national advantage, so that those who gain should pay their proper dues?
A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture expressed the view that we should reduce production of wheat in favour of barley. So far as present conditions are concerned, at any rate, this advice was a little late, as the wheats and barleys are generally up and doing well. The right honourable gentleman may have intended the advice to be in advance for next season, but in any case I am afraid I must join issue with him on one point and possibly on others. We

849
can consume all the wheat that we can grow, as, apart from flour and similar wheat products, wheat offals can form a substantial basis for our animal feeding-stuffs; and as with barley and oats, the more home-grown feeding-stuffs we can produce and consume, the less we shall have to import. The restriction or limitation of some production of wheat on our well-known wheat lands is a policy of negation and has no interest for me. It is of no permanent value to agriculture to import a lot of cheap foreign wheats. I prefer the home-grown article every time.
Whilst on this question of crops I would say a word about sugar beet. Norfolk is a great sugar beet-growing county, as indeed are the neighbouring counties of East Anglia; but last season difficulties arose over the absorption of our crop by the factories which, in consequence, had to keep open for a longer period. The present factories, working to capacity in a good sugar beet season, may find it impossible to process our full crop. In the past, requests have been made for an additional factory in Norfolk and the allocation of additional acreage, but these requests have been refused. Would it not now be sound national economics for us to increase our home-grown sugar production, as we can do, if given the opportunity?
I want to refer briefly to sheep, among the livestock. I am sorry to see that the price of wool is reduced, and that the desire of the Government appears to be for smaller sheep. Unless the price per pound is subsequently increased, as is envisaged in paragraph 27 of the Review, then the farmers' turnover on sheep will be doubly affected: by a lower price for his smaller animals and a lighter wool clip for which he receives less money. I think the greatest possible encouragement should be given to sheep-rearing and feeding. There are not enough sheep about, taking the country all through, and beneficial root penning is almost a thing of the past.
Sheep marketing still shows the same fluctuations to which I have referred before in your Lordships' House, and it often happens that fat sheep of more or less equal weight and quality may suffer a reduction of nearly 10s. a head between weekly markets. That particularly hits the small farmer who cannot market his stock week by week. He loses, and the
850
consumer does not gain. Some time, somewhere, someone will realise the tragedy of our hazardous agricultural marketing systems. I have in the past done my best to awaken farming and Government opinion to wisdom before it is too late and the experiences of the 1930's repeat themselves.
Finally, my Lords, I make reference to the tables in the Review. Those in Appendix I speak for themselves; but Tables A and B in Appendix II, on page 12, appear to me to he very unrealistic affairs. In Table A the figures shown "Adjusted to normal weather conditions" seem to serve no purpose whatever except as window-dressers. This part could be omitted without tears. The actual departmental figures have been arrived at, and it is anybody's guess as to what they might have been under different weather conditions. Much the same can be said of Table B, which is built up on figures obtained from about 1 per cent. of the farms of the United Kingdom. These figures, therefore, are not by any means conclusive; they prove nothing and may, indeed, mislead us into false assumptions.
I think that in future, in preparing particulars for the Review, the Government might set out in column form the value of the actual income in terms of the value of the pound at that time. That would be interesting, instructive and realistic. What is the present value of the £327 million estimated net income for 1958–59 as shown in Table A? I will leave your Lordships to work it out for yourselves. You may be surprised at the result. My rough calculation makes the difference between the figures the equivalent of the profits of 80,000 farmers. I beg to move for Papers.
3.14 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am sure we all welcome this Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and also the moderate way he has moved it, though I think he has perhaps been inclined to dwell on the less bright side of the Price Review. I may be doing him an injustice, but I do not remember his saying that this Review had been agreed by the leaders of the farming industry. I think that one can say that the three main points about this Review are, first, that

851
it has been agreed as fair by the leaders of the farming industry, the National Farmers' Union; secondly, that it has proved the value of the 1957 Act, that it is a floor, and not a ceiling; and, thirdly, that it makes no violent changes in the pattern of production.
I do not say that the farmers have obtained everything they asked for. I have heard of no wild orgies of milk-drinking at Agriculture House. But I think that the Review has been generally accepted as fair. I should like to read just one thing from the British Farmer, a paper which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wise, reads, because it is the paper of the National Farmers' Union. One of the columns is headed "Questions you may be asking". The first question is, "Is this a fair review settlement?" The answer is, "We think the results are reasonable and acceptable to the industry as a whole". And on the whole, I feel that all the farmers I have spoken to have been reasonably satisfied with the Review. I must admit that I have not spoken to a large number of large egg producers, who would probably give me a different answer.
I think it is an unfortunate thing that every year we have to have this annual battle over the prices for the agricultural industry, which determine the pattern for the next twelve months. It seems unfortunate that this great industry should go under the microscope every single year, and that teams from the National Farmers' Union should set out with the cries of "Full recoupment" ringing in their ears to slay the dragons at the Ministry. I exclude the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who is no dragon. Then there is a veil which comes over the proceedings; various rumours emerge, and then, eventually, a Price Review comes out, which in most cases is an agreed settlement. I feel that perhaps this wrangle could take place less often, perhaps every other year or something like that possibly with a procedure for making minor adjustments in the meantime. I am sure I am butting my head against a brick wall; nevertheless, it seems to me that once a year is too frequent.
The second point is that this Review has proved that the 1957 Act is definitely a floor and in no way a ceiling, and that in the negotiations the only party which
852
has its hands at all tied is the Government, in that there is a net below which prices cannot fall. In my view it is a good thing that this year the Government have taken into consideration the weather conditions As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has said, farmers expect to have adverse weather, which is one of the normal hazards; but I think he will agree that over the last few years it has been rather abnormal. As he rightly points out, the income which interests the farmer is the income that he actually gets, not the income which he would have got had weather conditions been different. I myself have never found somebody who would make up my actual profits to the profits that they would have been had there been fine weather, and I should be delighted to be introduced to such a person.
I am glad to see that this year the farmers are being allowed to keep some part of this figure of £25 million—the figure which we hear so much about, which is the annual increase in efficiency. I agree that one cannot expect to keep it all. I do not think that in any business one could expect to keep as profit all that is earned by every increase in efficiency. A considerable amount must go to offsetting rising costs, unless one has a business which is in a very sheltered or monopolistic field. Nevertheless, I think that many people are worried about this figure of £25 million. It seems a rather vague figure which is carried on from year to year; and I wonder whether the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate could, in broad terms, say how the figure is arrived at. What are the constituent parts of it? Obviously, he cannot go into it in any great detail, but perhaps he could tell us generally. How much is management; how much is improvement in quality cereals; and so on.
On the question that the Review makes no major changes in the pattern of production, I suppose it is a justification for the policy of the last White Paper, which was not a very popular one. It certainly seems, on the whole, that the trends of production are going the right way; and we are also assured—and I have no reason to doubt it—that, but for the adverse weather, the net profit of the industry would also have been higher this year than last year by about £5 million, in spite of the cut of £19 million in the guarantees.

853
One must obviously regret the necessity for the reduction in the price of eggs; and also of wool. In the case of eggs, I suppose the main thing is to try to increase the demand. The other evening I saw on television an admirable programme encouraging one to use eggs in almost every sort or form of cooking; and if the demand can be increased then presumably the price will rise and the amount of the subsidy will consequently fall. In the case of wheat, which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, mentioned, I myself do not think that the reduction of 6d. per cwt. will make very much difference. It cannot, as he said, make much difference to the amount of wheat this year, because that was drilled a long time ago. I should not have thought that it would discourage the growing of wheat, certainly on the sort of land which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, refers to—that around him in Norfolk, the proper wheat-growing land. I should not have thought that would have had very much effect.
I welcome the increase of 7 million gallons in the amount of liquid milk to be included in the full price subsidy, and I think the Milk Marketing Board is to be congratulated on the efforts, and the success of the efforts, which it has made to increase the consumption of milk. I think one must welcome also the efforts to stabilise the price of pigs, because pigs, above all other animals, have to be marketed the moment they are ready; and the farmer is more at the mercy of the market as regards pigs than anything else. Above all, one must welcome the increase in the subsidies for calves and for hill cows, because, obviously, the greatest scope for expansion is in cattle, particularly in beef. There is the likelihood of shortage of supplies from the Argentine, and I feel that this increase in the subsidies will help. Whether the subsidy is being given at the right end, I am a little more doubtful. It always seems to me that the person who raises the calves and sells the stores has the better end of the stick. The store price, as it seems to me, is usually extremely high, leaving a rather small margin for the fattener. Still, anything that will increase the amount of beef is to be welcomed.
My Lords, I think that, on the whole, we can say that this is a very fair Review which is good for the industry: and, from all the comments which have been made
854
in the papers, I think it is generally accepted as fair to the nation as well. Therefore, I think it is a very good Review.
3.27 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wise, upon raising this debate. It is with a sense of satisfaction, I think, that we can speak first on this very important subject, the February Price Review, before it is gone into in greater detail in another place. The danger in a debate of this kind is perhaps to generalise too much; and almost every subject under review has been covered by the last two speakers. I shall concentrate on one thing, and one thing only—that is, how the Review affects the beef industry in Great Britain, with particular reference to Scotland. Many of your Lordships who are taking part in this debate are farmers, but those who are not farmers and who are listening for the good of their minds are undoubtedly meat-eaters; and beef, I think, comes first in all kinds of meat. I think that both sides of the House are fully agreed that we want to get rid of such unfortunate words in our vocabulary as "Spam" and "Snoek"; and, with the prosperity which British farming is enjoying at the present, that looks like happening in the not too far distant future.
However, my Lords, I would sound a note of warning: and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, will listen with rapt attention to what I have to say, because I do consider myself a specialist in this one very small aspect of agriculture—that is, the raising and breeding of beef cattle (and pedigree cattle, for that matter) for the markets of the world. There is a world meat shortage at the present time. I think that goes hand in hand with the increased standard of living throughout the cattle-raising countries of the Empire and of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, has already touched on the likelihood of shortage of supplies from the Argentine. which has not only suffered revolutions and drought but also enjoys a higher standard of living. In that country, which not so long ago exported half its cattle to the United Kingdom, they are now having meatless days. That is not with the objectives of fasting and abstinence, but because they have not the cattle with which to provide this country. Much

855
the same conditions apply in the United States and Canada. Australia is undergoing drought, and what few surplus cattle they have available are being shipped to the Philippines and for canning in the United States, who are themselves desperately short of meat to-day. That is a general picture of our prospects in finding our beef. And with all due respect to the Government, that position has not been improved by their recent decision to reduce the marginal grants, which are of immense importance in Scotland, where we do raise the right kind of beef for the London market.
Hand in hand with that, we have the desire, which is soon to be realised, of having our herds fully attested. As your Lordships know, in the past England has been more concerned with milk production than with beef production, and those of your Lordships who live in the South—I say it advisedly—have had to turn to Ireland for store cattle. Over 300,000 cattle of the beef type have been imported from Eire in the last fifty years. Personally, I am disappointed that this source of supply should continue. We are running a grave risk in letting in cattle which very often flinch at the needle when they come from Eire. I have known seven or eight beasts in ten truckloads of cattle from Ireland which have been attested and considered immune in the first test yet react by going down when re-examined sixty days later by a Scottish veterinary surgeon.
That is the background, together with the Government's policy, which has never dared to stretch its neck out further than five years as regards prices for hill cattle calves. I am not going to go into the private life of the cow; it is sufficient to say that before a farmer launches into a full-blooded programme of breeding cattle in the Highland hills he must have some confidence that a policy will be continued that will make his investment worth while. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney said: that too many subsidies, coming too often, are inclined to disconcert, just as the Annual Price Reviews, while dangling a carrot and very encouraging, do not meet the situation. Before a cow produces her first calf she has to be three years old if lying out; and before the calf is fit for beef she is five years old, so that if things are done in
856
penny packets, or even in five-year plans, it is not sufficient. I think I shall be supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House when I say that it is not enough to encourage farmers to start breeding beef in the way we can in the Scottish hills, which is the reservoir from which that kind of beef can come. That is the preamble to the further short remark that I should like to make with regard to the February Price Review.
Your Lordships will see on Page 4 that objective three of the commodity objectives is:
"production of more beef of the quality wanted by the market;"
If we turn one page further, to the actual grants, we see that the calf subsidy is to be increased by 15s. in respect of steer calves born on or after April 1. Again going back to straight farming, all who breed cattle are well aware that the objective of good farmers is to have calves born early in the season. That applies particularly in the hills, where grass does not come until May, because calves are not ready to eat grass until they are 2½ to 3 months old. If the Government give bonuses and increased payments on bad farming, in Scotland, at any rate, they are on the road to nowhere. This is the February Price Review. If the farmer produces early calves and lets them grow with the season, they will be good calves when they are weaned in October. But the good farmers have been penalised. With all respect to the farming community, there will be a great many calves born after April 1, or that will have birthdays after April 1. It is very wrong. It is encouraging a system which suits only the Treasury. The good calves are born in February or March every year, and the good cow can keep on breeding, if weaned in time to take the bull, and can carry on every year with a 100 per cent. production. But now, if a cow calves in May or June, not only does the calf not grow, but it will eventually come that the cow will be run down in her state of health and will run single in a year and miss a calf altogether.
I think that there is a method whereby we can put this right without any retrospective legislation. If there are good reasons, both in principle and in practical administration, against making the Price Review retrospective, there is another method which should be considered—namely, that any calf not less than three

857
months of age which has not already drawn the increased calf subsidy should be eligible for the increase. I hope that the Treasury will consider this suggestion, because I think that it gets over this difficulty. The Government may argue that calves born next year, after January 1. 1960, are eligible to get this increase which is to be paid; but this is a Price Review for 1959, and I hope that they will hear this in mind.
I remember a similar case which caused a certain amount of amusement during the war when the ploughing up of grassland was compulsory and every farmer had to supply his quota of tillage. There was a Yorkshire farmer who had a good stock of ewes and kept off ploughing up his grassland. Eventually the county agricultural executive committee reported him to the higher authority for not ploughing up the grassland, and his explanation was that he could not do it until his lambing was over; to which the reply carne from Whitehall, "Postpone lambing. Get, on with the farming". I think that that story has some application to my argument. I hope that the Government will consider this point, because we want to breed the right kind of beef steer that grows during the season. There are no politics in this question, at any rate on the Back Benches, but I would say that if difficulty is raised over this suggestion, the price of beef is bound to go up. From what I have seen lately, I believe that the Government are quite unaware of the fact that they are making the production of beef more expensive, which in turn reflects on the prices to the housewife.
3.37 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have already spoken, I feel indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, for initiating this debate. In the language of your Lordships' House, he has "drawn attention" to the February Price Review. I feel that that is a very apt description, because in fact this Review more than any other over the past few years has slipped by practically unnoticed. I think that one of the reasons why that was so is that it has been a fair Price Review, fairly balanced.
There are a number of items which deserve mention. To my mind, the most important one is thatof the proposed
858
reduction in the price of eggs. Under the Price Review the guaranteed price of eggs is to be reduced by 1d. each, while the Board's exected realisation price is to be increased by 1d. As your Lordships know, the subsidy paid on eggs is the difference between the guaranteed price and what the Board are expected to realise. Therefore, if the guaranteed price is reduced by 1d. and the Board's expected realisation increased by 1d., the reduction is in the neighbourhood of 2d. That, on eggs, is a very large amount. As always when there is a reduction in the price of any commodity, particularly one that is intensively produced, it is the small producer who suffers most, by virtue of the fact that the larger producer, because of his size, is able to cut his costs more.
I am aware of the argument put forward by the Government that the consumption of home-produced eggs has nearly reached saturation point and therefore some damper must be put on production. That is a perfectly legitimate argument with which I wish to pick no quarrel. But there are two complaints levelled at the moment by egg producers which are worthy of consideration. One is that over 50 per cent. of liquid eggs used are imported; and the other is that some 10,000 cases of Polish eggs are supposed to be imported eaoh week, which represents some 3½ million eggs, and apparently there is a threat that the figure will go up to 20,000 cases, representing something like 7 million eggs. As to the first criticism, personally I do not think that the argument levelled by egg producers holds much water, for the simple reason that the price of liquid eggs is about 2s. and it is absolutely impossible for anyone to consider producing eggs at anything approaching that price. Therefore, in that respect, it may be economical to import liquid eggs. But I do think that the egg producers have some cause for complaint if at a time when the price to them is being cut the Government are importing some 3½ million eggs a week, which might rise to about 7 million a week. I am told also that Poland is anxious to get sterling and is prepared to sell eggs at almost any price. It is strange to think that eggs subsidised by another Government are being imported, while apparently the demand for the home-produced egg has reached saturation point.

859
While on the subject of purchasing, I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who is to reply, whether he can tell me how much canned chicken was imported from China during the last three months as compared with twelve months ago, and what percentage increase it represents. I do not share the deep interest of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, in the import of commodities from China, but I confess that in this respect I have an interest, because I am a producer of table chicken, and I gather that imports of Chinese chicken have grown to astronomical proportions as compared with what they were some twelve months ago. I have given notice of this question to the noble Earl. I do not ask him to take any action, but perhaps his Ministry will watch the position, because it would be a pity if there should be any threat to a particular section of the agricultural industry which is flourishing, and without any form of support, even the 33½ per cent. farm improvements grant for erecting the houses in which the chickens are reared.
Another matter I would mention in regard to the Price Review is the 6d. cut in the guaranteed price of wheat and rye. I am not so much concerned with the cut in the price of wheat, although I grow it myself, as with the cut in the price of rye, which I do not grow. There are areas in Norfolk and Suffolk where it is almost impossible to grow anything other than rye. In those areas with a crop like rye one does not get nearly the return in sacks per acre as one does for wheat, and there is not nearly the financial return per cwt. of rye as there is per cwt. of wheat. Your Lordships will therefore see that anyone who grows rye has a gross return far below that of someone growing wheat. When I say that the guaranteed price of wheat is 27s. 7d. per cwt. and the guaranteed price of rye 21s. 7d. per cwt., your Lordships will appreciate that there is a considerable difference in the return to the various producers.
Anyone who has motored down the Norwich to Newmarket road on a windy spring day and has seen the air and the roads covered with dust, which is nothing other than the top soil of the seed beds of the farmers in the area, might well be forgiven for thinking that he has been momentarily transported into the prairies
860
of Canada; and he will appreciate that the farmers have difficulty not only in growing their crops, but also in keeping them in the ground. I feel that some farmers will be fairly hard hit by a reduction of 6d. a cwt. in the price of rye. One has to remember that one does not grow rye if one can possibly grow anything else.
Those are my criticisms—and criticisms are always easy to make—but, generally speaking, I think the Price Review has been well accepted. It might appear that the estimated cost on farms has gone up by £15 million (like my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, I am always fascinated as to how these figures are arrived at), and as the Small Farmers Scheme costs £6 million, this makes a total of £21 million to be recouped. It might be said that the Government are a trifle ungenerous if they are going to help only to the tune of £3 million. But, on the whole, I feel that the Price Review has been fairly made and is one that has been well received.
There is in some areas one point of satisfaction with which I must say I entirely disagree—namely, that the Price Review might have been much worse, because under the 1957 Act the Government could have made a reduction of £19 million. To my mind, that would be a disaster, and it is up to the Government to prevent such a thing from happening and, indeed, to prevent the feeling from spreading in the agricultural community that they expect a full or partial cut each year because of that Act. There has not been a cut this year. The whole purpose of the 1957 Act was to give confidence by letting the farmers realise that their prices could not be lowered more than a certain amount, and I think it would be a great pity if they were allowed to expect them to be lowered to the full or partially. Therefore I do not join in any jubilation on the ground that the Price Review might have been much worse; I prefer to accept it on its own merits. It has, indeed, given the agricultural community the confidence to carry on for the next twelve months in the belief that they can expect reasonable returns. I would emphasise that the confidence of the agricultural community is possibly the most important thing, because without it they will suffer; and not only that, but, what is almost more important in this industrial age, all the many and varied industries whose success depends entirely

861
on the prosperity of agriculture will suffer, too.
3.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I would say at the outset how grateful I am, as was the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, to my noble friend Lord Wise for putting this Motion down, and, speaking more from a Party point of view, how grateful I am to him for the way in which he introduced the debate. I thought he covered the ground of the White Paper, with the background of the general position of agriculture, in an admirable manner. The speeches that we have heard since seem to go almost to form. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, is popular on all sides of the House, and I suppose it is partly because of his kind of approach to matters like agriculture when he always appears to us to be the eternal optimist. Whether he will continue to be the eternal optimist on agriculture when a Labour Government is in office I am not so sure. But certainly it makes him generally popular on all sides of the House and we are always glad to hear him speak.
One reads in the leading columns or special editorial paragraphs of the farming Prcss—the noble Lord quoted the official paper of the Farmers' Union; there are also the Farmers Weekly and the Farmer and Stockbreeder—of how fair the White Paper has been, but one finds that they have been unable to suppress altogether letters from individual farming correspondents who do not seem to hold quite the same view. Therefore the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, are to be understood and sympathised with.
What surprises me about the White Paper was brought out by the last speaker in a few sentences which I think he based upon paragraph 14, which gives the details regarding the long-term assurances. After the addition of the relevant cost increase of £11½ million, it would still have been normal—at least, that is what is implied in the paragraph—to consider a reduction of £19 million in the guarantees. That does not look like keeping in view the £25 million rate of increased efficiency which has been referred to to-day. It means £11½ million additional cost, plus £19 million to be considered for a reduction in guaranteed prices. I make that over £30 million, and
862
I would suggest that, taking the debates of the last eight or nine years, in fact we have been hovering around a figure far nearer £30 million than £25 million in respect of which the farming industry is supposed to be able to increase its production, improve its own position, and accept reduced Government subsidies, and for each individual farmer still to be better off.
Believe me, I do not know anyone who owns 400 acres who feels that his income as a farmer is going up. He may be doing fairly well, and the man with a great deal of capital may have reached the maximum of every kind of modern machinery to an extent in which he can organise in a way to save individual men's labour—one, two, three, four and perhaps five on a large farming estate—and therefore be able to show a bigger net profit. But in respect of other farms, which are often over-machined, overburdened in capital cost, at any rate in regard to the acreage which they cover, the result is far different. I suggest that the general results of the farmers one meets seem to prove that point.
What strikes me forcibly, thinking of these arguments, is that we seem to have had a change of attitude from the Front Bench opposite since the present Chancellor of the Exchequer left the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is one thing for which I pay tribute to Mr. Heathcoat Amory, and that is that, as Minister of Agriculture, he continuously defended the rightness of the subsidy paid by the State to the British agricultural industry. He said it was absolutely justified because, he said, "Look at the rest of the British industry". Other industries are not required to produce the same evidence of efficiency, industry by industry, year by year, under a Financial Review. It is the British taxpayer who, through import duties that are passed on in price to the user, is paying a far higher sum to the other industries than is paid to the farming industry. Among those who pay it are the farmers themselves, who have to pay enhanced prices for the large increase of mechanisation upon the farm, all subject to a different rate of price compared with the prices ruling years ago when there was no such thing as protection for these industries.
As a matter of fact, I have long since changed the views I had as a young

863
politician on the question of taxes upon commodities. I had to learn that through the hard and difficult days of the long-drawn-out periods of unemployment. Anybody looking back upon those periods of unemployment can see the difference in the returns of our industrial production and prosperity. Our economy worked under great stress, and never would have worked if we had not afforded a large measure of protection to our industrial production and, by giving it such a price in the home market, enabling it to cover its overheads sufficiently to reduce its costs and to compete in the markets of the world. That is the fact. However much I may regret that I have had to cast away some of my early views upon the pure, fundamental argument of Free Trade on the Adam Smith basis and the world division of labour, I am bound to say that, looking back over the years, I cannot deny the fact that protection has been of enormous benefit to our manufacturing industries in this country. You will not find in the programme of theLabour Party anything which says, "Let us have free trade all round"—not likely!
But when we come to deal with the agricultural industry, what we cannot persuade anybody in the country to do is to come out in favour of a tax on imported food—that is, prime food for the population or imported cattle food. Nobody wants a tax on that. Then how are you going to put the British agricultural industry into a comparable position of competition in the labour market, in the general industrial market, of this country unless you give them something which will set off their position as citizens as against the actual import duties freely allowed to almost every other important industry in the country?
What is now held out by the present Government's policy with regard to agriculture? It is that, leaving aside those arguments which were so well expressed over and over again by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Minister of Agriculture, there is what is called a long-term policy of confidence, which was so well expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Under the 1957 Act you are aiming (and this is quite clear from the White Paper) to reduce the guaranteed prices to farmers by 2½ per cent. overall in any one year, and by not
864
more than 4 per cent. upon any specific commodity included in it. We have seen that policy put into practice in the 1957–58 Review. In the case of the present White Paper, we are not getting the kind of cut that was made in 1957–58; that is agreed. But I think fantastic claims are being made in this White Paper as to the real effect upon the industry. It is portrayed as an increase to the farmer of £3 million in the guaranteed prices, but in fact the £3 million comes as an afterthought of the Government, after the first consideration of their proposals on aid to small farmers, when it was agreed to bring into those small farmers' aid schemes the hill farmer who might have been disqualified because of other grants he had been receiving. There is nothing additional to add on except that £3 million.
Moreover, included in all the figures on which the assessment of the Government has been made is the grant of £6 million a year to be paid to the small farmer under the Small Farmers Scheme. But in the end that £6 million is not going to be paid by the Government at all, as is clear from this Review. It is to be paid by all the rest of the farming industry which is not included in the small farmers who actually receive the grant. So that in fact, on the actual presentation of Government aid to the farming industry, I am bound to say that there is some justification for the criticism of those people who brought their case to the notice of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; that it is a rather poor show, not exactly the kind of thing which is likely to bring confidence to the industry as a whole in the future.
I do not know what the National Farmers' Union said in the course of the discussions; I do not want to criticise on details of which I have no knowledge. But I am bound to say that if we look between the lines we see the red light in places. According to a report that I saw in the Farmer's Weekly of April 10, commenting on this general principle which has been dealt with to-day (I need not weary the House by reading out big chunks of the White Paper upon the policy expressed of the need for not producing too much milk), the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, Mr. Treherne, has said:
"It is impossible to have an efficient industry if the size of the job it is asked to do is being

865
continually changed. Such action interferes with all natural laws and results of development within industry".
Obviously the Milk Marketing Board, whatever the Farmers' Union may say, do not look with much favour upon the idea that the Government should now suggest the need to restrict the production of milk.
Nor do I think the Government have given a great inducement to the farming industry to be quiet with the Ministry about this matter when they refer to the 7 million gallons to be added to the liquid milk standard price range. Has any noble Lord considered how trivial that is? Have noble Lords considered the figures? Let us look at the actual production of milk. In the United Kingdom, in 1958 liquid consumption was 1,518 million gallons; for all other consumption, by way of manufacture and the like, the figure was 624 million gallons. That is a total of 2,142 million gallons. So the 7 million gallons now graciously added to the area to be covered by liquid consumption is to be equal to rather less than 1½ days' production of milk in the year. That is what it amounts to. How much added is that? I join with the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, in his eternal optimism in congratulating the Milk Marketing Board upon having got the Government to add even the 7 million gallons; but it is completely trivial in relation to an Annual Review of prices connected with such an enormous industry as the agricultural industry, and I hope that we shall not make too much of it.
I agree, of course, with my noble friend Lord Wise that it is the farmer's lot to be bedevilled and plagued by weather conditions with which he has to contend. I am bound to say that the year 1958 was pretty bad for many areas in the country. When I look at some of the optimistic forecasts of grain production I just marvel, speaking as one coming from Essex. Essex is perhaps not quite so prominent a wheat grower—although it is pretty important in wheat-growing—as Norfolk and Suffolk, but certainly it has something similar in conditions. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke about rye still standing, never having been harvested.
EARL FERRERS: With respect to the noble Viscount, I did not say so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Then I do not know what the noble Earl meant by what he said. Nevertheless, let me say this: that I imply from his remarks that in this particular year, after the experience they have had of land which can grow nothing but rye (I think that is what he meant), they will have a very poor result anyway, and to impose a cut in the guaranteed price at this time is not a very good thing to do. There I put myself, at least broadly speaking, in harmony with the views which the noble Earl expressed.
I know this much; that in the case of oats, which are often harvested earlier than some of the other grain crops, there were fields which either were not harvested at all or where, when it was possible to get on to the land with heavy machinery to harvest them, it was found that a great deal of the crop had already fallen out and within a few weeks was growing green all over. Down in my county of Essex some of the farmers were bringing in as late as February, 1959, what was left of crops of barley and wheat. The weather had been so terrible that they could not get an earlier opportunity of getting heavy machinery on to the land to get the crop off. If anybody doubts it, he need not take my word; let him just look up the reports En the Essex County Gazette, and the East Anglian Daily Times. At any rate, if I may speak for my own small farm, our last lot of wheat was carted in Essex on November 29 last year, and none of that land has yet become fit to plough. Therefore, it is not only that last year has had to be covered in losses of that kind; in many of the areas a shorter crop must be faced this year, because it has not been possible to have the amount of cultivation and the proper exposure of the ploughed land that one would have in a normal season.
Having seen the optimistic figures given in one of these official returns, that the estimated crops of wheat and rye in 1958 are expected to be 2,731,000 tons, I shall be careful to try to find the revised figure when it is given—because I think that the position of that crop is going to turn out very much worse than the original forecast. When we consider the condition in which much of that wheat and rye was actually sold, after various processes of drying, or how much extra it cost the

867
farmer to have his crop dried more than once before he could market it at all—a cost, according to whether it was home-done, of £2 to £3 a ton, sometimes more—we see something of the condition in which farming was carried on in 1958–59. I know perfectly well that the Government cannot go back and revise that situation; but I do not think that in the handling of the prices all round, they have been as considerate to the farmer carrying these losses as they might have been. I cannot see the real need for taking 6d. off wheat. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, when he comes to reply, will give us the true reason for reducing the subsidy on wheat. What is the true reason? I do not know, and I should like to know.
As I was saying to your Lordships on the occasion of the debate on the general economic position the other day, I hope that we are not losing sight of the fact that, in the changing circumstances ahead, we cannot hope to go on trying to live on the basis of driving down the prices of primary producers all over the world in order that we may get a cheaper cost of living here, or to reduce the wages of producers in this country in order to reduce generally the costs incurred in our production for export. You have to keep those principles always in mind. If you are going to have a steady and continuous market, you must see to it that you are getting supplies from abroad at a price which is going to give the producer of those supplies enough to be able to absorb our exports in return. As I see it, that is absolutely fundamental in this modern and changing world.
What is the relationship of the reduction in the subsidy on wheat here to the decision of the Government to rejoin the International Wheat Agreement? Is there any connection or is there not? I do not know. I have not been into it in detailed discussion. I do not know whether there is any need for it at all. I believe that if at any time the millers of this country were forced to use a larger percentage of home wheat because they could not get what they wanted from abroad, they would make use of what they received from the British producer—and a very good product it is!
I have had a little experience of the milling side of the industry. There is no
868
doubt that there are those who prefer a purely white bread, or bread of a very white colour; but with modern machinery the bakers also want to make a product per sack of something like 96 to 100 quarterns—more than that now with the 14 1b. loaf. They like to buy the flour from the hardest wheat they can get anywhere in the world, because it takes a larger percentage of water in the breadmaking: there is a greater moisture content. But, believe me, there is no real difference in the quality of the bread that can be produced if the making is handled appropriately to the supplies available. I am looking at the noble Earl, Lord Woolton. I would say that there is no doubt about his experiences of trying to make as much as possible from the amount available to him in war time. With hard wheat generally you get more, and in war time you could get more loaves per sack because the baker would be able to use more water in the bread. But the noble Earl also knows that if it had not been for the supply of flour from British wheat he could never have pulled the nation through its wartime difficulties.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: I agree.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Therefore, why should not there be some return to the British farmer? Surely, with a not-too-difficult Chancellor of the Exchequer to persuade upon his pet subject, the Minister of Agriculture ought to be able to bring pressure to bear to see that these matters are handled in a way that will, to use words which came from the opposite Bench, encourage the farmer in his industry and which is likely to bring prosperity to the whole country as well as to the industry.
I do not propose to take any longer on this question this afternoon, but I am particularly anxious that the agricultural industry shall get a fair crack of the whip. I am not saying that we have not had more unfair Reviews than this one: certainly we have had some very unfair ones in the last few years. But if I were asked whether the Government could do a great deal more for agriculture, I should say that they could. And I should have thought that, with so many representatives on the opposite Benches and in another place who are interested in agriculture, they could use their influence

869
more upon the Government of the day in order to ensure that agriculture is soon in a better position. As to the building of the fibre, the resilience and the general power of the population, the maintenance of an adequate rural population seems to be absolutely essential.
The only question that I have not really dealt with, but which I should deal with, is a matter raised by Lord Lovat with regard to the breeding side of the cattle industry. I have no experience of this: I wish I could afford the capital properly to go into breeding. I am not sure how long the big prices that used to be obtained for pedigree bulls will continue, now that there is such a useful and widespread system of artificial insemination. My own experience of providing a little beef has so far been exceedingly limited, because I produce milk from Ayrshires. It must have been my lack of experience. but my efforts to produce beef animals have not been too successful.
I would emphasise most strongly what the noble Lord said about the risks in the next five years with the continued import of cattle from Eire. I want to have good relationships with the people of Eire upon this matter, because I think it stands to reason that, up to the present at any rate, and with the failure of the Argentine supply, we have not had sufficient beef production in this country entirely from our own breeding to be able to cover the next five years. I feel certain that the Government had to do something about it. I have a great deal of sympathy with the people who think that at any time in that period of five years, when, apparently, cattle will be treated as ready to come, with only one test on the other side, it means running a risk of reactors being accommodated on our land and in our herds, and that it is a very big risk to take. I hope that the Government will watch that point most carefully, because once it begins to come down to marketing and all the rest of it, it begins to affect not only the beef cattle but all the cattle that go to the markets.
I hope that the Government will not think that we have been too critical. I do not think we have been too hard on them. I do not want them to believe that we are entirely satisfied with this White Paper—we are not. In all the circumstances, we feel that they could have done better for the farmer, and we hope that
870
by the time we come to consider this matter again next year, either we shall have such a change in the weather as to give us a real chance to overhaul the agricultural losses that occurred in many districts in the last twelve months, or that the Government will have had another thought about the guarantees under the 1957 Act and will see to it that they treat the farmers as justly by subsidy as they are already treating the industrial manufacturers by tariff.
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I would first of all pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, for bringing this debate before your Lordships' House to-day. This Review is a national one. My views, and its effect upon me, are local matters and it is very difficult to regard the Review entirely from a national point of view. I might be more critical than I am had it not been for the fact that I have benefited from it on every score with the exception of the reduction in the wool price. That reduction has been very small and my ewes have co-operated magnificently and have produced more twin lambs than I have ever known, so that I am personally quite satisfied. I believe the overall judgment of the farming community on the Price Review can be gauged by the fact that they have virtually ignored it. No farmer will ever say anything when something is given to him, but he will be very quick to grumble when anything is taken away. On the whole, therefore, the Review must be satisfactory to most people.
The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, is a pedigree breeder and is in a little different position from myself, as I am breeding purely commercial store cattle. The question of calves is one of great cogency. If I possibly can, I like to have my calves born in January. What is the point of all this talk of efficiency when, by the Price Review, we then subsidise inefficiency? I cannot see that the two things go together; and that is a point which should definitely be considered. If there is some reason for that provision I should like that reason assigned to it, in an endeavour to satisfy us. I am quite sure I am speaking for practically all farmers engaged in breeding when I say that we are not quite sure of the reason—as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, himself said. I

871
apologise for repeating his point, but it is so important that I know your Lordships will not hold that against me.
There is another thing which, again, does not affect me directly but which, I feel, requires a little explanation. Surely the reduction of the premium on quality must be detrimental to farmers who are producing quality beef, so that the man who is producing a somewhat inferior article is again being encouraged—which again works against efficiency rather than for it. I feel that some explanation might be forthcoming on that matter, and I hope that we may have one. Another point I would make on the changes in the subsidy is that there is an increased subsidy on steer calves of (I believe) 15s. I cannot see the reason for that. If a beef calf is produced the animal is eaten. Why the differential in the sex? It costs just as much to produce and rear one calf as the other, and short of getting the right honourable gentleman, the Minister, to come and talk to our cows in a fatherly way, I do not see how that can be altered.
I have heard a rumour (which may be quite untrue) that the reason for this was that so many dairy farmers are using a beef bull and producing a beef calf. If that calf, through the lottery of life, happens to be a heifer, the farmer can draw the beef subsidy provided he gets the animal punched; but that animal could find its way into the dairy herd later on and be used as a dairy cow. If that is the argument, then I do not think it holds water; because I believe I am right in saying that in 1961 the whole country will be attested. In my part of the country we are virtually all attested now. If, at six or eight months, a calf is ear-punched as a beef animal, or rejected as the case may be, and has the needle and is tested and tagged with a number, the hole punched in the ear shows that there is a subsidy on it and it has a number, and that animal cannot be moved from the farm to any other farm or to the market without the written permission of the Ministry. It might have been true to say, five or six years ago, that a check could not be made to see that none of those animals illicitly got into a dairy herd, but I do not think that that argument holds to-day. That may not be the argument, and I should like to hear the answer if the noble Earl can give it when he replies.
872
Then there is the question of cereals. I am concerned with oats, as that is about the only crop that we can grow; and we have the acreage deficiency payment. Something has gone wrong this year. One cannot sell oats at the present time, and I would say that in my part of Scotland one-third of the crop is now stacked on the land, unthreshed. If your Lordships want to know the reason for that I will tell you. I was offered 54s. a quarter and, of course, I am not selling. Eventually I shall have to sell, but at the moment I am hoping for a rise. But I am told that there is a large quantity of cheap American maize coming in and being used by the food compounders. If they can buy maize they will not buy oats, which has a lot of husk. That is why nobody wants our oats. We shall not be badly off because in the near future we shall plump a large quantity of oats on the market. I should not he at all surprised to see the price drop to about 50s. If that happens, the Government have to "ante up" which is all fair and square so far as we are concerned; but if we have something in our left hand which is controlled, while the right hand is doing something else without co-ordination, the farmer "carries the can". It seems to me that the food compounders, those who make up manures and charge an enormous margin, and the millers, are the people to whom we ought to look when insisting on efficiency, rather than bullying the wretched farmer who, on the whole, is more efficient than the majority. I feel that that is something which would be borne in mind.
Next year an enormous quantity of wheat will come from Canada down the St. Lawrence Seaway. The cost of getting it here is estimated to be about 6d. per cwt. less than it is this year. Is the farmer to be knocked down another 6d.? I do not know, but there again is something at which we must look, for that is the kind of thing we want to know. A matter in Scotland which is not quite so directly covered by the Price Review, nevertheless it is connected. is the question of marginal production grants which we discussed some time ago. When the Small Farmers Scheme was produced it was decided to abolish, without question, the M.A.P. grants and there was a very involved and meticulous Report produced by the

873
Department of Agriculture in Scotland. So far as I know, that has never left the pigeonhole where it had been put; nor has it even been considered. I should like to know whether I am correct in believing that, and to know also whether someone cannot now take it out, blow the dust off it and have a good look at it; because it is quite a good Report by the Department. In any case I should like to know its fate if what I have stated is incorrect. I cannot help feeling a little disappointed that in a debate of this kind which closely affects Scotland the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, the Minister of State, is not in his place to answer the questions which I now have to ask the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave. That is not really fair, as they do not, in fact, concern him. If he does not like to answer, well and good.
There is one other point about this docking of £25 million or £30 million (or whatever the figure may be) annually in the Price Review. This matter, I take it, is based on an average. The trouble about an average is this. The man who has got virtually to maximum efficiency, or near to it, cannot go on increasing his efficiency beyond a certain length of time. If you are raising store cattle your ground will support a certain number of animals. Before you are eligible for the hill-cattle subsidy your land is assessed or classified as being hill ground, and the number of cattle you can keep on that ground is assessed also by the Ministry as the number of cattle that ground will support. If you wart to increase your efficiency, and the only thing you are producing is single calves, apparently you have to talk to the cow and say, "I want twins next year". One comes to a limit. The idea that everybody can, every year, automatically, by mechanisation—that wonderful word to cure all ills—increase production may have only a remote connection with the facts. It is not a be-all and end-all for everybody's problems.
I believe that this underlying business of a set figure for increased efficiency every year to be carried by the hill ground industry is a matter that should be reconsidered; and more consideration should be given to large districts, such as Scotland, where all the agriculture is based on more or less the same principle. There are large stock-rearing areas in Scotland which have no bearing whatever on, say, the grain-growing areas in
874
England. By working on sweeping averages it seems to me that we are running into the danger of getting considerable hardship, with people having to throw in their hand, increasing unemployment and that sort of thing, which is not what is wanted. It is a danger which is run into by not going into the matter in sufficient detail in respect of large districts and the farming which is carried on there. Marginality is 10 per cent. fertility and 90 per cent. geography. We cannot alter geography; we can alter fertility. Nearly the whole basis of what we receive or do not receive is based on considerations which we cannot alter.
I should like to ask the Minister about the possibility of one other matter. We have in the Price Review the figures of the totals of agricultural production, and so on. The breakdowns of these figures are not published, and may therefore not be used, although they are known, until about nine months after the event. The statistics are then produced in a publication, the name of which I cannot remember. I would put in a plea that as those figures are known they should be produced at the time of the White Paper; I should like the detailed breakdown, which now appears later on, to be published and available at the time of the White Paper.
4.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I also should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, for putting down this Motion. I shall confine myself to speaking extremely briefly about milk, mutton and beef. We have seen that milk production fell last year by 5 per cent., chiefly owing to the effect of the weather and partly owing to the reduction of milk herds. I personally agree with Her Majesty's Government that they are right not to increase the guaranteed price for milk. I myself have a dairy herd, but I feel that we are producing far too much milk. It is quite uneconomic to produce milk for manufactured products in this country. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, thought, I believe, that it was very hard luck on the dairy farmer if the Government did not encourage him to produce even more milk. Surely it would be far better to try to make the dairy farmer put his

875
efforts into other ways of agriculture, which would produce something that the country wants.
We have to remember that our imports of feeding-stuffs increased last year from 5·4 million tons to 6·1 million tons, which cost £140 million; and a great deal of that, I presume, has gone for dairy cattle. My own feeling is that if only Her Majesty's Government could induce the Milk Marketing Board to pay more attention to quality milk, if only we could have more premiums for quality milk, the extra production of milk would fall, to the advantage of production figures generally; because, as your Lordships know, the cows that produce the best quality milk do not produce the greatest quantity.
Concerning the quality differential for fat cattle, it will, of course, be an added incentive for dairy farmers to cross their cows with beef bulls, and this ought to reduce the number of pure dairy heifers for the dairy herds, so it will presumably reduce dairy herds throughout the country. If one puts an Aberdeen Angus on a Jersey, it is not going to pay one to milk the heifer. I do not think it pays to milk dual-purpose cattle.
I am extremely pleased that we have had an increase of £2 in the hill cow subsidy—it is now £12—and an increase in the calf subsidy. I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, that if we are going to produce beef calves we must have them born early. Having the subsidy paid on April 1 is, I think, all wrong. As I have previously pointed out in your Lordships' House, and as other noble Lords have done, the chief beef-exporting countries in the world are drying up as regards their exports of beef. It is chiefly owing to the fact that they have increased standards of living and increased population; and the time will come, I believe, when no country will be able to export beef to us. However, I cannot help thinking that in the hill-grazing areas we still have an opportunity to produce more beef, although we shall need better liaison between Highland and Lowland farmers.
The whole trouble, as several of your Lordships know, is that although on the hill grazings we have these vast areas of summer grazing, we cannot fully utilise them because we cannot grow the fodder to feed the cattle in the winter. I have
876
therefore wondered whether there could be some scheme by which one could cheaply transport cattle from low grazings to the Highlands for six months during the summer. Then, of course, the lowland farmers, having the cattle off their grazings, could grow far more hay and fodder crops; and when their cattle returned they could fatten more. Such a scheme would, indirectly, increase the number of yard cattle. Also, my Lords, there is the cost of hay to hill farmers. If I buy hay for the Isle of Mull, it costs me about £23 to, £24 a ton, which is absolutely uneconomic. If only we could have cheap transport of hay and straw to the North, it would be a great boon.
When we come to the production of sheep, the Annual Review has rather disturbing words. Perhaps I may quote it:
"The trend of production of sheep is still upwards but any further expansion of production will need to be considered in the light of market prospects, including the expectation of more plentiful supplies from Australia and New Zealand".
My Lords, what exactly does that mean? Is the greater production of mutton to be frowned upon? As I understand it, we produce in this country about three-quarters of our mutton. Should we strive to produce the other quarter, or is it to be kept for Dominion exporters? If we are told we must keep this quarter for New Zealand lamb, I personally shall not quarrel with that, but I think the sheep farmers should know where they stand. It is really rather odd, because a short time ago we had a debate in this House during which several speakers emphasised that the deer in Scotland should be reduced in order to increase sheep production. Now we are told that we really do not want increased sheep production. It does not seem to add up.
I cannot help being disappointed that the guaranteed price for wool has been decreased by 2d., though I quite understand the economic reasons for doing this. But, of course, on hill sheep farms it is going to make a considerable difference, and I wonder whether perhaps Her Majesty's Government could not make an exception for hill grazings. It will hardly make any difference to the mixed farmer who has sheep on the low ground, such as in England, but in the Highlands, and on the Welsh hills, too, I suppose, this reduction is going to

877
hurt. Hill farming is quite a struggle even to-day. If we are to keep shepherds on the land, we cannot afford to allow hill sheep farming to run down.
Before I conclude, I should like to point out that during the past year there has been a considerable increase in the prices of goods and services for the farmer, particularly as regards wages. I am sure that no one begrudges the agricultural worker his increase in wages, because he certainly earns it. But to-day the trouble appears to be that even if we pay these good wages, and provide good houses, we cannot keep them on the land. What the answer is, I do not know—perhaps television will help. I think that we ought also to remember that the farmers have been expected to find £8½ million out of their resources to meet these rising costs of last year. However, on the whole, I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their overall policy with regard to the Price Review and Determination of Guarantees—bearing in mind, of course, the wider interest of the national economy and good trade relations with the Commonwealth.
4.48 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, for having initiated this debate. Generally, I welcome the Annual Price Review, though, naturally, with one or two reservations. When I first read it, I was struck unfavourably by paragraphs 11 and 12, but these have been covered so completely by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that I will not go further into them, except to say that I think it is a great pity so much stress should have been laid on "the heavy burden on the taxpayer", and other phrases of that nature, of these grants and subsidies. These grants and subsidies are given partly to ensure that the consumer gets his food at a reasonable price, and partly to enable us to compete with the heavy subsidies paid overseas, which make so cheap our imported foodstuffs. That has to be counteracted by subsidies on this side. Taking them by and large, I think that the production grants and guarantee payments, considering that they have to cover the whole area of farming, with its completely different conditions, act as
878
fairly as they can and are reasonably flexible.
Last year's harvest was as near disaster as any harvest could be, I think. Prices dropped—barley 7s. 9d., oats 6s.—below the standard prices, and the granting of advance payments was a very real help. It probably would be an advantage if cereal grants could be made more in line with production grants rather than guarantee payments, but obviously there are great difficulties in doing that. As regards the subsidy on lambs, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, was dissatisfied because the maximum weights of sheep are to be reduced. Over the last several years, farmers producing lambs have been aware that the market has been getting tighter and tighter as regards sheep that are too fat, and we have been trying to reduce the size.
As regards the Government's wish that there should be more efficiency in the production of mutton, I think it is only fair to the farmer, certainly in Scotland (I do not know about Great Britain), to say that the number of sheep is smaller than it was before the war. But although at the last census the number of breeding ewes was 0.5 of 1 per cent. less than in 1939, the total number of sheep was only 0.2 of 1 per cent. less, which clearly indicates that by improved management and better breeding the smaller number of ewes is producing a larger number of lambs; and that, I think, is the final test of economic and efficient production.
The hill cow subsidy has been discussed by several noble Lords, and I will say no more about it than that, although it is an excellent thing for the real cattle-producing hill land, there is a doubt about the extent to which one ought to increase the number of cattle on the hill sheep land. Here I must be careful, because two organisations of which I am chairman are at present dealing with research into this subject, and are not finally decided on it. But certainly there are indications that there is a definite limit to the number of cattle which can be economically kept on sheep land, largely because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, the hill farmers cannot produce the winter keep and therefore have to dispose of their stock. Indeed, they may even have to dispose of their breeding cows, which makes it a completely uneconomic operation. I have heard it said that the hill

879
cow subsidy was intended in some way as a sop for the removal of the marginal grant to hill farms. I do not know if that is so—I think probably not—but as I took some part in the Second Reading debate on the Small Farmers Bill, I should like to say that I sincerely hope the Government are urgently continuing their investigations to make sure that their policy of M.A.P. grants as regards farms which are truly marginal does not lead to an actual reduction in the number of beef cattle.
I would mention one other point which, though not strictly concerned with the Annual Price Review, gives an indication of the boost given by Government grants. There was a silo subsidy which began to take effect in 1957. In Scotland, the silage made increased from 280,000 to 360,000 tons, apparently as a direct result of that grant. I think that that is another indication that these subsidies are not just gifts to the farmers but have a real effect in improving the standard of agriculture. Finally, I should like to acknowledge my debt to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland for the two excellent publications they issue each year, Agriculture in Scotland and Scottish Agricultural Economics, both of which I have used in the preparation of my speech. They are of great help in following the trends of all aspects of agriculture.
4.57 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I join with every noble Lord who has taken part in the debate in thanking my noble friend Lord Wise, not only for introducing the subject and giving us this opportunity, but also for the way in which he opened the debate. This is the third or fourth time that I have been the last speaker on this side of the House in a debate on agriculture, and I have therefore sat through several of our debates on the subject. I am beginning to think that they are achieving a sort of set pattern. If I were to talk in musical terms, I might be tempted, though I do not want to frighten the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, to think of that piece of music where various instrumentalists, having made their contribution, gradually steal away until there is only one left, and he puts out the candle and goes home. But I will stay with him whatever else happens.
Perhaps the truer analogy in musical terms is that of a suite for solo vocalist
880
and three violinists—the three violinists being on this side of the House. My noble friend Lord Wise, with the sure touch of an experienced virtuoso, opens before our eyes the vistas we have to follow and perhaps achieves his best effects with the use of muted strings. My noble leader comes in with a weighty contribution. He concentrates, as it were, on the G string. I come in at the end of the day pizzicato, with the "twiddly bits". Of course, the solo vocalist is the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave. He is always a pleasant performer, but somewhat handicapped because he has only one song—"Everything in the garden is lovely". Perhaps he has a further handicap in that, although the music to which he sings the song was composed by Mr. Tom Williams, the words are those of the present Minister of Agriculture—and the words do not fit the music. The result is not quite so good as it would otherwise be.
I should like to quote a few examples from the Annual Price Review we are now considering. When Mr. Tom Williams wrote both words and music, the words "determination of guarantees" meant that we determined the actual prices that the farmers would get and we guaranteed them. Under the present Minister of Agriculture these words mean no such thing, though they are precisely the same words. They mean now that the farmer will get just the price which his produce commands in the open market, which in wheat or barley may vary by as much as £10 a ton, according to when he sells or where he sells, and it is absolutely sheer luck in selling early or selling late. There are various other factors over which the farmer, however experienced he is, has no control. For the same quality in the same week there can be a variation of as much as £5 a ton in towns as close together as Salisbury and Dorchester. But I could quote many other things. It is true, of course—and I have no doubt that it will be pointed out—that the farmer receives the same additional sum in subsidy per ton or per acre, but this does not alter the fact that the present system is not a guarantee, but a lottery. I do not doubt, if he makes any reference to this point, that the noble Earl will skip nimbly round it, but he knows as well as I do that the words "Guaranteed Prices" at the head of Appendix 5 are just not true. He knows also that out of this present system

881
springs the worst possible thing for British agriculture—namely, insecurity and uncertainty.
Another word that has a different meaning in these days is the word "subsidy". When we had guaranteed prices the subsidy was the amount by which prices to the housewife were reduced. In those clays subsidies cost £400 million and the taxpayer got full value for every penny. To-day subsidies cost in round terms about £250 million, and the taxpayer does not get one single penny benefit; nor does the farmer. My noble friend Lord Wise made some reference to the figures for net farm income, and I should like to quote two. In 1951 to 1952—that is, the first year of Conservative government—the farmers' net income is listed at £323½ million; this year it is £327 million, which is virtually the same figure. I think that even in terms of a depreciated pound I am correct in saying that that is proof that the £250 million which the taxpayer is paying is not going to the farmer.
But the situation is worse than that, because the pound in terms of 1951 is to-day worth only something like 15s., so that the income of farmers has really decreased by 25 per cent. There is no other industry in the country where anything like that has happened. I say that that, so far as agriculture is concerned, is a measure of the failure of the Government's policy of support prices, and in my view no amount of soft speeches can conceal this grim fact. But the point is that the taxpayer has provided the money; the housewife has not got the benefit in the shape of lower prices, and the farmer has not got the benefit either. There is no doubt, as my noble friend indicated, that the money is going in various ways, to all the intermediaries who have a finger in the pie. As always, the rewards are not going to those who work hardest, the producers, but to people who merely shift things from one place to another; and, in my view, that is quite wrong.
Another word which has a different meaning is the word "efficiency". In the, days of the Labour Government an efficient farmer was one who, in the opinion of his fellow farmers, farmed his land well, and because of guaranteed prices his bigger crops brought the automatic reward of larger profits. The bad or inefficient farmer could be put under
882
supervision, and if he did not make good he could be turned out to make way for someone else. To-day the Government do not know whether a farmer is good or bad. There is no means of knowing that, and there is no criterion of efficiency of individual farmers. All that the Government do is to go on talking about farming efficiency increasing by something like £25 million a year. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, asked the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, specifically whether he could give the figures and tell us how they were arrived at. I wonder whether, in arriving at this, any cognisance is taken of the kind of thing that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned, about somebody's topsoil blowing off on to the road, and whether that is taken as a debit when calculating increased efficiency. I should have thought that that was a most relevant factor when considering the true efficiency of farming.
It is undoubtedly true that some good farmers are producing even better crops. My argument is that they are carrying those, of whom we could all quote examples, who get more from the subsidy than they get from their crop. That is gross inefficiency, and it is grossly unfair to the taxpayer, because the taxpayer carries them and the land suffers. Therefore I think it is wholly wrong for the Government to talk of increased efficiency in this way when they are unable to produce the facts. As I said before in regard to the other matter, the words do not fit the music.
I should like the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, when he deals with the question of efficiency, to make some comment on the anxiety which is felt by a number of farmers about what they allege to be a decline of soil fertility. The noble Earl will be familiar with the correspondence in The Times recently on this matter. I am notsaying—I do not know; I do not think the evidence exists—that there is such a decline, but I am bound to say that some of the arguments put forward are disturbing, such as in one letter, speaking for a good farmer, where it was said:
"We are living on the fat of our fathers and playing forfeits with the future.… With the aid of artificial fertilisers we can continue to take more from the soil than we put back—perhaps for many years—but it must eventually lead to soil bankruptcy. …Fertility—most difficult to define, is the farmer's essential

883
capital: easy to spend and slow to accumulate".
I know that there was a first-class answer in the same correspondence from another gentleman who pointed out that, since crops had been increasing in yield year after year, that in itself was proof that the soil could not be getting less fertile. That may well be the case, but I do not think we should make the easy assumption that, because of the use of more fertilisers, and perhaps improved methods in other directions, the soil is still as fertile as it was. I hope the noble Earl will deal with that point, because if we talk about increasing farming efficiency by an annual rate of some £25 million a year we have to be satisfied that we are not using up the capital which we have in the soil and calling that extra profit.
I want to make one or two observations or the paragraphs dealing with production and guarantee policies under the heading of "Commodity Objectives" on page 4 of the Annual Review. This subject has already been mentioned several times in the debate, but I do not think that these precise points have yet been made. My noble friend Lord Wise has drawn attention to the apparent contradictions between consecutive sentences in paragraph 9. Those consecutive sentences—and they are absolutely consecutive—read like this:
"…no further expansion of gross output is required. Any further expansion…must be achieved through reducing unit costs…".
That appears to be an absurd contradiction. However, I am not so much concerned with the contradiction or its apparent absurdity, as with the fact that, to me, it is an unhappy revelation of the Government's true intentions, as I conceive them. I would ask the noble Earl quite seriously: Does not that paragraph mean that the Government are telling farmers, quite bluntly and in plain English: "However much, through improved methods and better management, you increase food production, you are not going to get any more money."? The global sum is not going to be increased.
I was interested in a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, about eggs. He referred to the amusing and pleasing television advertisements promoting the sale of eggs. He
884
suggested that that would lead to the sale of more eggs, which would mean reduced prices and, therefore, reduced subsidies. Quite the contrary. Selling more eggs will mean increased production, with possibly the same price, but not a lower price, and more subsidy because there are more eggs. It would be distinctly unpopular with the Government.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I referred to a higher price with a smaller subsidy. Increased demand would put up the price of eggs: that is what I meant.
LORD STONHAM: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, but I think he will agree that if the producers sell more eggs it means that they produce more; and if there is a bigger quantity, obviously the total subsidy is going to be more. That is something which will not be popular with the Government. In fact, it is contrary to the policy for which they provide in the White Paper we are discussing.
That is what I think paragraph 9 means, and it is a very unhappy situation. I cannot conceive of any other interpretation of the words in that paragraph—perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, will explain if they mean something different. I do not think he can, however, because the truth of that interpretation is, in my view, proved by the next paragraph, "Commodity objectives", which clearly aims at a static agriculture. There is no doubt about it. In no case is it said that there must be more. It may say, "better quality", but in several paragraphs it says that there must be less produce—fewer eggs, less milk, and so on. Therefore, I think what the Government aim at is, at best, a static agriculture, which is an impossible objective, because nature does not stand still. It would mean that we should be going back.
The Government's aim is "less milk than is at present in prospect". But according to The Times report of the meeting of the Dairymen's Association last week, that Association is seriously concerned at the possibility of a milk shortage this year, because the supply will be insufficient to meet the demand for liquid consumption. They are experienced people, and a difference of 1 per cent. in total consumption could, under

885
certain conditions, mean a shortage. I was surprised to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, as I understood him, express the belief that we appear to be having too much milk.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I was only quoting from the Annual Review. As I understand it, we have too much milk for liquid consumption.
LORD STONHAM: Of course, I do not share the noble Viscount's confidence in the Annual Review. Had I understood that he was quoting that, I should not have re-quoted. Obviously, if an association like the National Dairymen's Association is seriously perturbed that there will not be enough milk, I think we must take cognisance of it, and it casts doubt upon the wisdom of the Government in suggesting that we should produce less milk. In fact, the farmers' increased proficiency has produced more. The Milk Marketing Board, through advertising, has increased the demand for liquid milk, yet the Government, it seems to me, by this policy, are trying to ensure that they disappoint their customers. It is impossible to run a business in that way.
Then the Minister calls for
"continued reduction in costs of pigmeat and further efforts to satisfy market requirements".
But pig-keepers have been doing that for years. Now many of them find that they cannot make it pay, so they are not breeding so many gilts; and before long there will be a lessening of supplies and prices to the housewife will go up. In the bad old days we used to say that pigs were "either muck or money". The Government seem to have decided that they are going to be muck again.
It is not good constantly to frustrate the farmers and disappoint them in this way. As has been mentioned by my noble friend, the Government want less wheat and more barley. The Minister of Agriculture told the corn merchants last week that home wheat-growers were being officially discouraged because wheat is in world surplus. My noble Leader asked what was the reason for this Government action, and that was one of the reasons the Minister gave last
886
week. It now takes half our exports of manufactured goods to pay for our food imports, including animal feedingstuffs. So why increase our burdens by making it likely that we shall have to increase our imports of wheat? The Minister is rightly determined, if possible, to reduce imports of feedingstuffs below last year's £140million level. But why is he at the same time willing to allow wheat exports to be increased? It just does not make sense, unless it is that with wheat at a fair price there is an incentive to achieve high yields per acre. This again will endanger the Government's policy, as I see it, of keeping static the global sum available to agriculture.
In any case, my Lords, a combination of Government policy and weather conditions has already insured a record barley acreage, which is well away despite the Price Review and everything else. I would ask whether the Minister is giving any thought to handling the crop. Half the barley to he sold off farms—that is more than 1 million tons—will have to be cleared before the end of October, since there is no incentive to store and incur drying and handling charges, because it is anybody's guess whether the price will be better in October than in January. When are the Government going to think this one out and put an end to what The Times agricultural correspondent called, "this rather clumsy business"?
Is it any wonder that with this kind of policy—a policy of stop and start, of artificial ups and downs—the farming community have come to the conclusion that the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture should change his theme song from "Everything in the garden is lovely" to, "We don't know where we are"—and perhaps they add, "But we know where we are going". I think the farmers are going to follow the lead of the farmers of South-West Norfolk. They are concerned for the future of the land; they are concerned for their own future, and they are fed up with working harder and harder in order to stand still. I believe that as soon as the chance is afforded them they will work to return to power the Party that I represent, the Party which gave them the best farming policy and the best Minister of Agriculture they ever had.
5.20 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I think I may speak for all noble Lords, and I believe every speaker who has spoken this afternoon has done so, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, not only for raising this debate at all but for the way in which he introduced the subject. I should not like to be the only one who did not join in that tribute, because I certainly appreciated the way in which he introduced the debate. It is fitting that we should have taken this opportunity of giving further consideration to this important White Paper(Cmnd. 696), and I do not think there need be any apology for this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, when he raised a similar debate last November—I do not know whether he remembers—suggested that I should take for my Christmas holiday task the task of working out a new agricultural policy. I cannot believe that he can have been very sanguine in hoping that I would accede to his suggestion, because in that debate I said, as I have said before and will say again, I do not think a new agricultural policy is needed, because I am a sincere—I would say an enthusiastic—supporter of this Government's existing agricultural policy. But I did promise that I would, in the Christmas holidays, as at all other times, think most carefully about our agricultural policy. I did so, and no new policy has turned up in my mind. I do not think the noble Lord will be very surprised. I know a good thing when I see it.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has really in his speech emphasised what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hills-borough, and the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said: that the new policy they hoped I would dream up—I cannot think why they thought Iwould—was the old policy, the old policy of the Labour Party, of fixed prices and controls. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made no bones about that at all. He said that he hoped I would not skip nimbly round this subject. I certainly will not skip round this subject, nimbly or otherwise; I dislike nimbly skipping around. Appendix V of the White Paper to which he took exception is perfectly true. These are the guaranteed prices. The heading of
888
Appendix V was what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, did not like, and it says "Guaranteed Prices". I do not know what else you can call them; they are guaranteed prices. There is no nimbly skipping round about that. They are not fixed prices, but they are guaranteed prices.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps I could make myself quite clear. The noble Earl means that they are guaranteed prices in the sense that they are paper prices, but they are prices which nobody gets.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: But they must get them. They are guaranteed. The difficulty and misconception that so often arises in this matter is that we are not necessarily guaranteeing the individual market payment to the individual farmer. We are taking this as a national farm and the national average, and we are guaranteeing that. Our policy is to provide a system of support for agriculture which will, at the same time, encourage the farmer to produce what the market wants, which must be right, and when it wants it. The noble Lord seems to think that the farmer should be kept out of touch with the market and that the agricultural industry can be healthy and prosperous only if Grandmother Whitehall is standing by to tell them exactly what to produce and how much they should receive for each item, and when, and all the rest of it.
I do not think noble Lords opposite can really believe that the system of controls which is necessary in a national emergency such as war could be reintroduced again to-day. There is no halfway house. The war-time system serves well enough—itis the only system—when overseas food is not available, when supplies are scarce at home, when manpower, money and everything has to be rigidly controlled. In those days it was not a case of guessing what the housewife wanted but of giving her what we could get hold of, and she would be thankful for having anything. That isa system you cannot compromise with. Either you do that all the way through and deprive farmers of any opportunity of dealing with the market and dealing with the housewife as a person who has freedom, or else you do not. I honestly do not believe it would be reasonable to suggest that anybody wants to reincarnate that

889
vast panoply of controls of production, marketing, imports, the doctrine of "Take it or leave it" and "The man in Whitehall knows best". I simply do not believe that that is what the country would stand for to-day.
But we were left in no doubt, I think, that that is what noble Lords on the other side want. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, used the phrase, if I took it right, when he was talking about millers, that we can "force the millers to make do". That is the philosophy with which we on this side will have nothing to do. We are not going to force the millers to make do with anything. We do not think that that applies at all to-day.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my noble Leader, as the noble Earl may not be aware, has had to leave and he hopes to be coming back. On that particular point I heard what my noble Leader said. He was referring to the level of wheat imports and he said that if we had a lower level of wheat imports that would force, if you like, the millers to take a bigger share of British grain; but it is not forcing in the sense of a control of the kind to which the noble Earl referred.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I will accept that fully, but the words were used, and they are implied in all that philosophy that we should have to arrange what people do and not let the market play. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself, talking about efficiency, said that the Government no longer knows what efficiency is. That seems to me to raise the whole point of how you are going to describe efficiency. Under the war-time system the Government officer or the member of the executive committee would go round and assess a farm and say, "You are A, B or C". It was like the difference between judging in a show ring and judging by your bank balance. We have had to learn, as practical farmers, that the show-ring judging is not always what the customer wants or what the bank manager wants. Judging by people going round the country and saying, "You are art A farmer and you are a C farmer" is one way of judging efficiency, which was perhaps the only way then. But our way is quite different, and that is that the business should judge whether it is efficient or not by the criterion of whether it survives, makes
890
profits or fails. That is how we know efficiency, which we think is the better way.
The noble Lord asked me at that point to say whether I had any views on the possibility, or whether it was taken into consideration when we were judging efficiency, of whether the fertility of the soil was running out under the pressure of the farming to-day. I have no reason to believe that the fertility of the soil is running out, and I was inclined, as the noble Lord was, to agree with the second writer in that correspondence that the evidence seemed to be the other way. I would rather not go into that matter in detail, because it may form the subject of debate at another time. I will not say more about this general theory of the difference between controls and our system of the freedom of the market, other than just to refer to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, of the millers making a lot of money as big concerns and the farmers not making so much as small concerns. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, wants me to pursue to its logical conclusions the argument about the difference between sizes of things and the rates of profit. I do not think it would be profitable to do so.
The noble Lord mentioned that in the debate which was held at a very high level last week, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, concerning our financial policy, several agricultural matters were raised and no answer was forthcoming. I hope to try to put that right to-day. Thinking of that, I cannot help reminding myself that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, then used an analogy which I think might be helpful to us this afternoon. He wondered whether we were driving too much on the horn and the brake. Your Lordships will recollect that my noble friend the Lord President of the Council was able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that we did use the horn and the brake on appropriate occasions, and indeed the steering wheel and the accelerator; and in fact that the use of these instruments was obligatory to anybody who wished to keep within the Highway Code. I hope that to-day I may be permitted to carry this analogy into the rural roads of agriculture, where regard for the Highway Code is no less important.

891
The analogy is a good one. It is our aim that we should live in an expanding and prospering national and Commonwealth economy, and that all sections of the national economy should prosper, not one section at the expense of another. Agricultural policy in this country, which is predominantly industrial, must pay due regard to the other users of the economic highway. We do not propose to clear the highway of all home agricultural traffic. We wish to see, and we are seeing, an efficient home agriculture taking its legitimate place—and a large place—in the national scheme of things. We cannot per contra do what the noble Lords, Lord Wise and Lord Stonham asked us to do—namely, to allow agriculture to drive on this national economic highway with its foot on the accelerator, regardless of pedestrians or other traffic the whole time. That is simply not possible and cannot be allowed.
Perhaps the most constant demand from the farming industry all the time over the years is that agricultural policy should not proceed by a succession of violent stops and starts, for agriculture is a long-term business. In this connection I doubt whether the full significance of the 1957 Act, with its long-term assurances, is always fully appreciated. In my view, this measure, which was introduced by my right honourable friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Minister of Agriculture, is of very profound significance indeed, and its value to the industry cannot be over-emphasised.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, spoke of Mr. Amory, when he was Minister of Agriculture, as one who "continuously defended" the subsidisation of agriculture. I was very glad to hear that. But I was expecting the noble Viscount to go on to say that there had been some change—that subsequent Chancellors and subsequent Ministers of Agriculture were not continuously defending this policy. But they are. There has been no change at all. Have noble Lords opposite forgotten that we are still operating precisely the same policy as we were operating when Mr. Amory was Minister of Agriculture? This is his Act that we are operating—the long-term assurances. We are interpreting it in the way that he intended
892
it to be interpreted and it is the noble Lords opposite who are giving it a false interpretation. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I am afraid, fell into this trap as well.
I apologise for having to refer so much to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition who is not here, but who told me he could not be here. It is only courteous to him that I should deal with his points. If I may say so in his absence, he is one of the greatest sinners—or, perhaps I should say, takes that view more strongly than some others. He is always telling us that the purpose of this Act was to give a new stick to the Treasury to knock down the amount of guarantees that the farming community could have every year by 2½ per cent. overall or 4 per cent. on each individual commodity. He always takes that line—he took it again this afternoon. But that is not the intention of the Act. It was not the intention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Minister of Agriculture, and it is not now the intention that the Act should be used in that way. The intention was, and is, that even if the Annual Review shows that farmers' incomes have increased, by reason of increased efficiency, or by the trend of world markets, or by a combination of the two, the guarantees must not be reduced in any year by more than 2½ per cent. overall or 4 per cent. individually. That is a very different thing, and that is what is happening. Admittedly, in the year that has passed, 1957–58, some credence might have been given to that view of the operation of this Act in so far as that Review showed that guarantees ought to comedown. They were reduced, but even then not to the full 2½ per cent. That perhaps gave a little credence to that interpretation of the Act.
But this year the position is entirely changed. We started from the lower point in the guarantees that we fixed last year, but the production figure is healthier; the subsidy bill has fallen, and the farmers' incomes were down because of the difficult year. That is what we started with. It was clear from our review of all the factors, that we ought not to reduce the sums of guarantees at all; and in fact, after much consideration, we decided that the farmers should have a slight increase of £3 million. That surely must, once and

893
for all (it has been raised about three times in this House in three consecutive debates in which I have taken part), remove any misconception that may linger, even in the most suspicious minds, that the 1957 Act was designed automatically to reduce year by year the amount of Exchequer subsidy to the farmer, regardless of what the Annual Review should show.
On that aspect I should like to take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, who thought it a pity that there had to be this bargaining or Annual Review every year. I hope he will not mind my disagreeing rather strongly with him about that. He must see the whole picture as one. We have these guarantees, and it is most important that price and production policy should not run on for too long a time, until it is stale, and then have to be suddenly altered. We have these long-term assurances in the 1957 Act which give us these limits of drop, if there are to be any drops at all, year by year. We could not, therefore, let this policy run on and not have a Review every year. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, does not look upon this Review every year as a sort of Eastern bargaining match, because it is nothing of the sort. The Government determine the prices in the guarantees and the production policy, but they consult the farmers' unions. There is no question here of a bargain. The farmers' unions, quite rightly, put forward all sorts of reasons which, in their view, should be taken into consideration by the Government; but the responsibility for the determination is that of the Government. We are only too delighted when, therefore, we can bear our responsibility conscientiously and fully and yet know that the farmers' unions can agree that what we are doing is right, as they did this year.
Now, if I may, I will turn to the industry's production achievements this year. The net output for 1958–59 is 61 per cent. above pre-war and only just below the record for 1957–58. These results testify to the strength and resilience of the industry, and effectively dispose of any pessimistic suggestion that the industry is waning. As we all expected, in 1958–59 the industry's net income, on an actual basis, fell by some £27½ million to £327 million. There is no attempt in the White
894
Paper to hide that. But may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that he prophesied that the net income would fall to less than £300 million, as he will see from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212, column 814. I am very glad that his prophecy has not been fulfilled. But the fall in the actual net income was more than accounted for by the effects of the weather. It has been said in the debate that people are tired of considering the weather; but of course, we must consider the weather, for farming is an outdoor occupation and the weather must be taken into account.
What we have always said is that neither this nor any other Government can be asked to compensate farmers for the weather, so that these figures have to be turned every year from the actual—that is what happened with the weather, good, bad or indifferent—into a form adjusted to normal conditions. This has been agreed with the National Farmers' Union since this system was started; and it has been agreed with the farming industry that it is absolutely essential that it should be done in this way. When noble Lords say that Tables A and B of Appendix II are more or less completely hypothetical they should remember that those are adjusted to normal weather conditions. They are not meaningless.
Farmers want it done in this way. They do not want us to say, "You have had a very good harvest this year, and we will take the actual income and reduce the amount of grant from the Exchequer." We must put this on to a comparative basis. Table B never coincides exactly with Table A because it is arrived at by a different method—by taking a sample from the 3,600 farms dealt with in the universities' economic survey; but it does act as a useful check; and these two tables are intended only to show the trend. Table A is that of the national farm, and Table B is the sample raised from the 3,600 selected farms. They can do no more—and certainly no less—than to show the trend. The trend is there to see, and it is upwards.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the noble Earl is talking of these tables, but surely the only table which is of any use at all is Table A and the "Actual" figures in its first column.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I cannot think that that is the only table which is of any use at all. That is not so. That table shows the actual income this year—estimated for 1958–59 of course, as the year is not over at the time of the Review—taking account, so far as is possible, of what has actually happened with the weather; but in order to arrive at these price determination guarantees we must have the normal weather conditions. The farmers want it, and so do we. That has been done since the beginning of 1946–47, and we de not propose to change it now. To do that would be to get into deep water, for it would mean making yet another table of real income adjusted to the value of money to-day as compared with that at some other time, which is an exercise noble Lords can do for themselves. We feel that it would be too great a complication if we tried to translate all of these figures. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not do that with his Budget, and we do not feel that we should do it with ours.
I will now go back to my analogy of the highway. The engine seems to be in good running order, and we are on the right road—as I hope noble Lords will agree. It is when we come to the various Review commodities that we find it necessary to make selective use of our metaphorical brake and accelerator. Paragraph 7 of the White Paper, which deals with these things, shows that there has been no sudden change in the general objective. Paragraph 9 refers to the gross and net output, and there we get into another difficulty with which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was troubled: he professed to find it difficult to understand the difference between "gross" and "net". What we are saying in the White Paper is that we must be careful about the expansion of gross output. That means that we already have plentiful supplies of most things and must be particularly careful about producing, for example, more milk, bacon or eggs, especially if those are to be produced on imported feeding-stuffs. What we should be happy to see is an expansion of net output coming from a reduction in unit costs. This is not, perhaps, very easy to understand at first sight, and perhaps I may be permitted to go into this a little more deeply.
896
The term "gross output" is used because we import a large amount of agricultural produce. We import feeding-stuffs, seeds and livestock, from Ireland and other places. When these imported inputs—I must apologise for this jargon—are deducted from the gross output we arrive at what is meant by "net output"; and that is what we want to expand and what we can increase. This increase can be achieved particularly by increasing our production of barley and other feed crops, making better use of grassland (following out the recommendation of the Caine Report) and by producing still more of the store animals that we need. Now your Lordships will see how the policy as set out in the White Paper falls into that picture. Improvements in technical production and efficiency are not enough, however, and it is necessary to have regard to the needs of the market. No industry can go gaily along turning out its products without ensuring that quality and quantity are in line with what the customer wants and is prepared to pay for. The Government guarantee determinations reflect the market prospects for various commodities. They sort out the traffic into different streams, and indicate which routes are clear and which have danger spots; and the position for each Review commodity is set out in the White Paper.
The first to which I should like to refer is beef, which is dealt with in paragraph23 of the White Paper and on which the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, spoke so eloquently.I thought that his speech needed an answer in some detail, which I shall endeavour to give, because I was not entirely happy about some aspects of it. The noble Lord mentioned that he is an expert on cattle-breeding. I know that, and I should not dream of crossing swords with him on that technical subject. Nevertheless, I must cross swords with him on some of his actual statements, and first with regard to what he said about Irish cattle.
He said he was extremely disappointed that we should be letting in those cattle, and that it was a risk we ought not to take. He was anxious that we should not go on raising the price of beef too much and go on raising the price of stores too much to the feeder. Then he suggested we should not let in these Irish cattle. Three hundred thousand a year come in or have been doing so recently. I was

897
in Northumberland yesterday at a big feeders' demonstration. I suppose there were 900 farmers there and they were telling me that there are over 80,000 Irish store cattle going into Northumberland a year.
We shall be fully attested in this country by 1961. The Irish are behind in this matter and are not yet fully attested; and there is no chance that they will be fully attested by 1961. When these very large amounts of cattle are coming in, it would have been a grave responsibility indeed for us to have said that, because we are going to be fully attested in 1961, we are going to ban the import of all Irish cattle as from that date, quite apart from the question of the Irish export trade with us. Where the feeders would have turned to I do not know. I was interested to find that that very large gathering of Northumberland farmers yesterday were unanimously of the opinion that the Government have come to the right decision in allowing these once-tested cattle in. The farmer who takes them will have to face the difficulty and tiresome bother of isolating them for sixty days and submitting them to test, and will be compensated if they fail at the end of it. The noble Lord will be interested to know that in recent years and months not more than about 2 to 2½ per cent. of such cattle from Ireland have gone down to the second test in this country; and that is a risk we must accept. I hope that on further consideration my noble friend Lord Lovat will think that we are doing the right thing here.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I was pointing out that it would be possible with a long-term policy, as opposed to a short-term policy, for people to breed cattle in Scotland which would largely replace unhealthy Irish cattle.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, with that I entirely agree. That is why we have given the noble Lord another £2 on his hill cow subsidy. We want more stores in this country. But the Government must face the responsibility of dealing with the position in 1961 if the cattle are not there and the noble Lord has not bred them in sufficient quantity and people are asking, "Where can we get our cattle from?" We have taken the right decision until we have enough ourselves.
898
My noble friend Lord Lovat also mentioned the calf subsidies. We have, as your Lordships know, in the White Paper increased the steer calf subsidy by 15s. on steer calves born after April 1. The noble Lord made the suggestion that we should give that subsidy instead to calves (I think I noted this correctly) not more than three months old on April 1. I think his reason was that we were going to force farmers to do a bad thing; we were going to force them to calve their cows late so that they could go subsidy hunting, whereas they should calve early, which is good husbandry. I agree it is good husbandry that they should calve their cows early, and I suggest that the 15s. on a steer calf is not going to have this effect of driving farmers to wrench away from the whole of their good husbandry practice, with which they have been brought up from the days when they were children, and turn it into something wrong just to get 15s., which might, after all, be taken away in the next Price Review. I do not think we need worry about that.
I will certainly consider this question of paying the subsidy for a calf which is not more than three months old on April 1; but that would not produce any more calves this year. That matter has already been arranged by nature when the bull went to the cow last summer. What we are trying to do is to encourage farmers to breed calves for next spring, and if they are steer calves they will qualify for the subsidy next spring. We are not looking for a retrospective bonus (one noble Lord referred to a bonus); we are trying to encourage production of more stores next spring, and that is what we think will happen.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, might I interject for one moment? I quite understand that the calf subsidy has to relate to April 1 this year, because the Review does not take effect until April 1. Is there any reason why next year it should not be a month or six weeks or even two months earlier?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we must wait to see what happens in the next Review and what the factors lead us to do. I have said—and I repeat it—that I will consider this suggestion of my noble friend Lord Lovat; and I think

899
that that is perhaps as far as we should go into it.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, may I intervene once again? I referred to all beef calves. I thought the reference to steers was a mistake. In view of the shortage of breeding cows, I included heifers. I thought the matter would be dangerous to enforce.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I tried to meet the noble Lord's point. Now as to the other point he made regarding heifer calves only (I believe my noble friend Lord Stonehaven raised it, too), it is the male calves that are being slaughtered much more than the heifer calves, and we do not think that many heifer calves, except obviously bad ones, are being slaughtered in that way. We do not think there is anything to be gained. We are not giving out bonuses, but trying to direct production into the channels where we want it. We do not think there is anything to be gained. We should simply be giving away taxpayers' money by giving this subsidy for heifers as well. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lovat will agree that I have tried to meet his point. We feel that more beef of the quality wanted by the market is what we must encourage, and we want to encourage the rearing of store cattle. That is why we have to step up those two subsidies.
May I now come to wheat? We feel that the cereal acreage is about right and, given the right conditions, the cereal crops are profitable at the present levels of guarantee. On the right land, wheat is normally a more attractive cereal crop to grow than any other. But wheat has a very high subsidy value in relation to the market value. World wheat surpluses are increasing and we must avoid encouraging over-production here unless we are willing to adopt all these controls, which I have rejected. That is why we made this small reduction in the guarantees for wheat and rye, because rye is a bread grain. This should have the effect of throwing more emphasis on barley and other feed crops and help us to reduce our very heavy bill for imports of feeding-stuffs. We want to encourage greater reliance on homegrown feed for livestock, and that includes grass and forage crops as well as coarse grains.
900
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me about sugar beet. I have here the figures for sugar beet in Norfolk. I really wonder whether he feels he would be justified in pressing for an additional quota in that county. The guaranteed acreage for sugar beet at present is 400,000 acres. About a quarter, just under 100,000 acres, is in Norfolk already. Norfolk also has three (I believe it is three) sugar beet factories, and the British Sugar Corporation tell me that they are not aware of any particular problems in Norfolk. We therefore doubt whether we should be acting in equity or common sense if we were to increase the Norfolk acreage any further or were to give them another factory. They generally overbid their hand, I understand, and ask for more quota than they actually want, and that is perhaps what they were doing this afternoon; but I would not know about that.
I was sorry to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, of the very poor price he has been receiving for his oats, but I can only say that, in our Price Review, we have emphasised again that we want him to grow oats, and we have said that we want—
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: May I interrupt? I did not say that I had been receiving it; I said that I had been refusing it. That is why I and my fellow farmers have not sold.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: That is a very good thing. If you go on refusing that very poor price, then perhaps the price will harden, and that, I am sure, would be a very good thing.
On sheep, the sheep breeding flock continues to increase; and we also expect more plentiful supplies from Australia and New Zealand. Any further expansion in home production of lamb must be related to market prospects. The important thing is to concentrate on getting down costs and meeting consumer needs. Both the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, were worried about this section of the price determination. Lord Massereene and Ferrard asked whether increased production was wanted. I hope he will understand now, from what I have endeavoured to say as to the difference between gross and net output, that increased net production is wanted but

901
that increased gross production is always dangerous in this agricultural business. The important thing is to concentrate on getting down costs and on producing an article which is more what the consumer wants—and we know that the consumer wants the smaller sheep, the smaller joints, and not these big, heavy, wartime sheep. Wool has come down because it was never intended that the guaranteed price for wool should be so much above the world price, but we must resign ourselves to a sizeable Exchequer grant here. I do not think that any noble Lord has raised any question about pigs, so we must all be agreed about that.
On milk, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, spoke with some emphasis; but I preferred the powerful sentiments that were voiced by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, on this subject. I do not wish to add anything to the arguments which he used. Provided that we can supply the milk that is needed for liquid requirements, with a reasonable balance over, that is as far as we should go. Last year, even though the gallonage of milk fell, we had an ample margin. We had 250 million gallons over and above our requirements for the liquid market, out of a total production of something like 2,500 million gallons. When you are running on a margin of 10 per cent., I think that must be considered a safe margin. Every drop of milk that goes beyond that pulls the pool price down and it has to be manufactured in competition with overseas suppliers, many of them Commonwealth suppliers; and we do not feel that we can continually view with equanimity this rise in production of milk.
Lord Alexander of Hillsborough thought that increasing the standard quantity by 7 million gallons was trivial (I think that was his word); but I do not think that that was really a justified criticism. The Milk Marketing Boards are doing their utmost to increase the sales of liquid milk, and in that we want to encourage them in every way. We have never reduced the standard quantity when their liquid milk sales have fallen; and so this year, although the England and Wales Board increased its liquid sales by something like 14 million gallons, we thought it was fair to increase the stan-
902
dard quantity by 7 million gallons, which is not a trivial amount. We have also given them, and the farmers' unions, an undertaking that we will go into the whole question of the standard quantities with the Milk Marketing Boards of the United Kingdom and the farmers' unions.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he picked no quarrel with me about eggs, and that he picked no quarrel with the fact that 50 per cent. of liquid eggs were imported, though he was worried about Polish eggs and he was worried about canned chicken. I have the figures for canned chicken here, and they are rather interesting. The import of canned chicken from China, which is the subject of the question he asked me, from December, 1958, to February, 1959, was 2,200 cwt. Now the import from December, 1957, to December, 1958, was nil, so the percentage increase is considerable. There was no suggestion that this was an undesirable import: I think the noble Lord was simply asking for the facts, and those are the facts. There were 6,713 cwt. of canned chicken from China last year; but, my Lords, let us remember that there was something like 40,000 tons of homegrown broilers, so that is not a very big proportion.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Earl for having provided me with the information, perhaps he will also give us the assurance that he will keep his eye on the figure and see that it does not increase by 2,200 per cent. next year.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am very willing to keep my eye on it, but, as the noble Earl will know, the question of keeping things out is a matter as to which my Ministry has to work in conformity with general Government policy. The anti-dumping legislation is a matter which has to be most carefully handled, after due consideration, and I should not like to comment on what action could or should be taken under that legislation. A case will have to be put forward and made out to my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, for either canned chicken or Polish eggs.
The overall picture then, my Lords, is that we have set the production traffic lights for the time being at green for beef and home-grown feed, including

903
barley and oats; amber for lamb and pigs; red for wheat and milk; and rather a particularly bright red for eggs. But, as I have indicated, this does not add up to a new policy; it does not add up to a "stop and start" policy. It is plain from the industry's reaction that there were no shocks or surprises in all this. Indeed, it is clear that most thinking farmers could see these signals coming. Moreover, the lights are not fixed for all time. Changes may be necessary, and we may be able to alter the lights if the conditions alter. The industry knows that it is necessary to flash the red light sometimes by means of reductions in the guarantees, and that they will always have the safeguard of the long-term assurances of the 1957 Act.
After weighing up all these general conditions of the industry and the national economy, and the various commodity considerations. the Government decided this year on a determination which meant a small increase—£3 million—in the total value of the guarantees. This is some £22 million more than the minimum assured by the 1957 Act. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will remember that. After taking account of the cost increase, about £11½ million on the guaranteed commodities, this year's determination will leave the industry with a very substantial share of the benefit of its increased efficiency. Indeed, the White Paper might be entitled, An Assignment with Efficiency. We have made it clear that we propose to help the industry to continue the steady improvement in its productive efficiency, in its widest sense, and we have given the industry a chance to benefit from that improvement.
At the same time, we hold to the view that, while the subsidy bill is so high, the taxpayer must also share in the benefits of that increased efficiency. I am convinced, therefore, that the Annual Review settlement is fair all round. With the statesmanship we have come to expect from them, the farmers' unions agreed to it. We have mapped out our route for agriculture and we have overhauled the machine. The signals are plain to see, and we must be forgiven if we do not allow ourselves to be led into traffic jams, or even accidents, by noble Back Bench drivers.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to put a question to him. I apologise to your Lordships, as I have not yet taken part in this debate, but the question arose in my mind in the course of the noble Earl's speech in connection with Table A and the difference between the actual net income and the adjustment to normal weather conditions. I have had time during the course of the noble Earl's speech to do a little sum, and I find that out of the thirteen years during which the scheme has been in operation, in six years the figures as adjusted exceeded the actual income; in six years the actual income exceeded the income as adjusted and in one year, if we ignore a mere half million pounds, they "broke even". In the six years it exceeded the adjusted figure, the farmer lost £134½ million, which I think the noble Earl has completely ignored in the Price Review. In the six other years, he gained £57 million, and I take it that this also has been ignored in the Price Review and that the farmer has at least had the benefit of that. But overall he has lost a total of £77½ million. I put it to the noble Earl that the Department, which is now striking an average over thirteen years, is weighting the scales against the farmer in making this adjustment, to the tune of about £6 million a year.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this is a very difficult argument to come at this late time of the evening. The figures on which we determine the Annual Review are adjusted to normal weather conditions of the year under review and do not go back to the years in which prices have been adjusted either up or down. We work on the year under review. That is the only answer I can give the noble Lord, who must draw what inferences he likes from that. He must not think that we are doing this on an average basis.
6.13 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, in closing this debate, I want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I think that the discussion has been well worth while. I would also thank the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, for his remarks, in which he covered considerable ground. I think that he dealt fairly with the debate. I am glad to see that my noble Leader has returned to his place. If he had been here

905
during the last twenty minutes, he would have enjoyed himself and I am sorry that he was not with us.
The noble Earl unwittingly made a point for me on the cost of wheat deficiency payments. He put forward a view which I hold and tried to express this afternoon—namely, that the payment by the taxpayer for wheat is far in excess of what it should be. Part of that payment should be passed on to the millers, to one of whom I referred this afternoon, and it should not be borne by the taxpayers. I should like to see the whole of the wheat deficiency payments done away with and the millers and merchants paying the piper. That may have some effect on the huge profits which I mentioned in connection with one firm. That may come about in the future. The noble Earl talked about motor cars on the highway. That reminded me of the fact that when I went to the station this morning, I found that I had a loose accelerator. That seems to me the position that the Government are in as regards their agricultural policy. With these few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INCOME TAX (REPAYMENT OF POST-WAR CREDITS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments, the said Amendments to be printed.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments, the said Amendments to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it may be of interest to your Lordships to know that it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill to-morrow and to adjourn between 7.0 and 7.30 p.m. and continue the Committee stage on Monday next, April 27. If it should be found necessary, in view of the large number of Amendments, a third day will be made available.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, like the noble Earl, I hope that we can finish in two days, but I hope that he does not mean that we are restricted to the three days to which he refers.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: No, my Lords, we are not restricted, but I should not like to encourage noble Lords to speak more than they need.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the encouragement comes from the Government with a whole list of Amendments. They must really stand up to the position on that and see that noble Lords get a fair deal in the allocation of dates.
LORD REA: My Lords, can the noble Earl say at what time it is expected to adjourn to-morrow, after the adjournment of the debate between 7 o'clock and 7.30?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is expected that the House will rise between 7 o'clock and 7.30 p.m.

LEICESTER (AMENDMENT OF LOCAL ENACTMENTS) ORDER, 1959
6.19 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Leicester (Amendment of Local Enactments) Order, 1959, laid before the House on the 24th of March last, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for detaining the House after a longish debate on farm prices, but I hope that you will bear with me for a few minutes. After you have listened to what I am going to say, I hope that you will consider my action justified. I have been advised that the moving of this Motion is the only

907
method by which I can draw your Lordships' attention to this Order and get it debated.
The Order is laid before Parliament under Section 1 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. If no petitions are presented against it, it comes into operation at the expiration of fourteen days, beginning on the day on which the Chairman's report about the absence of Petitions is laid before both Houses. Therefore my Motion had to be put down this week. This Order does not come before the Special Orders Committee, of which I have the privilege of being a member, because it does not require an Affirmative Resolution. In case your Lordships would like further information about this Order, I may say that there is no power to refer it to a Joint Committee.
I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment how this Order comes to be made. It is made under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, as amended by Section 317 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which provides that the Minister of Housing and Local Government may, on application of the local authority of any district, by special procedure order,
"wholly or partially repeal, alter or amend any local act which is in force in any area comprising the whole or part of any such district which relates to the same subject matters as this Act or to the same subject matters as the Public Health Act, 1936".
I understand that the Minister takes the view that, once it is established that any part of a local Act relates to the same subject matters as the Act of 1875 or the Act of 1936, he is empowered to repeal or amend the local Act, and even parts which do not relate to the same subject matters as those Acts. Moreover, he takes the view, I understand, that "amendment" also includes "addition". Here it is only fair to say that, as a matter of policy and not of vires, he does not, in fact, add to a local Act unless the Act already contains provisions dealing with the same subject matters as the addition.
So, in effect, the present position is that the Minister feels at liberty to use these powers to repeal, amend, or add to any local Act, so long as the local Act contains some provision that relates to the same subject matters as the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Public Health Act, 1936. Therefore, it follows that almost every
908
local Act will qualify for repeal or amendment under this procedure. If the Minister is right—and I am told that he probably is—we arrive at a situation where a Special Order like this is in many respects similar to a Private Bill. Yet it is incapable of amendment when it takes effect, and it is not published with the Statutory Instruments, because it is local. In fact, after the publication of this Order, if anybody wants to find out about it, he has to go to the town hall at Leicester.
I have drawn the attention of your Lordships to this Order because I wish the House to consider the following questions which arise from what I have said. Is this Leicester Order intra vires of Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875? Is it desirable that local legislation should be effected in this way, or does Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, need amendment? Does the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, require amendment? Should such Orders be published in the same way as Statutory Instruments? Should not the Minister justify this particular proposal?—because no one reading this Leicester Order without access to a series of local Acts, starting in 1846, can possibly form any clear idea of what changes in the law are proposed. I am not suggesting that the Minister is making any improper use of his powers. All I am asking is that this Statutory Orders procedure should be inquired into. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the Leicester (Amendment of Local Enactments) Order, 1959, laid before the House on the 24th of March last, be annulled.—(Lord Jesse!.)
6.25 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I thought it might be to the advantage of the House if, for a short time, I intervened in this debate in order to amplify, where necessary, to a small extent what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. Although in this case there may be absolutely nothing wrong, I feel that your Lordships owe thanks to the noble Lord for bringing this matter to the attention of the House; and I hope to show why I think that is so. In amplification, first of all, of the periods to which the noble Lord referred, I would inform the House that the Order was actually laid on March 24; and that can be verified by a glance

909
at the Minutes of the House. It was laid, as the noble Lord said, under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1954, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The next date that matters is April 14, upon which date the two Chairmen certified (and their Certificate was laid on the Table) that there had been since March 24 no Petition against the Order. From that date a further period began to run; that is, the period of fourteen days during which it is open to any Member of your Lordships' House to pray that this Order should be annulled.
LORD REA: Is that fourteen Parliamentary days?
LORD MERTHYR: I was just going to say that this period of fourteen days includes the week-ends, but does not include the Recess. So, in effect, if your Lordships' House sits three days a week it means that there are six days available. To-morrow is the last of those days. because the next and final date is April 27—that is, Monday next—when the period expires, and unless this Order is annulled it becomes law. I thought that those dates might be useful to your Lordships in considering this matter.
EARL WINTERTON: It is not entirely clear. Could such an Order be produced just before the Recess?
LORD MERTHYR: Yes; but the period of Recess does not count. So that really it would not matter if the Order were produced just before the Recess; the House would still have fourteen days after the Recess. But that is not so over week-ends, because the period that does not count is any period of more than four days. That is why there is that difference.
Prior to the year 1945 this sort of thing was clone in quite a different way. It was done by what was called then, as no doubt most of your Lordships will remember, a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill. Such a Bill was subject to the normal procedure of the House in dealing with Bills: three stages in each House, Committee stage and all the rest of it; the ordinary Bill procedure applied. Now, with regard to this Order and all similar Orders, your Lordships will find nothing about them on the Order Paper, as distinct from the. Minutes, unless there is a Prayer for annulment as there is to-day.
910
I would ask this question: Does the House fully appreciate just what can be done by an Order of this nature? It may be that it does fully appreciate it, and if so, no harm will have been done except that a little time will have been taken up this evening. I would ask further: How is a Member of your Lordships' House, or for that matter a citizen of Leicester (and there are, I think, 260,000 of them), to understand what is happening by this procedure? By an Order under Section 4 of the 1945 Act the Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has correctly said, can virtually do anything that could be done by a Private Bill. Flowing from that, various questions arise. In my view the first question which arises (the noble Lord mentioned it) is: Has the Minister acted intra vires the Act of 1875? I agree with the noble Lord that probably he has, but I am advised that the matter is not free from doubt as to whether he has or has not.
May I now briefly state the legal position? As the noble Lord said, under Section 303 of the 1875 Act, the Minister may—and because this is rather difficult I hope I may be forgiven for repeating it—the Minister may, on the application by the Corporation, repeal, alter or amend any local Act which relates to the same matters as the 1875 Act, as amended by the Public Health Act, 1936. Consequently, the Minister says (and I am not blaming him at all for saying so; and I hope I may be forgiven for reading these words because I do not find them very easy myself) that if any part of a local Act relates to the same matters as any part of the 1875 Act or any part of the 1936 Act, he can amend the local Act; he can amend even those parts of the local Act which do not relate to the same matters as the 1875 or the 1936 Acts. I apologise for repeating that, but I do not think it is too easy to take in, although others may be much better at it than I am.
Reflecting upon that, I cannot help thinking of a Bill—and I take this as merely a typical example—which has been before an Unopposed Bill Committee of your Lordships' House all this morning and will be all to-morrow morning, the Bootle Corporation Bill. I should emphasise that I am giving this merely as an example; there is nothing special about it. That is a Bill of 172

911
clauses, and it confers upon the Corporation of Bootle all kinds of powers, as your Lordships will appreciate, of a very miscellaneous character. I ask this question: Is it really the case that all these powers that are being given to Bootle by this House at the moment can be amended in this way by an Order next week, next year, or in ten years' time? It is so. It is a startling fact, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is completely justified in acquainting the House of it, if it did not know it already.
LORD TERRINGTON: It can be repealed as well as annulled?
LORD MERTHYR: Certainly, as I shall show in a moment. The Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has said, is advised that "amendment" includes "addition"—that is, addition to a former Act, and I am not quarrelling with that decision. But I say that that makes it all the more necessary that the House should look closely at this Order before deciding not to have it annulled, because under this procedure surely there are very few local Acts that have ever been passed which could not be amended in this way.
As to the doubt, if there is a doubt—I say this with the greatest respect—your Lordships might like to have the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, if he would be good enough at some time, and if he has time, to give this matter his attention. I, for one, should greatly appreciate it if the noble and learned Viscount could look into this matter, even if there is nothing whatever wrong about it—as may well be the case—and if he could, shall I say, enlighten the House to a further extent about it.
Next, I venture to say that the result of all this is somewhat startling, and because it is startling I feel that the House should know about it, and, as I have said, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. In the meantime, as the noble Lord has informed your Lordships already, the only thing that can be done is either to do nothing at all or to annul this Order—and that can be done only before the end of this week. The Order cannot be referred to a Select Committee; it cannot be referred to any Committee at all; it cannot be referred to the Chairman of Committees. The House cannot do anything
912
about it except annul it. It might appear to a person who has not been accustomed to these things as if I were saying something new. I own at once that I am not saying anything new, because this has been the case since 1875. But owing to the nature and length of this Order, I nevertheless feel, in spite of the fact that there is nothing new about what I am saying, that I am perhaps justified in bringing it up again.
If your Lordships would be good enough to look at the Order, I should like shortly to point out one or two things about it. Under Article 4 of this Order, with which one should look at the Schedule, your Lordships will see (and I should like to inform the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, about this) that twenty-nine local Acts and one local Order are wholly or partly repealed, beginning with the Leicester Corporation Act, 1846. All the subsequent Articles are amendments to these local Acts, and these amendments take the place of the sections of the Acts which they amend or displace. Either that, or they are additions to local Acts; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, rightly said, it has been held that amendments include additions. I would point out how difficult it is under this Order to discover which are additions and which are not. How is a citizen of Leicester really to tell that?
Articles 7 to 9 of this Order, which deal with fire prevention, replace Section 53 of the Leicester Corporation Act, 1956, although I think there is nothing in the Order which indicates that. They follow Section 64 of the East Ham Corporation Act, 1957, but they do not follow it exactly. They differ from that section; and of course the temptation is to ask why they differ. I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will explain it to the House, because, there being no Committee before whom this Order can come, there is no opportunity to ask why there is this difference between the Leicester Corporation Act, 1956, and the East Ham Corporation Act, 1957. Why the difference? There are many other similar questions which a Committee would have liked to ask, and would have asked if they had had the opportunity. But, as I have said before, there is no Committee before which this Order comes, and no Committee who can ask the questions.

913
I invite your Lordships' attention to Article 12. This is the very familiar point enacting that briquettes may be sold by number instead of by weight. That comes in Bill after Bill in your Lordships' House at the present moment—and there is nothing surprising about it at all: and it will come up to-morrow morning in the Bootle Corporation Bill. But the question arises from that: Why, or how, is it possible for the procedure to be so different to do exactly the same thing? Again to take the Bootle Bill merely as an example, whereas people have to come before the Committee of the House with this clause and run the gauntlet of that Committee, and, indeed, of the whole House and of another place in order to provide that briquettes may be sold by number instead of by weight, Leicester, doing precisely the same thing, can do it by persuading the Minister to make an Order which cannot be questioned in any respect.
Article 14 deals with the exciting subject of sending interest warrants by post. The point I want to make about that article is that there is in existence a model clause dealing with exactly the same point; yet this Order does not follow the model clause. Again I should very much like to know why. That again, of course, is a question which any Committee which dealt with this Bill would almost naturally ask; and it is a question that is asked almost every day in your Lordships' House.
LORD SILKIN: May I just ask the the noble Lord whether he has any reason to believe that the Minister who approved this Order has not asked all those questions and got satisfactory answers?
LORD MERTHYR: No, my Lords, I have no reason to believe that; I simply do not know. I am just trying to make the point that possibly your Lordships in this House may like to know, remembering that no Committee of the House has had an opportunity of asking those questions. There is also the point, which of course Committees are always after, that if possible they like to achieve a measure of uniformity. It is not always possible to have uniformity between one place and the next, but other things being equal it is desirable—I am sure that will be agreed—to have uniformity in a question like this. But, of course, if an Order
914
like this departs from the model clause we lose that uniformity.
Perhaps your Lordships will now be good enough to look for a moment at Article 17. I would merely ask the question: Is the import of Article 17 absolutely plain to every Member of your Lordships' House? If it is, well and good, and I will pass from it. But neither this Order nor the 1953 Order which this Order amends are published in the volume of Statutory Instruments, as the noble Lord, Lord Jessel said. Therefore they really are, to put it mildly, extremely inaccessible. All I will say about Article 18 is that it effects a very slight alteration in a criminal offence. I wonder whether it is a satisfactory way of altering, however slightly, the criminal law. We are always told that ignorance of the law is no excuse in a criminal charge, but I wonder what a man in Leicester would say if he was told in court not only that, which he might have been told before, but also that be ought to have read the Leicester (Amendment of Local Enactments) Order, 1959.
I will pass to Article 20. This gives a power, which I am told is quite new, to enter premises. That may not sound very alarming, but I think I may say that in this country power to enter private premises is not readily given without scrutiny. Here there can be no scrutiny at all; yet this is a new power that is being given.
My Lords, those are only some of the questions that one could ask about this Order. I do not want to over-emphasise this case and spoil it by doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has asked some pertinent questions which I shall not repeat, but I venture to say that if your Lordships would be good enough to consider the answers to his questions the time spent in doing so will not have been wasted. I would add one final question—he did mention it, but I should like to emphasise it a little more. In addition to all the questions which the noble Lord asked and suggested that the House might put to itself, I think that this House ought to consider whether the particular proposals of this Order are justified, because that is the sort of thing that a Committee of your Lordships' House would have asked itself, and other people, if the Order had been before it in the shape of a Private Bill. I naturally anticipate that the noble Earl who is to reply will satisfy

915
your Lordships in all respects that the whole of this Order is justified in order to persuade the House not to annul it.
Finally I would add that I know that there are many precedents for the action taken by the Minister. I am not suggesting for a moment that there is anything dreadful about it, and I hope what I have said does not make it appear so. My sole purpose this afternoon in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, in raising this matter is to ask the House whether they consider that if they passed this Order into law the machinery by which these things are done is completely justified and proper, or whether it does, as the noble Lord suggested, need some looking at and possibly some amendment. If the noble Lord has done nothing else I think he has done a public service in raising, the matter this afternoon.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I understand that this Order is issued by the Minister. Recently I sat on a Select Committee There was a dispute between two local authorities. In that particular case the Select Committee went against the Minister's request or opinion. Is it therefore possible for the Minister to revoke the decision of the Select Committee and this House by issuing an Order similar to this?
LORD MERTHYR: May I answer the question, my Lords? If the proceedings of the Select Committee to which the noble Lord referred resulted in legislation, which I apprehend they might well do, then, as I understand the position, certainly the Corporation might apply to the Minister, and the Minister, if he agreed with the Corporation, could issue an Order repealing that legislation.
LORD SHEPHERD: In other words, the Minister can override the opinions and decisions of both Houses of Parliament?
LORD MERTHYR: Unless of course the Minister's Order is annulled by the House.
6.49 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am sure we should all agree that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has performed a very useful service in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House, late though it may be. I would suggest, however,
916
that the noble Lord has raised a general point and that it is only incidental that the Leicester Corporation are involved. The question which Lord Jessel has raised is one of procedure, and one, I submit, entirely independent of the merits or de-merits of the Leicester Order, which, after all, has, quite properly within the powers conferred upon him, been examined and approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the Act of 1875. The real question before us, I think, is whether this procedure circumvents the ordinary Private Bill procedure, and, if it does, as clearly it does, whether there are grounds for amending this procedure, which has, let us remember, been in operation, as the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees said, since 1875. It was extended in its application by the Special Procedure Act, 1945, which in turn was extended by the Special Procedure Act, 1949. I was interested to note that the noble Lord the Lord Chairman referred to the Public Health Act, 1936; so it seems that both Parties, and at one time or another both Party Governments, have been concerned in this procedure.
I would, however, suggest to your Lordships that we should not out of hand condemn this procedure. The noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees will, I am sure, recall that the 1955 Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, of which he and I were members, considered this procedure and made a recommendation that it should be applied in certain cases to what would otherwise be Private Bill procedure. If I may, I will read the recommendation to your Lordships. It appears at page xix and is numbered 75. It says:
"One witness suggested that enabling legislation should be introduced to extend the procedure under the Act of 1945, somewhat on the lines of the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, so as to enable uncontroversial model clauses (after reference to a Joint Committee and redrafting if necessary in consultation with the interests concerned) to be made applicable by 'Special Procedure Order' to any local authority. It would thus be possible for powers, which have been explored and developed by pioneer local authorities to the point of becoming almost invariably unopposed, to be easily and cheaply extended to local authorities generally. The adoption of this method would also probably help to lessen the pressure on parliamentary time, and the Committee accordingly recommend that the Government should accept the proposal".
Then, at pages 432 to 434 will be found a full explanation of the procedure

917
referred to in Recommendation 75. From this one can discern that there were a number of Orders which were reported without amendment, a number of Orders reported with amendment, and there were five cases up to February, 1955, of annulment.
I think I can fairly say that whilst my noble friends on this side of the House would not wish to do anything to curtail or circumscribe the proper facilities available to local authorities to obtain the powers necessary for the discharge by them of their statutory duties, we should welcome any proposal to inquire into the situation which has been perhaps a little too graphically revealed by the comprehensiveness of the Leicester Order, in order that the rights of both Houses of Parliament may be properly safeguarded in regard to the conferment of powers upon local authorities.
I personally would regret very much if the House should decide to annul the Leicester Order. I think it would be unfair to annul it by reason of the doubts we have about a procedure which, after all, has been in operation for a very long time. Many local authorities have enjoyed the benefits of the simplified procedure, and I think it would be unfair to Leicester to annul the Order. It seems to me that we can readily assent to such a proposition as was put forward by the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that he might be willing to inquire into the whole matter, although I am sure that we should all feel a little striken in our consciences in passing any further duties and responsibilities on to the shoulders, broad as they may be, of the Lord Chancellor.
While we would associate ourselves with an inquiry into, or a review of, the procedure and its applicability—and it may well be that having regard to one Joint Committee which is otherwise sitting this is not an unfavourable time so to do—we hope that in so doing we shall not annul the Order to the disadvantage of Leicester. Although there are a number of powers which are pretty comprehensive, it does not seem to me that any great mischief can result from allowing Leicester to have the Order which the Minister has approved. At the same time, we should inquire into the correctness or otherwise of, or the need or otherwise for, the amendment of the present procedure.
6.58 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this small debate but for the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, gave to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. If I understood him aright, it amounted to this: that if a Select Committee considering a Petition and possible objections comes to a certain finding, then the Minister can, in spite of that finding, make an Order in effect repealing the decision of the Select Committee. If that be so, it appears to me that it is putting a somewhat dangerous power into the hands even of a Minister, if a Select Committee representing one or other or possibly both Houses comes to a finding after hearing the appropriate evidence. I should very much like the noble Earl who is to answer this small debate to confirm or otherwise that a decision arrived at by a Parliamentary Committee, Select Committee or otherwise, is not final, but that it is liable to be repealed by the Minister himself.
6.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think your Lordships are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for so effectively bringing to your Lordships' attention the possibility that amendments or alterations to local Acts may under our existing practice in certain circumstances take place without the Parliamentary scrutiny which your Lordships might think desirable. This Leicester Order is made under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, as subsequently amended, which gives power to the Minister in certain circumstances to amend or repeal the local Acts of a local authority on the application of the authority.
While without notice I would hesitate to give a specific answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, the answer seems to be that these amendments could be made to an Act which had been passed after the scrutiny of a Select Committee and approval by both Houses of Parliament—of course, on the request of the local authority. The House is also grateful to the Lord Chairman of Committees for the advice which he has given. He very largely covered that point in the first part of his remarks

919
when he dealt with the precise circumstances in which the Minister considered that action was intra vires or ultra vires on his part.
Originally these Orders were Provisional Orders which had to be confirmed by an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord the Lord Chairman referred to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, which laid down a different procedure for certain kinds of Order, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Latham, pointed out, that was not applied to Orders published under the Public Health Act until 1949. I believe your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, for reminding the House of part of the evidence given at that time that this would effect a great saving of Parliamentary time and would add to the smoothness of local administration.
Since 1949 there have been, on an average, some five or six of these Amending Orders every year which the Minister has approved without their being referred to a Select Committee of either House. That has been going on for ten years and no one has taken any exception to it until now. I believe the reason why this Leicester Order has attracted so much attention is because of its great length and comprehensiveness; Leicester Corporation have taken the opportunity of making a very large number of amendments in their local laws, going back for more than one hundred years.
In so far as these Orders under the Public Health Act amend without further scrutiny local Acts which have been (as has been pointed out) subjected to careful scrutiny by the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees and by a Select Committee—as in the present Bootle Provisional Order Bill which is now being considered and which has been referred to—my right honourable friend appreciates the reasons why your Lordships have expressed concern about she present procedure. Her Majesty's Government feel that a case has been made out for a fresh examination of this procedure and I am able to give your Lordships the assurance that this will now be put in hand.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in what he said about the difference between the principle which we are considering and this particular
920
Order put forward by the Corporation of Leicester. It seems to me that it would be extremely unfair to the Corporation of Leicester if, because of our concern about the general principle which Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to re-examine, we were to refuse to approve this Order, for that Corporation has very carefully and scrupulously observed the existence of the law which Parliament laid down ten years ago and which has been continually practised since, and in doing so they have taken the opportunity to make a very large number of much-needed and in some cases long-overdue amendments to their existing laws.
The Lord Chairman suggested that your Lordships might not wish to approve this Order unless every provision in it—and he referred to some of the Articles—could be thoroughly understood by every one of your Lordships. This is perhaps a rather exacting demand; after all, an opposed Provisional Order or Private Bill is referred to a Select Committee and not every one of your Lordships is expected to be able to devote to it enough time to make himself thoroughly familiar with every clause in a local Act of that kind. That is the whole reason why subcommittees are appointed: to deal with the kind of legislation with which it is not reasonable to expect everyone to be able to acquaint himself.
This Order, which the right honourable gentleman the Minister has, of course, considered very carefully, is nothing more than a step in the direction of simplifying the Corporation's large and comprehensive mass of local legislation. Its effect is to repeal a large number of obsolete provisions, to re-enact some in more modern form, and to make minor modifications in others which have not been found to work properly. This Order does not contain anything which is new independent legislation. In fact some fourteen other suggestions made to the right honourable gentleman the Minister were rejected by him because he was doubtful about them on that score.
I hope very much, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, will accept the assurance I am able to give him on the part of my right honourable friend that this matter of procedure will be immediately re-examined and that Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate your Lordships' anxiety about the rights

921
of Parliament in this matter. Her Majesty's Government are grateful to your Lordships for pressing the matter upon our attention. It is hoped that in the meanwhile your Lordships will not allow the immediate interests of Leicester, who have behaved with perfect constitutional propriety in this matter, to suffer by opposing the much-needed amendments to their local laws for which they are asking.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, while I do not wish to do anything to jeopardise the position of this particular Order, a point occurs to me, in regard to Article 12, for example, which says in paragraph (1):
"Notwithstanding anything in Section 124 of the Act of 1956…".
Had a different procedure been adopted, someone might have petitioned against a provision of that kind in this particular Order; and under this procedure apparently no one has had an opportunity of doing so. One has the feeling that there is a looseness, a slackness, somewhere in the power of Members of Parliament to scrutinise the demands that local authorities are making, in all good faith if you like, by way of local enactments. We have the assurance of the noble Earl that this will be inquired into and I, for one, would want to do nothing to oppose this Order.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Under the existing procedure everybody has an opportunity of lodging an objection. The period of fourteen days, to which the Lord Chairman referred, may be considered rather too short, but the opportunity is there. It is only in the case of unopposed Private Bills or unopposed local Orders that this difficulty arises. If anybody should oppose such a Bill or Order, or make any objection at all to it, it would then go to a Select Committee. I have no doubt, however, that the points raised by the noble Lord will be looked into when the question of procedure is examined.
7.9 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have
922
taken part in the debate: it is obvious that there is a good deal of anxiety on both sides of the House about this procedure. I would particularly thank the Lord Chairman of Committees for his intervention. He is an expert and I am an amateur. I was very grateful for that powerful support. I should also like to thank the noble Earl for his reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which I know he has made at very short notice, and I can assure him that it is not my intention to embarrass the Corporation of Leicester. He has given the assurance I wanted: that this procedure will have fresh examination by Her Majesty's Government; and that is really all I wanted. So, my Lords, with the permission of the House, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  TOWN-BRED PIGEONS
  TOWN-BRED PIGEONS