Sitting of 5 May 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ETC.) BILL (By Order)
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (FULLBRIDGE, MALDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOUTHERN CAMEROONS

    Man of War Bay
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ensure that Man of War Bay in the Southern Cameroons will not be converted into some form of naval base.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): There has never been the slightest intention of establishing a naval base at Man of War Bay.
    Mr. Tilney: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that various Cameroon
    1228
    politicians have thought there was, but that anyone who has been in Man of War Bay would agree that it is extremely unsuitable for any form of naval base?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I think that is so.

    United Kingdom Expatriate Officials (Premier's Statement)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the recent statements made by the Premier of the Southern Cameroons criticising the activities of United Kingdom expatriate officials; and whether, in order to maintain confidence in the public service, he will call for the withdrawal of these statements.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I have seen Press reports of the Premier's remarks and have asked for a report.
    Mr. Pannell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such remarks have a most discouraging effect on British officials in West Africa, many of whom will be required to serve in these countries after they have attained independence?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes. We will inevitably have a very difficult problem of staffing on the separation of the Southern Cameroons, and certainly if these remarks were made I would very much deplore them.

  NIGERIA

    Widows and Orphans (Pensions)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Federal Government of Nigeria has now taken back into revenue the £4,900,000 of the widows' and orphans' pension scheme which was thought by the overseas service to have been funded in 1954
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Yes, Sir. At the same time the Federal Government have introduced a Bill to bring the level of supplementary pensions payable to widows and orphans up to the level of those payable to retired officers; to authorise the Governor-General to increase supplementary pensions whenever retired officers' pensions are increased; and to charge pensions and

    1229
    supplementary pensions on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation.
    Mr. Tilney: While welcoming any increase in the somewhat low pensions, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would confirm that there will be no diminution in security for the widows of the civil servants concerned?
    Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I can certainly do that. Indeed by the Answer I have given, undertaking that pensions can be increased in the circumstances I have mentioned, there is an added advantage to these people.

  THE WEST INDIES

    Missile Tracking Stations
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of missile tracking stations in the United States bases in British-controlled territories in the Caribbean area; in which territories they are situated; and if the agreement of each unit Government has been sought and obtained to the continued existence of the stations.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: There are eight missile tracking stations in British islands in the Caribbean area. Four are in the Bahama Islands and one each in the Turks and Caicos Islands, Antigua, St. Lucia and Trinidad. The prior agreement of the Governments concerned to the establishment of these stations was obtained in each case except Trinidad, where the United States already had the right under an existing agreement to establish the station, and the Government was notified that the United States were exercising that right.
    Mr. Royle: Does not this show a rather large hold on the part of the United States in a British territory? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the forthcoming tripartite conference has as its aim the ceasing of these tracking stations and also whether every territory will be represented at the conference to put forward the point of view of the individual islands?
    Mr. Macleod: There is a difference between the Trinidad station and the other seven which I have mentioned. The other seven purely collect informa-
    1230
    tion from the missile as it passes from the long-range proving ground. The Trinidad installation is more strictly concerned with defence, and that is why the United States had the right to put an installation there under the 1941 Agreement. The talks under the 1941 Agreement which are to take place will be tripartite, but I understand that the deputation from the West Indies will include representatives of the unit Governments.

    Financial Aid
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total financial aid extended to territories in the Federation of the West Indies during the past three years; how this was allocated; and what proposals have been made in respect of developing light industries in the smaller islands for which funds were not granted.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Approximately £9·1 million of Colonial Development and Welfare Funds and £6·58 million of other United Kingdom grants and loans were issued for the benefit of the Federation during the three years ending on 31st March, 1960. In addition £2 million was advanced to the Colonial Development Corporation for projects in the Federation. The detailed list of allocations is very long and I am with permission circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have asked the administrators of the small islands for the information required in the last part of the Question and I will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that there is a great desire and demand for light industries in some of the smaller islands, particularly Grenada? Is anything being done to meet this desire and demand, particularly in view of the fact that otherwise they will have to depend largely upon agriculture?
    Mr. Macleod: There is always a danger in all countries, including this country, that those areas which have large populations and are, perhaps, more prosperous than others, will attract new industries. I agree that we will have a clearer idea of the picture when I receive the information for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.

    ISSUES OF COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE FUNDS

    Administering Authority

    1957–58

    1958–59

    1959–60

    £

    £

    £

    Antigua

    265,938

    197,100

    103,483

    Barbados

    165,544

    88,861

    167,742

    Cayman Islands

    18,300

    25,600

    20,500

    Dominica

    105,702

    407,286

    232,293

    Grenada

    126,776

    83,523

    288,338

    Jamaica

    569,358

    716,821

    1,380,348

    Monserrat

    41,840

    62,222

    93,220

    St. Kitts

    67,829

    133,691

    191,957

    St. Lucia

    415,654

    261,970

    310,425

    St. Vincent

    102,368

    357,631

    293,946

    Trinidad

    78,145

    41,917

    491,936

    Turks and Caicos Islands

    10,950

    67,794

    13,094

    West Indies Federal Government:

    —

    44,450

    30,700

    University College of the West Indies and University College Hospital, Jamaica

    330,680

    238,325

    465,292

    2,299,084

    2,727,191

    4,083,274

    £9,109,549

    Federation
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the progress of the Federation of the West Indies and the nature of the criticism and complaint made by the Trinidad Government against the Federation.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The constitutional progress of the Federation depends essentially upon whether the political leaders of The West Indies can resolve the differences which emerged at the Conference of West Indian Governments last September. I understand that this conference is to be reconvened in the near future.
    During the past few months the Premier of Trinidad has made public statements criticising the Federal Government for lack of co-operation with the Trinidad Government on various issues, particularly the revision of the United States Bases Agreement, the development of direct Trinidad-Venezuela relations, and the delay in achieving independence. The Prime Minister of the Federation has broadcast a reply to these statements.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that one of the criticisms made by political leaders in Trinidad is that the existing Federal Constitution does not allow for the advent of independence such as has been achieved in other ex-Colonial Territories? In the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, is that true or not?
    Mr. Macleod: I do not know whether that particular criticism is true or not. What I hope to see is the reconvening during the summer of the Government delegations to discuss independence. I hope that we can move fairly swiftly thereafter if agreement is reached there.

  KENYA

    African Tenants, Nairobi (Notices of Eviction)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of African tenants who have been threatened with eviction by Nairobi City Council; and the reasons why they have been so threatened.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Although about 1,200 African tenants have been served
    1234
    with eviction notices for non-payment of rent, I am informed that first indications are that the serving of notices has led in most cases to payment.
    Mr. Swingler: A report in The Times showed more than twice that number. Was that report incorrect? Does this situation have anything to do with the reports and rumours about unemployment and under-employment in Kenya, about which many people are gravely concerned?
    Mr. Macleod: My information is from the Kenya Government, but I will check it, in view of the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It is quite likely that one of the main reasons has been the influx into Nairobi, which has probably led to pressure on people to take in families and relatives. We will probably know that more clearly when we get the report on unemployment and under-employment in Kenya.

    Jomo Kenyatta
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in order to reassure public opinion in Kenya, he will make a statement of his intentions regarding the release of Jomo Kenyatta.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Governor stated on 31st March that he remained of the view that in prevailing circumstances the release of Jomo Kenyatta would be a danger to security. I am firmly convinced that his return to normal life in Kenya would in present circumstances bring a direct threat to the maintenance of law and order and thereby would prejudice the fulfilment of our recent decisions for orderly advdnce in that territory. I therefore fully endorse the Governor's decision.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give considerable satisfaction in Kenya and do much to restore confidence, particularly of African government servants of the Kikuyu loyalists.
    Mr. Macleod: I think that it should be said that there is nothing particularly new in my reply. I have made it at least half a dozen times.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account the not inconsiderable public opinion in

    1235
    Kenya and here that Jomo Kenyatta, having been sentenced and punished, and having served his punishment, should now be regarded as, and should be, a free man?
    Mr. Macleod: When I last replied to that question about two weeks ago I said that this case, like all others, is kept under review by the Governor, and that is the position. But there are very special circumstances surrounding the detention of this man, and there never has been any disagreement between the Governor and myself as to how this case should be treated.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to what these special circumstances are, so that we can understand what would be the special danger to security if this very old and very sick man were allowed to return to normal life? When the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) reassures the right hon. Gentleman about public opinion in Kenya, will he bear in mind that that is the public opinion of only one section of the population?
    Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Member paid a visit, as I did quite recently, to the Kikuyu reserve he would find that what he says about African opinion is by no means true. As far as I know—and the last report I had was only a few weeks ago—Jomo Kenyatta is in very good health indeed. He was charged with the offence of organising Mau Mau, was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment on that charge. He was subsequently restricted by an order of the Governor, following a recommendation of the court. That is the position, and I think that people who know the circumstances in Kenya think that these are special circumstances which must be in the mind of the Governor.

    Mau Mau (Historical Survey)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the official report on Mau Mau in Kenya will be published.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Mr. Corfield hopes to complete the editing of his historical survey of the origins and growth of Mau Mau today or tomorrow. In view of the importance of the subject, I am arranging for it to be published as a Command Paper. This will inevitably
    1236
    mean a delay beyond what would be necessary for its publication in Kenya alone, but I hope that it will be available before the end of the month.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports that the original version of the Corfield's Report included allegations that certain hon. Members had in some way been associated with Mau Mau? Will he assure the House that when it is produced the White Paper will be a full, uncensored version, so that the Members concerned will have a full opportunity of replying to the unwarranted sneers and innuendoes?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that the hon. Member had better wait to read it before he makes observations of that sort. The position is, as the Attorney-General in Kenya made clear, that Mr. Corfield is doing the editing and any changes made will be only in agreement with the Attorney-General. There is no question whatever of modifying the strength of the Report, either against individuals or against the Mau Mau movement itself. As the Attorney-General made dear, it is only on matters such as organisation of intelligence and the names of witnesses that Mr. Corfield is undertaking the editing mentioned.
    Dame Irene Ward: When the Report is published, does my right hon. Friend intend to release for publication the evidence on Mau Mau, which evidence was previously restricted to the Library of the House of Commons? Is he aware that the decision, because of its horrors, to restrict that evidence to the Library of the House did not permit the public to know the detestation of Mau Mau which is felt by most people who know anything about it?
    Mr. Macleod: I think that my hon. Friend will find that many of these matters are covered in the Corfield Report. Perhaps I should make it clear that the Corfild Report is not something related in any way to any recent events which may have taken place, but was called for by the Legislative Council in Kenya in December, 1955, and has taken four years' preparation.

    Africans, Nairobi (Unemployment)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present degree of African unemployment in Nairobi;

    1237
    and what steps are being taken to cope with this problem.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I am asking the Government if figures of African unemployment in Nairobi can be provided in advance of the findings of the current survey on unemployment and underemployment in the Colony, and if so, I will circulate a further reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Further special measures to cope with the problem in Nairobi and elsewhere will be based on information obtained by the survey. But it is the Kenya Government's policy to increase employment opportunities everywhere in the Colony through its development plans, while landless ex-detainees and others are helped by the various resettlement and relief schemes.
    Mr. Wall: If the figures are as disquieting as I fear they will be, will my right hon. Friend consider setting in motion a public works programme which might have to have financial backing from this country?
    Mr. Macleod: I will consider whether, and if so in what way, we can help when I have had these figures.
    Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a constant flow of people into Nairobi to look for work and that if some action is not taken by the Government of Kenya, possibly with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, perhaps through public works as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) suggested, the effect in Nairobi will be very serious? Is he aware that the authorities in Nairobi are very concerned about the growing figure of unemployment in that part of Kenya?
    Mr. Macleod: I agree that this is a serious and worrying problem. It is largely because of that that the special investigation called for by the Kenya Government is taking place.
    Mr. F. Harris: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is possibly the most difficult problem facing Kenya at the moment and will he do everything possible to urge forward further employment in Nairobi and Nakuru?
    Mr. Macleod

  HONG KONG

    Accident (Chinese Woman's Death)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will urge upon the Hong Kong Government the need to hold a public inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the death of a Chinese woman, Ng Sam Mui on 23rd January last, after she had been knocked down by a tram-car, particularly since the jury at the coroner's inquest criticised the action taken in the casualty department of the Queen Mary Hospital.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: No, Sir. In view of the official investigations already made into the circumstances of this case, there seems to be no occasion for a further inquiry.
    Mr. Rankin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather remarkable that this woman, who was supposed to have been competently examined physically, returned six hours later to the hospital and died within forty-eight hours, when it was certified that she was suffering from multiple fractures of the ribs, laceration of the brain and general injuries? Does it seem as if the original examination was competent? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has caused much comment? Will he think again about making closer inquiries?
    Mr. Macleod: It is precisely those matters which were the subject of the departmental investigation. The result of that was made public and the question of whether the delay in her admission had any effect upon her chances of survival is essentially a matter for professional judgment and opinion. I do not see how a further inquiry could add to our knowledge.
    Mr. Rankin: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed? The admission of the person concerned was not delayed. She was taken immediately after the accident to the Queen Mary Hospital, dismissed after what was called a sufficient physical examination, and readmitted six hours later.
    Mr. Macleod: That, of course, is true. I have telescoped two events into one. I was talking about the question of her second admission for treatment. The departmental investigation concluded that there was no medical evidence to support the suggestion which the hon. Member is making.

  BRITISH HONDURAS

    Fanners (Resettlement)
    Mr. Chatawayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what approaches have been made by the United Kingdom Government to other Governments and interested institutions to explore the possibilities of establishing an organised scheme for the resettlement of suitable farmers in British Honduras.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Before it is possible to make any definite approaches in this matter much preliminary groundwork must be completed, in assembling information on such things as the size of holdings and the type of farming which is best suited to the conditions, the type of organisation which will handle the work of settlement and the physical establishing of settlers, and the financial and other terms on which immigration can be organised. This work is now in hand.
    Meanwhile, inquiries have been received from a number of Governments and we have been in touch with the World Council of Churches about the problem.
    Mr. Chataway: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Downie Report, in its general conclusions, that there can be no development of this territory without substantial immigration? After years of such recommendations, does not he also agree that this is now a matter for urgent action, and that it would be reasonable for the territory to hope that immigrants will arrive in the fairly near future?
    Mr. Macleod: I agree with that and with the conclusions of the Report to which my hon. Friend referred. There was general agreement at the recent British Honduras Conference on the importance of immigration to the future of this territory, and we are doing everything we can to encourage it.

  UGANDA

    Political Leaders (Detention and Restriction)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many political leaders are detained or restricted in Uganda; how many political parties they represent; and when it is proposed that they will be released.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Three political leaders have been deported from Buganda to other parts of Uganda. One other is restricted to a small area round his home. None of them is in prison. All four belong to different political parties. The relevant orders will be revoked when the authorities are satisfied that these people can be released without prejudicing law and order. Deportation orders are in force against seven, and restriction orders against 140 others, who were not in the category of political leaders.
    The restriction orders will lapse when the districts in Buganda and the Bukedi District which are now officially disturbed areas return to normal.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the details he has given reveal that all the political leaders of the major political parties are restricted or in detention? Is not that a rather extraordinary state of affairs? Is he not aware that when the Belgian Congo receives independence, in seven weeks' time, there will be a great increase of political awareness and political tension in Uganda? Will he arrange to release these political leaders and gain their co-operation?
    Mr. Macleod: No. That must be a matter for the Governor who, of course, keeps these cases particularly under review. Although the three political leaders who have been deported from Buganda are all members of different parties, equally they were all ex-leaders of the Uganda National Movement, which was a banned movement.
    Mr. Dugdale: When does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that Mr. Mulira is likely to be given his freedom and not be restricted any longer? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people in this country have recently been protesting about

    1241
    restriction orders and detention orders made by the South African Government and that people in glass houses cannot cast stones?
    Mr. Macleod: Mr. Mulira's case, like any other, is reviewed by and is a matter for the Governor. The second part of the right hon. Member's supplementary question is a sort of Mad Hatter observation. To compare the restrictions in these cases, which arise out of a boycott which has brought great misery to perfectly innocent people in Uganda, with what is happening in other countries betrays a sad appreciation of the situation in Uganda.

    Civil Servants (Salaries)
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is his intention to reply to the letter submitted to him by the Uganda European Civil Servants' Association submitting a claim for an increase in salaries.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: After consultation with myself and the other East African Administrations, the Government of Uganda last month informed the Uganda European Civil Servants Association that a review of the salaries and terms of service of all civil servants in the Protectorate is in prospect. I hope to be able to announce details at an early date.

  FIJI

    Indians
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the Fiji population is represented by Indians; and what is the present rate of increase of the Indian and Fijian peoples, respectively.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: At the last census in 1956 the Indian population of 169,403 represented 49 per cent. of the total population. The Indian and Fijian populations during the same year showed increases of 41 per cent. and 26 per cent. respectively over the previous census in 1946.
    Mr. Hall: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this very rapid increase in the Indian population, arising from the first introduction of Indian indentured labour, is likely to give rise to some
    1242
    problems between the races in the not-too-distant future? Can he suggest what action can be taken to ensure that that does not happen?
    Mr. Macleod: The growth of the population to which my hon. Friend refers was one of the matters specially considered by the Burns Commission on which my hon. Friend has the next Question.

    Economic Development
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken to ensure that the economic development of Fiji keeps pace with the increase in population.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The Burns Commission's Report, published on the 14th March, recommended how the development of the Colony and its resources should proceed, account being taken of trends in population. This Report is now being studied in Fiji and will form the basis of a further development plan.
    Mr. Hall: As the Commission estimated that the gross national income would have to rise about 3½ per cent. per year to keep the standard of living at its present level, does my right hon. Friend expect that it will be possible to increase the economy at the rate desired?
    Mr. Macleod: We will certainly do what we can to help to carry out the very useful recommendations of the Burns Report. Those are first being studied in Fiji and I must wait for the development plan and then assess what financial assistance is needed.

  MALTA

    Constitution
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has taken this year to restore to Malta an elected Legislature with a Government responsible to it.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 28th April.
    Mr. Cronin: It is appreciated that the Secretary of State is faced with considerable difficulties, but is he aware that

    1243
    these difficulties are becoming an increasingly less valid excuse for depriving Malta of the responsibility of self-government? Is he also aware that on this side of the House there is considerable impatience at the replies he has been giving to Questions of this kind?
    Mr. Macleod: I have no intention of stalling on this matter. I have said that I should like to move forward in this, but one of the great difficulties is the complete divergence of views among the Maltese political parties and leaders themselves about what should happen. If they would come a little more closely together in their views we might be able to get on more quickly.
    Mr. Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the difference in the manner of negotiating in the Mediterranean and in this country, and will he make allowances accordingly?

    Government Service (Doctors)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the recent strike of doctors in the Malta Government service.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: The strike arose over the appointment of a new deputy senior medical officer, and the administrative channels for dealing with the affairs of the Medical Department within the Government Secretariat. The Medical Officers' Union advised the Government on 30th April of its intention to strike as from midnight the following day, without previously giving any notice of the existence of a dispute.
    An emergency medical service is operating.
    Mr. Cronin: Was not this strike precipitated by the circumstance that the Government appointed a deputy senior medical officer contrary to the recommendations of the Joint Advisory Board? Was not this an act which showed a considerable lack of administrative tact, having regard to the general political situation and to the discontent which has been present in the medical profession there for many years?
    Mr. Macleod: With respect, I think that is only half the story, because the Government were also advised by the
    1244
    Public Service Commission to appoint the man whom they did appoint, and, in spite of the advice of the medical board to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that the post should be advertised, the Government felt that was not a proper thing to do for an administrative post, and that ordinary promotion should carry on. That is what the Government did.
    Mr. Wall: Is not it a fact that there has been considerable anxiety and unrest among doctors in Malta for three or four years? In considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend look at the whole problem over the last four or five years?
    Mr. Macleod: That is perfectly true, and it gives me a great deal of concern. I should like to look into it.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural and Horticultural Produce (Exports)
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the fact that over £42 million worth of British agricultural and horticultural produce was exported in 1959, he will initiate discussions with the interests concerned to extend these exports, with a view to avoiding a ceiling on British agricultural and horticultural production.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are very ready to discuss exports of particular products at any time, although exports of those agricultural commodities which receive subsidy do raise difficult problems.
    Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers think that the only answer to disincentives in the recent Price Review is to increase production to maintain relatively the same amount of income? If we could alter our policy so as to expand markets abroad for British agricultural and horticultural produce, would it not lead to a continuing prosperous and expanding agricultural industry? Will my right hon. Friend have a look at it from that angle?
    Mr. Hare: Yes. As I have said, my right hon. Friend and I are prepared to look at it but we must not minimise the difficulties. We have our international obligations to G.A.T.T., and obviously urgent problems would arise if there were any substantial increase in exports of agricultural commodities that were heavily subsidised. That is our difficulty, but it does not mean that we are not prepared to look at the problem.
    Sir P. Agnew: As all but £8 million of these exports are sent out of the country unprocessed, does not this show that this could be of great help to our home producers? Is it not a thing that ought to be actively encouraged and increased?
    Mr. Hare: As I have said, my right hon. Friend and I are prepared to see what we can do, but I have issued a perfectly sensible warning about the difficulties.
    Mr. Willey: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman would not think of exporting produce produced under guaranteed prices for sale abroad? Surely, the thing to do is to sell it here?
    Mr. Hare: I think that is true. We have the possibility of large expansion in our home market, and I do not accept that our policy is restrictionist. What it does is to try to limit the liability of the taxpayer, but it does not limit farm output.
    Commander Maitland: In this considerable total could my right hon. Friend say what part is played by the provisioning of ships, what one might call "human bunkering"?
    Mr. Hare: That is a rather detailed question. I will be delighted to give my hon. and gallant Friend an answer, either privately, or if he puts down a Question.

    Farm Subsidies (Expenditure)
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the expenditure on farm subsidies, represented as a percentage of total national expenditure, for the years 1955–56 to 1959–60.
    Mr. Hare: Expenditure on agricultural support in the United Kingdom expressed as a percentage of total Government ordinary expenditure for the four years 1955–56 to 1958–59 was 4·6 per cent.
    1246
    4·9 per cent., 5·8 per cent. and 4·7 per cent. respectively, and for 1959–60 it is an estimated 4·9 per cent.
    Mr. Prior: Do not these figures confirm that in real terms farmers are receiving slightly less than they were a few years ago? Will my right hon. Friend confirm, in view of recent rumblings to the contrary, that it is the Government's intention to keep a prosperous and healthy agricultural industry which will pay a fair return to farmers and farm workers alike?
    Mr. Hare: I readily respond to what my hon. Friend said. It is the intention of the Government to keep a prosperous and flourishing agricultural industry. The agricultural industry has the benefit of the 1957 Act, and it also has a pledge by the present Government that the percentage alterations on which cuts could be made would not be altered during the lifetime of this Parliament.

    Terrington Committee
    Mr. Mackieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Terrington Committee will report.
    Mr. Hare: I understand that the Committee has almost completed taking evidence and will shortly be in a position to make its Report.
    Mr. Mackie: Has the Minister any comment to make on the report that appeared in the Farmer's Weekly two weeks ago?
    Mr. Hare: I have no comment, because I have not seen the report. When I have read it, I will comment on the report on the Report.

    Grassland Utilisation (Committee's Report)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the Report of the Committee on Grassland Utilisation.
    Mr. Hare: The House has previously been informed of decisions on individual recommendations of the Caine Committee affecting grants and subsidies for ploughing, silos, fertilisers and small farms. I have referred the Committee's recommendations on basic research to the Agricultural Research Council. I am

    1247
    seeking to increase the staff of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. The Agriculture Departments are following up other recommendations of the Caine Committee.
    The Committee's Report covered a wide range of agricultural matters as the Committee considered that improvement of grassland production and utilisation was a part of the general management of the farm. The Government accept its recommendation that the Agricultural Improvement Councils should be the means of keeping policy on grassland production and utilisation under constant review. The Council for England and Wales has now agreed that its Agriculture Committee shall undertake this responsibility. The Grassland Committee of the Scottish Council already does so.
    I am sure that this is the best way of ensuring that the fullest use is made of one of our greatest natural resources.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for at last giving us a statement about the Committee's Report, but does he realise that it is somewhat disappointing that, after this delay, we have the subject of research no more than referred for further consideration? This is an urgent matter which ought to be attended to. Will he endeavour to meet the target set by the Committee, to increase the advisory services by 25 per cent.?
    Mr. Hare: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman says that it has taken me a long time to reply. I think he agrees that this is a valuable Report with a large number of recommendations. We are taking action which I believe will adequately put into effect those recommendations. I am glad to be able to say that this year we are recruiting a larger number for the National Agricultural Advisory Service, and we are satisfied with the quality of the intake.

    Wart Hogs
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost of preparing and presenting the Order, dated 7th April, 1960, authorising the landing of two more wart hogs at Bromborough; and what is the reason for this further importation of wart hogs.
    Mr. Hare: The total cost of preparing, duplicating and publishing the Order and presenting it to Parliament is estimated at £14.
    The wart hog the hon. Member was previously interested in was for Chester Zoo, while these two wart hogs were imported for exhibition in the Zoological Gardens at Manchester.
    Mr. Janner: I appreciate the commendable object of bringing in the wart hogs, but is this not a rather heavy and comparatively costly piece of machinery to use to bring in two pets? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he might adopt a method similar to that adopted in respect of road hogs, and charge nothing for a wart hog coming in?
    Mr. Hare: I do not know about their being pets, and I am not sure about the last remark made by the hon. Member, but I do not propose to encourage long-term contracts for wart hogs, and I rather agree with what he says about the machinery. I am considering making standing orders in respect of a limited number of urban zoos which will enable them to import ruminating animals and swine under the veterinary provisions of the standing orders, thus avoiding the need to make a separate order on each occasion.
    Mr. Mackie: Is the Minister aware that if the two wart hogs are of opposite gender there will be no necessity for this provision?
    Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that people do-not mock these animals? They feel it very deeply. Is he aware that to the male wart hog the female wart hog is of supreme beauty, and their family life might be a model to us all?
    Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend has a very great knowledge of these matters, and we all appreciate the great efforts he makes to ensure that the sensitivity of these animals is kept properly in mind.

    Agricultural Income
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the concern felt by the National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers

    1249
    at the decline of the proportion of the national income received by the agricultural community in the country generally and in Linconshire in particular; and what assurances he will give them in this matter.
    Mr. Hare: I am aware of the views expressed about the general level of agricultural income, though it is not possible to make estimates for particular counties. But I must point out that the industry is in a healthy condition and its future is safeguarded by the long-term assurances of the Agriculture Act, 1957, and by the Government's determination to maintain a flourishing and prosperous industry.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Secretary of State aware that that does not go down very well in Lincolnshire? Is he further aware that the last time a Conservative Minister of Agriculture visited Lincoln and talked to the N.F.U. he had to be rescued by the police after a resolution was carried that he should be lynched? If the Secretary of State is going to Lincoln soon, will he consult the Home Secretary before doing so?
    Mr. Hare: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's solicitude for me— although I would remind him that I am not a Secretary of State; I presume that he meant to refer to me as the Minister of Agriculture. It would be a pity for the hon. Member or me to exaggerate. I have no evidence that agriculture in Lincolnshire is less prosperous than it is elsewhere, and there are those who might say that Lincolnshire was better off than other counties.
    Mr. Willey: Can the Minister tell the House of any county committee of the N.F.U. that has not demanded his resignation?
    Mr. Hare: The list would be such a long one that I should have to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    Fowl Pest
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has considered the correspondence between Mr. John R. Harvey, General Secretary of the Poultry and Egg Producers' Association of Great Britain and Major General John H. Ives of the United States Air Force, copies
    1250
    of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Lincoln, on the possibility that fowl pest is caused by the importation to the United States Air Force of dead poultry; whether he is aware of the possibility that the recent serious epidemic arose in this way; and whether, as an experiment, he will ask the United States authorities on Royal Air Force stations not to import such poultry for a period of twelve months.
    Mr. Hare: I have read this correspondence. I have no evidence that the recent epidemic of fowl pest was in any way attributable to poultry carcases imported under special and exceptional arrangements for use in United States Air Force messes in this country. I am satisfied that the responsible American authorities are observing the stringent veterinary conditions laid down for the purpose of these imports.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that this is a very responsible association? Is it not a fact that those who welcome the United States Air Force into the Eastern Counties regard this as a very small contribution which they might make to help in this experiment? It would merely mean denying themselves the importation of carcases for one year.
    Mr. Hare: As I said, I have considered very carefully the representations and the correspondence dealing with this subject, and I am satisfied that our restrictions and precautions are adequate to prevent the danger which the hon. Member's constituents feel may arise.

    Pedigree Cattle (Export to United States)
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with the United States Government concerning the exports of British pedigree cattle to the United States of America.
    Mr. Hare: The United States Government prohibits on animal health grounds direct imports of cattle from this country and I have had no recent consultations with that Government on this subject.
    Mr. Peart: Referring to the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), it is reported in the excellent Farming Express that the Director of Animals Inspection

    1251
    and Quarantine Division of the United States Department of Agriculture stated, even before the Terrington Report has been published, that that Report will not necessarily have any influence on American policy? Is not there a danger that there will be a further restriction on British exports?
    Mr. Hare: The United States Government prohibit direct imports of cattle from this country, on animal health grounds. It would be better for the hon. Member and myself to read the Report and see what it contains before coming to conclusions upon the possibly wholly fallacious reports that we have read in the Press.

    Farm Workers' Wages
    Sir R. Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much more an agricultural worker receiving the standard wage and overtime would be paid today for a 50-hour week than would have been the case in 1948; and how much of the annual bill for farm support is due to this increase in farm workers' wages.
    Mr. Hare: In England and Wales the increase would be £4 5s. 10d. per week on the basis stated. Although changes in agricultural wage rates are taken into account at Annual Reviews, along with other relevant factors, it is not possible to say how much of the annual bill for farm support is due to this increase in farm workers' wages.
    Sir R. Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the percentage increase in the value of farm workers' wages is matched by a proportionate increase in the value of work done by farmers and their families, who outnumber regular agricultural workers by about 50 per cent.? Is it not true that the value of the work done by farmers and their families is not taken into account in the Annual Price Review, although it is included in the estimated income of the agricultural industry?
    Mr. Hare: What my hon. Friend says is generally true. I would not quarrel with what he says about the work done by farmers and their families, although without looking at the estimated figures it would be difficult to give a final or clear answer, because the two sets of figures are not strictly comparable.
    Mr. Hilton: Will the Minister inform his hon. Friend that farm workers are still working longer hours for less wages —a 46-hour week for a minimum of £8? Will he bear in mind that for many farm workers the minimum is also the maximum? Does not he agree that it is time farm workers had a fair share of the national prosperity, about which we hear so much from hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Hare: I am sure that none of my hon. Friends would dispute for a moment the great contribution made by the farm workers to the success of the industry, but it would be wrong for the hon. Member to try to induce me to take part in a discussion on the Floor of the House about agricultural wages. He knows, perhaps better than anybody in the House, that it is a matter for the Agricultural Wages Board, and it would not be proper for me to make any comment on some of the remarks that he has just made.

    Beef (Retail Prices)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will state the average retail prices for beef for the latest available date and for the corresponding date in 1951 and 1955.
    Mr. Hare: No official retail prices for beef are available. But the latest available information from the National Food Survey gives the average price of beef and veal in the last quarter of 1959 as 4s. 1d. per lb. compared with 2s. 3d. and 3s. 7d. in the corresponding periods of 1951 and 1955 respectively.
    Mr. Willey: I do not want the Minister to carry out too much research, but is he aware that present beef prices are quite outrageous? Is he aware that this is not only due to the question of supplies from the Argentine? While we have the taxpayer's support for beef production there is a responsibility upon the Minister to see that the taxpayer's wife does not have to pay these exorbitant prices.
    Mr. Hare: It would not be wise for the hon. Member to follow up that point too far. Although I have quoted cheaper prices in respect of 1951, I must remind the House that the taxpayer was then paying £20 million in the form of subsidies, as opposed to £4 million at

    1253
    present. Again, it is unwise to try to make out that beef prices, or food prices in general, are unduly high. In spite of the extra cost, considering our whole food front, we are enjoying lower prices, which have helped to keep down the cost of living, as he knows.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Probation Officers
    Mr. C. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the current estimated shortage of probation officers; and how many are now in training and likely to be available to meet this shortage.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The current estimated shortage is about 150 officers. One hundred and fifty-seven are in training and 72 more have been accepted for training. Eighty-eight of them should be ready for appointment by the end of this year.
    Mr. Royle: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching the Departmental Committee to see whether it could make recommendations immediately regarding recruitment to the probation service in view of those figures and of the emergency of which we are all aware?
    Mr. Vosper: I will consider that, but I think this is a matter which should be left to the Departmental Committee to initiate. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would want to make an approach at this stage.

    Incident, Brixton (Mr. Thompson)
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. Thompson, a motorist, who stopped to inform a police officer off duty late on Saturday, 16th April, that the rear light of his motor cycle was not working, was taken into Brixton police station; why his wife was not allowed to see him; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Mr. Thompson was reported by two officers of the City of London Police returning from duty by motor
    1254
    cycle to the officer on duty at Brixton police station for an alleged offence against the Road Traffic Acts. According to the officers concerned, no reference was made to the rear light on their motor cycle. After investigation the Brixton officer decided not to charge Mr. Thompson. An apology was tendered to him, and he was allowed to go. His wife was not allowed to see him because her behaviour on entering the police station led to her being arrested and charged with another offence. The charge was later dismissed.
    Mr. Burden: Can my hon. and learned Friend say how it is that there appeared in very responsible newspapers the statement that Mr. Thompson had reported to a police officer that his rear light was not operating and that, as a result of that action, he was taken into Brixton police station? Is he aware that in fact no charges whatever were pursued against Mr. Thompson; that according to Press reports his wife appeared in court the following day charged with being drunk and disorderly, and that the magistrate elicited the fact that she had had three drinks during the previous evening and said that there was some doubt in the case and that her actions were responsible for the charge? Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is highly probable that his wife, or the wife of anybody else, seeing her husband taken to the police station and making application to see him and not being allowed to do so, would become a little emotional, to say the least?
    Mr. Renton: I should point out that these were City of London policemen and that my right hon. Friend is not the police authority for the City of London. Perhaps I may say that the magistrate, dismissing the charge against Mrs. Thompson, said that obviously her behaviour was such that it would have led to her being arrested. Mr. Thompson, it appears, had taken drink, but when a police surgeon was called, he did not find that Mr. Thompson was unfit to be in charge of a car. The City officer found that his rear light was not working, but neither he nor the other officer recollect Mr. Thompson having drawn their attention to it at any stage.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: If the behaviour of the police officers was completely correct, for what exactly did they apologise?
    Mr. Renton: I do not think that police officers should be blamed for apologising, if an apology might be appropriate. At any rate, the circumstances were that this gentleman seems to have taken drink but not sufficient to enable the police surgeon to decide that he was unfit to drive a car.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Norman Pannell.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That is no answer to my question—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Pannell.

    Assaults on Prison Warders (Corporal Punishment)
    Mr. N. Pannellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the increase in the number of assaults on prison warders since 1957,he will reconsider his recent policy of disallowing the great majority of awards of corporal punishment for such offences.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I interpret the duty laid upon me according to my reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 10th December, 1959.
    Mr. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that in 1958,during which all recommendations for corporal punishment were rejected by him, the total number of attacks on warders was 152 and that in the following year it rose to 213? Is not this a clear indication that corporal punishment is a deterrent in the case of such offences?
    Mr. Butler: I think that in certain circumstances when there are attacks on warders corporal punishment is a deterrent. In other circumstances I do not think it is. In answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) —
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter does not belong to South Ayrshire. It belongs to Ayr.
    Mr. Speaker: Corporal punishment appears to be the same in both places. Mr. Grey.
    Later—
    Mr. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in the course of replying to my supplementary question to Question No. 37, when you called the following Question. Will you please give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to complete his answer to me?
    Mr. Speaker: If that be so, I beg the pardon of the hon. Member and that of the Home Secretary. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his answer. I am afraid that we must now go on.
    Later—
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will allow me to behave irregularly in order to cure an injustice I unwittingly perpetrated. I wonder whether the Home Secretary would be good enough to assist me by answering the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) on Question No. 37, which I frustrated when there was some competition between areas in Scotland.
    Mr. Butler: I did answer the supplementary question, but in the range of supplementaries that might have followed there was a certain curtailment. I think that the difficulty arose because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) did not fully realise that I was referring to an Answer I gave him on 10th December, 1959. It so happens that in one way or another Ayrshire always gets taken up on this question of corporal punishment. In that Answer I detailed the type of offences, prevailing conditions in the prisons and other considerations which led me to make up my mind. I say to my hon. Friend now, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying it to him, that I will certainly consider all these cases on their merits, taking into account the four considerations in my Answer of 10th December.
    Sir T. Moore: As my name has been dragged into this, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Baronet's name being dragged in.

    Girls (Borstal Training)
    Mr. Greyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the continuing concern at the fact that girls have to undergo Borstal training at Durham Prison, and the urgent need for them to be removed to a more suitable place, if he will give increased priority to the new security Borstal for girls so as to have it completed well before the end of next year.
    Mr. Vosper: The contract for the building of the new security Borstal for girls has already been placed. Work has started and will be completed with all possible speed.
    Mr. Grey: Is the Minister aware that this Question, and others which have been asked on the same subject, cast no reflection on the Governor or the staff of the prison, who are doing an extremely good job under peculiar conditions? Does not he think that the position is rather serious and that it calls for greater urgency of action? May I ask whether he has seen reports which have been issued about how near the girls are to the men and the peculiar methods which have been adopted so that women or girls may get in contact with the men? Is he aware that it has also been reported that one woman met her husband in prison? In view of these matters and the fact that the Answer of the Minister indicated that there will be a lengthy period before building work is carried out, can he indicate that more immediate steps will be taken?
    Mr. Vosper: I hope that the time will not be long. Priority has been given to this urgent matter and work has started. I will examine the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Owing to the pressure on the penal system as a whole, no other reorganisation would be possible short of a new Borstal.
    Miss Bacon: Is the Minister aware that newspaper reports about this prison were very disquieting? Is he futher aware that the arrangements for women prisoners in the whole of the North of England are most unsatisfactory and that with the exception of Askham Grange, which holds only sixty women prisoners, all women prisoners are accommodated in buildings which also house men prisoners?
    Mr. Vosper: That is a different question. The Question on the Order Paper deals with the girls' Borstal. But I accept that the position is not satisfactory. That is why my right hon. Friend is pressing on with the building programme and work has started on reorganising the girls' Borstal system.

    Isle of Man (Summary Jurisdiction Bill)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now considered the Summary Jurisdiction Bill lately submitted to him by the Governor of the Isle of Man; and, since this Bill makes provision for penalties different from those imposed for similar offences in the United Kingdom and may therefore have unacceptable repercussions among some of the half-million holidaymakers from the mainland who visit the Isle of Man annually, if he will advise the Privy Council to recommend that the Royal Assent to it be withheld.
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will advise the Privy Council to recommend Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent to the Summary Jurisdiction Bill of the Isle of Man.
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department having regard to the large numbers of Lancashire young people who spend their holidays in the Isle of Man, if he will advise the Privy Council that the Royal Assent should not be given to the Summary Jurisdiction Bill of the Isle of Man, which imposes penalties which this country has long discarded.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The responsibility for advising The Queen on the legislation adopted by Tynwald rests upon the Privy Council, which tenders advice after receiving a report from a Committee of the Council to which insular legislation is referred for consideration and report. The Royal Assent is signified at a meeting of The Queen in Council.
    It would not be proper for me to anticipate the advice which may be tendered to Her Majesty by indicating what advice I propose to give, as the member of the Privy Council primarily concerned with the affairs of the Island,

    1259
    to my colleagues in the Council with regard to the Act of Tynwald to which the hon. Members refer.
    Mr. Driberg: While the right hon. Gentleman may not be able to anticipate that advice, when he is considering it will be bear in mind that the phrase "unacceptable repercussions" in the Question is a quotation from his own Department's memorandum, which goes on to say that when there are likely to be unacceptable repercussions outside the island, the possibility that the Royal Assent might be withheld in these circumstances "can never be discounted"?
    Mr. Butler: I have examined the circular and I am quite clear that it was not intended that this sort of matter should be regarded as an unacceptable repercussion. We consider Tynwald as having independence to make its own laws subject to the arrangements which I have described. I have read the Home Office circular and it was taking into account such matters as resolutions which run counter to international obligations or affect the United Kingdom revenue.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would not the Home Secretary agree that the constitutional position is clear? As the Minister primarily responsible for advice to Her Majesty on this matter, he is just as responsible to this House as he is in connection with any other advice given to Her Majesty. Will the Home Secretary say, in considering what attitude he is going to adopt, whether he is in favour of the introduction of corporal punishment in the Isle of Man?
    Mr. Butler: I have to weigh my own views with the obvious desirability of preserving the independent power of legislation of Tynwald, subject to the powers, which I described, of intervention by the Secretary of State in giving the advice to the Privy Council. Subject to that, I think it desirable that we should all respect the independence of Tynwald.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how far he regards himself as responsible to
    1260
    the House of Commons for the advice which he gives to the Privy Council? Will he consider the matter further and bear in mind that, while no one wishes to interfere with the rights of the Isle of Man Government, nevertheless British subjects from the mainland who go there are not able to avail themselves of the kind of consular or diplomatic protection they would get in foreign countries, and therefore the external effects of legislation in the Isle of Man are matters which ought to be taken into account, as his own memorandum makes clear?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I definitely think that if, so to speak, terror were thrust into the breasts of tourists from Britain, owing to this power having been taken by the Manx legislature, the Secretary of State of the day would certainly feel that he had to intervene in the way suggested in the memorandum of the Home Office. But I cannot believe that this power taken or introduced in this legislation will very much alter either the temperament or temper of the many tourists who will visit the island.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whereas it is important to keep the legislative independence of this island, it is not a question of terror being thrust into the hearts of the citizens of this country, but the fact that they would come under these laws when they went to the Isle of Man; and therefore the repercussions on all the rest of us cannot altogether be ignored in a matter of this kind? If there is a grave difference between the laws of the two countries, surely that is a consideration of importance?
    Mr. Butler: I had to weigh this matter and I have not given the House my final decision because I must preserve that. Anyone who is a Member of the House of Commons, particularly a Minister, should listen and pay attention to the views of the House of Commons and, equally, I think, to the constitutional position of the desirability of retaining the independent power of the Manx legislature to legislate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask theright hon. Gentleman whether he willstate the business of the House fornext week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 9TH MAY—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate will take place on Primary Education, on the appropriate Votes, until seven o'clock.
At seven o'clock, as the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration.
TUESDAY, 10TH MAY—Conclusion of the Report stage of the Betting and Gaming Bill.
Report and Third Reading of the Indecency with Children Bill [Lords].
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Ploughing Grants Scheme and the Scheme for Scotland.
WEDNESDAY, 11TH MAY—Third Reading of the Betting and Gaming Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Second Reading of the Dock Workers (Pensions) Bill.
THURSDAY, 12TH MAY—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate will take place on Foreign Affairs, related to the Summit Meeting.
FRIDAY, 13TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 16TH MAY—The proposed business will be Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate on the Agricultural Price Review, on the appropriate Votes.
Mr. Curran: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his attention has been drawn to the Motion standing in my name and, if so, whether he can give time to discuss it?
[That, in the opinion of this House, the National Assistance scales for retirement pensions should be increased.]
Mr. Butler: I have my hon. Friend's Motion here with me. I cannot give time in the immediate future, but perhaps my hon. Friend would have a talk with me.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Can time be found to discuss the Motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and myself and about 60 hon. Members, on the Commonwealth Convention of Human Rights, and, if so, can that be done within the next fortnight?
[That this House, recalling the solemn obligation undertaken by the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries to co-operate with the United Nations by joint and separate action in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of race; welcoming the accession by Her Majesty's Government to the European Convention of Human Rights and its application to Crown Colonies and Protectorates: and, recognising that the Commonwealth cannot endure unless all its members recognise and guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of race, colour, or creed, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to initiate the study by all member-countries of the Commonwealth of the practicability of formulating a Commonwealth Convention of Human Rights and the establishment of the necessary investigatory and judicial organs necessary for that high purpose, so that all citizens of the Commonwealth, wherever residing, may be assured of the enjoyment of those fundamental rights and of protection against any infringement of the same.]
Mr. Butler: I think that the answer to "within the next fortnight" is "No, Sir." I do not think that we have the opportunity. I realise the importance of this and I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman discuss it with his hon. Friends with a view perhaps to the Opposition helping us with a Supply day if they want to.
Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister be making a statement on the Commonwealth Conference, on which perhaps a debate might take place and we might take the same subjects as covered by the Motion on the Order Paper?
Mr. Butler: I will put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is at

1263
present engaged, as the House knows, at the Conference, the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps then we might consider the points raised in the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very few opportunities for private Members to put down a Motion before the end of the Session? Therefore, in view of the importance of debating the Peppiatt Committee in advance of legislation, will he give the House an assurance that he will find time to discuss the Report?
Mr. Butler: I cannot go as far as that immediately. It would be very convenient for the Government if we could gain the views of the House on this Report. My right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary gave the general view of the Government about the desirability of proceeding. We want to proceed in due course, but we cannot unless we get the wisdom of the House. I will bear in mind the suggestion and perhaps we can have a discussion about it.
Dr. Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can find time for a general debate on the National Health Service? Is he aware that there are problems of very considerable importance accumulating in this Service, particularly relevant to the general practitioners, rightly described as the basis of the Service? So far, we have not had this Session a general debate on this Service, which is costing the country £700 million or more a year.
Mr. Butler: I think that my hon. Friend's request is perfectly reasonable. It is simply a question of finding time.
Mr. Lawson: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Motion, standing in the name of all the Members for Scottish constituencies on this side of the House, concerning the high level of unemployment in Scotland? If so, has he considered whether or not we can have an early date on which to discuss this matter, which is very important to us?
[That this House, while welcoming the efforts being made to induce development of private industry in areas of high unemployment, believes that where those efforts prove insufficient it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to bring full
1264
employment to those areas by setting up and operating publicly owned enterprises.]
Mr. Butler: There are two Supply days to come, when Scottish matters can be considered, and there are also opportunities in Scottish Grand Committee? These are opportunities which can be taken. Subject to that, I cannot at present give any further promise of an additional day.
Mr. Braine: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when considering the respective merits of the suggestions just made to him, he will bear in mind one subject of major importance which the House ought to discuss at a very early date, namely, the effect of divisions between the Six and the Seven in Europe and on the underdeveloped countries, mainly in the Commonwealth? Can he say whether this is a subject for which an early date for debate can be provided?
Mr. Butler: It is obvious that this major issue affects our overseas trade. I cannot give any undertaking of time at present, but perhaps I might see my hon. Friend on this matter.
Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet able to announce his proposals for setting up a Select Committee on Accommodation, which he promised the House immediately after the Easter Recess?
Mr. Butler: I do not think that I was guilty of an absolute date in my promise. I think I said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works was going to publish his plan for improving the accommodation of the House, and at or about the same time, with the aid of consultation with the Opposition, I should like to make a statement of my own on this matter.
Mr. Pavitt: Would the Leader of the House give consideration to finding time very quickly for a debate on the findings of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration? In view of the fact that it has been already discussed in another place, preliminary discussions have started between the Minister and the profession, and the profession is having its national conference on 19th May, should not this House have an opportunity of discussing the Commission's Report?
Mr. Butler: That is a point which is analogous to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson). It shows that it is considered to be important, and rightly so, by both sides of the House.

SIERRA LEONE (CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, I wish to make a statement on the Sierra Leone Constitutional Conference.
Constitutional talks were held with an all-party delegation from Sierra Leone and ended yesterday.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I agreed that Sierra Leone would become independent on 27th April, 1961.
Before independence, certain interim changes will be introduced. Most of these will be made within the next few weeks. Among the most important of them are that the Governor will hand over the Presidency of the Executive Council to the Premier, who will become Prime Minister.
Executive Public and Judicial Commissions will be set up and Ministers will be associated with the handling of defence, police and external affairs. Among other matters, the Conference agreed to the inclusion of fundamental human rights in the Constitution on independence and to the procedure for amending the Constitution and entrenching the basic constitutional provisions.
While the Conference was on we held talks about defence and finance. It was agreed that the two Governments will negotiate an agreement for mutual defence co-operation to be signed after independence.
On finance, Her Majesty's Government recognised that the initial burdens of independence including defence and compensation for overseas officers would present some difficulty at a time when normal colonial-type assistance would cease. Her Majesty's Government therefore offered assistance totalling £7½ million, of which £3½ million will be Commonwealth assistance loans and the remainder grants and technical assistance. The compensation scheme will be designed to encourage officers to stay.
1266
I am happy to say that the Conference was marked by great cordiality and friendship. At the end of our discussions the Conference reaffirmed the long tradition of friendship between Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom and the representatives of both made it clear that it was their intention that their co-operation and friendship should continue.
The Report of the Conference will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I say, on behalf of the Opposition, how warmly we welcome the statement of the Colonial Secretary, in particular the agreement on the reference to fundamental human rights in the Constitution, on independence, and also the wise decision to defer negotiations on a defence agreement until after independence? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are any outstanding points which remain, or can we now take it that the Conference has concluded and that he does not foresee any further difficulties before independence?
Mr. Macleod: It is always dangerous to say that one does not foresee any further difficulties, but I can see none on the horizon at present. On the question of defence, we agreed in the ordinary way, on the heads of agreement, to leave the fuller document to be drawn up and ratified on independence.
Mr. Tilney: While welcoming the fact that our old and very loyal friend Sierra Leone is to obtain independence next year, will my right hon. Friend say whether, in considering the defence parts of the agreement, the importance of Freetown will be considered?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. Both sides were very conscious of the importance of Freetown, and that point has been covered.
Mr. Wade: While welcoming the decision to grant independence to Sierra Leone, and, in particular, the atmosphere of mutual good will which was shown, may I ask whether, at the Conference, there was any discussion of any possible need for technical and administrative officers after the granting of independence, and whether proposals were put forward for helping to provide such officers apart from financial assistance?
Mr. Macleod: We spent a great deal of time safeguarding the position of the public servants, which is a matter to which I attach great importance, and I think an admirable public officers' agreement has been drawn up. The details of that will be published in the White Paper which the House will have in about eight or nine days' time. On the question of tehnical and other assistance, it was agreed that we would do what we could in that way to try to help the country.
Mr. N. Pannell: While congratulating my right hon. Friend and the Sierra Leone delegates on the smoothness and cordiality of this Conference, may I ask why the results of the discussions were first issued to the Press instead of to this House?
Mr. Macleod: That was because the conclusions of the Conference—and in all conferences in which I have taken part this has been normal—were announced to the Conference yesterday afternoon. They were, unfortunately, announced at 3.30 and, therefore, it was too late for me to be able to make a statement that day. I have taken the earliest opportunity of making a statement to the House.
Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, while accepting my humble congratulations, in particular in relation to the declaration of human rights in the Constitution of the new Sierra Leone, that, so long as Her Majesty's Government's ratification of the European Declaration of Human Rights in relation to African territories is limited to complaints made by a a Government and not by an individual, or by a sufferer, there is no effective way of implementing this constitutional declaration other than by an agreement subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court on Human Rights, or the setting up of a Commonwealth court of human rights, which would be the biggest single contribution which could now be made to the future welfare of Africa?
Mr. Macleod: I think that that is a much wider question. Even so, it does not detract in my view from the great importance of the fundamental principles of human rights which are being written into this Constitution.
Sir G. Nicholson: May I ask the Colonial Secretary two questions? First, in regard to expatriate officers, may we take it that the scheme will be rather more simplified than in the case of Nigeria, where it was really complicated and involved? Is that the kind of agreement which may be applied to other territories in these matters? Secondly, am I right in assuming that colonial development and welfare aid will now cease and that there will be nothing of an ad hoc nature put in its place?
Mr. Macleod: We learn by experience. The Nigerian scheme was by no means a success for a variety of reasons. The Sierra Leone scheme is based on a different approach. It has been worked out in such a way as to try to make sure that as many people as possible stay on, and there is an instalment element which I think will help towards it. My hon. Friend will see that in the White Paper which is to be issued.
On the other point, it is normal that colonial-type assistance ceases when a country becomes independent and aid is then given on a Government-to-Government basis. The main channel of aid is usually Commonwealth assistance loans.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Is this not another example showing that the Government ought seriously to consider the decision already made that the Colonial Development Corporation shall be prohibited from working in these countries once they become independent? They all need technical assistance and "know-how" and they have built up experience which ought to be made available to them. We all send our good wishes to Sierra Leone and to the responsible Ministers, to whom we wish good luck. Will not Che right hon. Gentleman not reconsider the whole question of the rôle of C.D.C., which we think should be continued in countries when they become independent?
Mr. Macleod: This is a difficult question, because many countries, understandably, are reluctant to go on being associated with a form of assistance which is particularly geared to the Colonies. It is not quite right to say that the Corporation is prohibited from doing anything in the territory. Schemes which have been started can be completed. Apart from that, it is possible for them to help with managerial and

1269
technical "know-how", which is a great asset. I think that after independence probably the best way of arranging these matters is on a Government-to-Government basis. That is why we had these talks.
Taking into account the development needs of Sierra Leone over the next two years, I believe that what we have done is adequate, but the Premier, Sir Milton Margai, said yesterday, "If we get into difficulties, we know who our friends are and where they are". We should be very glad to consult them again.
Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is particularly satisfying that the announcement of the accession of a new self-governing territory in Africa to the Commonwealth has been made this week? May I be permitted to add the personal congratulations of all who have met and talked to him to Sir Milton Margai on his elevation to the post of Prime Minister?
Mr. Macleod: It was largely due to Sir Milton's delightful personality and, incidentally, to the hold that he had upon the entire delegation from Sierra Leone, that the Conference went so well. He played a splendid part.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
3.52 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next.
This Motion is in continuance of the statement which I made on Tuesday, 26th April, when we returned after Easter, that the Government intended to propose that we should not sit tomorrow, Friday, 6th May. My reason then was the same as it is now—that we feel that it is not only appropriate but also proper that the House should not sit on the occasion of the Royal wedding.
At that time I gave an undertaking that we should make good the time which private Members would lose for the consideration of their Motions. The first Motion for tomorrow was on the wider ownership of industrial shares; the second was on the Albermarle Report on the Youth Service; and the third was on teaching about the Commonwealth. I am now able to say that we propose to allocate the first Friday after the Whitsun Recess to this private business and, therefore, to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), and the other hon. Members concerned exactly the same rights, privileges and time as they would have had if we had met tomorrow. The exact date will be given when we announce the date of the Whitsun Recess.
I have seen it stated that a variety of subjects might be raised. Without entrenching upon your territory, Mr. Speaker, and the rules of order, I would point out that not one hon. Member will lose anything by this arrangement, because we are giving the same private Members' time for private Members' business at a suitable date. If hon. Members wish legitimately to raise other issues, I would point out that they could not have been raised tomorrow, which was to have been a private Members' day. If the Motion is to be debated, therefore, I hope that there will be a little realisation of that fact—that by this action we are removing not one minute from the time of hon. Members to discuss questions which interest them and which may be of supreme importance or from the time of hon. Members for Private Members' Motions.

1271
in the circumstances, I hope that the House will agree that the Motion should be passed not only with expedition, but also with the expression of our very best wishes to Her Royal Highness, Princess Margaret, and her future husband on the occasion of their wedding.
3.54 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: It is only right that I should say that we were consulted before this decision was taken. The House was confronted with a somewhat difficult problem. I do not think that it would have been very easy to have continued with our normal arrangements, certainly at the normal times, although I shall have a word to say a little later about access to the House. There was obviously the difficulty of very large crowds in the streets and the possibility of a very thinly attended debate.
We were more concerned in our discussions with the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that private Members did not lose the time allotted to them, and I am grateful to him for having given up Government time so that the three subjects, or such of them as are reached, will be discussed immediately after Whitsun.
I should, however, like to take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman what arrangements are being made to enable those hon. Gentlemen who are anxious to come to the House to get here. The Sessional Order lays down that access should be provided whether the House is sitting or not. I had considerable difficulty in getting back here after a function which I had to attend and at which I had to speak during lunch, and I hope that some special arrangements will be made, otherwise I do not think that hon. Members will get through.
Finally, may I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman has made about Princess Margaret's wedding. We wish her every possible happiness.
3.56 p.m.
Mr. Butler: I think that steps have been taken to inform hon. Members on both sides of the House that Members coming to the House tomorrow—Friday, 6th May—may apply to the Speaker's office for windscreen labels which will
1272
ensure their access by car, in so far as we can ensure it, up to 10.45 a.m. Full details of the routes recommended are given on the label. I have read again the Sessional Standing Order about access to the House. I have communicated with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, and I understand that the police officers on duty on Friday will be instructed to give hon. Members all possible assistance. If there is any doubt, hon. Members should make their identity quite clear to the police officer concerned. Hon. Members on foot whose identity is not questioned will be permitted to pass at any point up to the latest possible moment before the procession passes.
Furthermore, I am asked to advise hon. Members that the easiest access on foot will be through the tunnel leading to the underground station. If hon. Members would deign to use the underground services, I think that they might find that access to the House the easiest, and it will be open all the time. In so far as I have been able to assist hon. Members to come to the House, although the House is not sitting, I have done my best to help.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emrys Hughes.
Mr. George Wigg: On a point of order. There is one matter in connection with the Motion which is for you, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, as much as for the Government.
You will observe that on the Order Paper the Government have a Motion to suspend our sitting today, if they so desire, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. It is the normal practice of the printers of HANSARD, when business on Thursday continues beyond 10.30 p.m., to print the report of the proceedings in Friday's HANSARD. If we do not sit tomorrow there will not be a Friday's HANSARD.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Government and perhaps you, Sir, could take into account the loyal and excellent service given to us by the HANSARD staff, for it would be most regrettable if, for the matter of a debate lasting 20 minutes or half an hour, a special edition of HANSARD had to be published.
I am sure that the House would like to know what directions you propose to give, or whether you can use your influence to persuade the Government

1273
to curtail the business tonight and to conclude at 10.30 p.m. so that the HANSARD published tomorrow in the normal way will cover all our proceedings and thus avoid this dilemma.
Mr. Speaker: My personal and limited experience suggests that the best way of encourgaging Governments into that frame of mind is to make progress with the antecedent business. I confess that I had not given thought to the possibility of a special edition being required of the daily HANSARD. I do not feel able to reply to the hon. Member on that point without making some inquires as to the possibility of anything of the kind being done. I am too ignorant of what could be involved to the staff in requiring something of the kind. When I escape from my present situation I may be able to make some inquiries.
Mr. Butler: As Leader of the House, I had taken the liberty to acquaint myself of this problem. I understand that if we do not sit too late the HANSARD reporters will be ready to finish the edition tonight. That is on the understanding that we do not sit too late. I think that it would mean that we could sit as late as 11 p.m. If we sat later than that I do not think they would be able to do it. The Government will co-operate with the House, have due consideration for the Editor and reporters of HANSARD and try not to sit too late tonight.
We have to take into account that there is a half-hour Adjournment after we end Government business. That would make 11.30 p.m. absolutely the latest time. Bearing that in mind, the Government will co-operate to this extent. If your researches reveal the same situation, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we might all co-operate together.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has effectively stopped any kind of debate on Scottish unemployment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member could raise with me a point of order, if it were a point of order, but otherwise the situation is that I had just called the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and was in the act of
1274
saying to him that I had called him for the purpose of moving his Amendment, should he so desire.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, to leave out "Monday next" and to add:
"tomorrow at half past Ten o'clock."
At the outset, I wish to associate myself with what the Home Secretary has said. I think it is unquestionable that we all wish the Princess Margaret and her future husband every prosperity and every happiness in their married life, but that is not the question that we are called upon to discuss. Although we associate ourselves with these good wishes, it does not follow that we associate ourselves also with the slush, mush and gush which is deluging the sensational Press, which is exploiting this Royal marriage purely for the purpose of making fortunes for the newspaper owners.
We believe that there should be a priority and a relativity in these matters. For example, we know that a certain section of people attach a great deal of importance to the wedding, but we are Members of the House of Commons and our duty is to think of the House of Commons first. It is in this matter that I find the arguments of the Leader of the House very unconvincing indeed. When this matter arose originally, we were told that difficulty would arise in obtaining access to the House, and, in this Amendment, I have included the words "half-past Ten o'clock" to make it quite clear that this would give an opportunity for Members to come to the House, if they wished, tomorrow.
The Home Secretary has answered his other arguments in advance. If Members wish to come to the House at half-past ten, that is at least an hour before the procession leaves Buckingham Palace, and it is surely not beyond the wit and ingenuity of Members of the House of Commons to find their way from the Underground station through the subway in the way in which the Home Secretary indicated. There is no difficulty at all in getting access to the House, if hon. Members wish to do so, so that today the Home Secretary has answered the Home Secretary who made the statement about ten days ago.

1275
I wonder what kind of liaison there is between the Home Secretary and Buckingham Palace about the dates and days of these events. I am quite sure that if it were suggested from Buckingham Palace that the wedding should take place on Budget day there would be a protest from the Government. There would be a protest from the Home Secretary, who would say, "We really cannot have a Royal wedding interfering with Budget day, because that is the day when we raise the money to pay for it all." If that were not convincing—
Mr. R. T. Paget: On this occasion, surely, the Government would be most grateful?
Mr. Hughes: It might be so. If that argument failed, of course, the Home Secretary, with his customary ingenuity, would say "Oh, yes, it would be very inconvenient to have it on Budget day, because that is a day on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to make one of his pleas for economy and caution in public expenditure."
So we must ask how these dates are fixed, and whether at any point, and how far, the Home Secretary was consulted before saying "Well, perhaps it had better be on a Friday and on a private Members' day, and not in Government time." All this could have been avoided if the public relations between the Home Office and Buckingham Palace had been a little better, and if they had been able to arrange a day like today, when we are discussing the Betting and Gaming Bill, or something of that kind. These ideas do not seem to have occurred to the Home Secretary, so it has been fixed on a Friday, which is private Members' time.
Yet it was the same Home Secretary who was so enthusiastic about private Members' time in the speech that he made at the opening of the Session. Then we had very eloquent speeches from both sides of the House stressing the importance of private Members' time. We had a statement—which was received with great appreciation by the House— that there would be arid deserts in front of us, but that we would be refreshed by the oases of private Members' time. What does the Home Secretary do? He gives away the oasis.
1276
We hear a lot about the idea that the rights of private Members have to be expressed by a private Member. I know that certain arrangements were made through the usual channels, but what have the usual channels to do with the organisation of private Members' days and private Members' time? Surely, the whole idea of Private Members' Motions and private Members' time was that this was a matter in which the official channels were not concerned. I suggest to the Home Secretary that instead of approaching the Leader of the Opposition and our Front Bench, he should have contacted those hon. Members who are lucky enough to have secured time for tomorrow.
To come to the Members whose time is to be postponed, there are some interesting Motions on the Order Paper of the House for tomorrow. For example, the first Motion stands in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), and calls for a wider ownership of industrial shares. The Motion reads:
"To call attention to the desirability of the wider ownership of industrial shares, and to move a Resolution."
I am sure that that Motion arouses great interest in all parts of the House.
The hon. Member for Twickenham is obviously concerned about the ownership of industrial shares, and wants to see an extension of that ownership. I believe he has his eye on Courtaulds, or perhaps Guinness, and I was hoping that we were to hear an interesting speech in which the hon. Member would develop his argument for the extension of the ownership of industrial shares, and I was wondering how far he was going to go towards Communism. Apparently the Royal wedding is to take priority over the discussion of the future of a property-owning democracy.
Further, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has a Motion on the Order Paper which reads:
"To call attention to the Albemarle Report on the Youth Service in England and Wales, and to move a Resolution."
That is an issue in which the House is extremely interested. We should be doing our duty to our constituents and to the country if we spent our time tomorrow discussing the future of the Youth Service and its educational implications.

1277
If the hon. Members for Twickenham and Leicester, North-West thought that their presence was desired across the road, the next Motion on the Order Paper is headed, "Teaching About The Commonwealth". It is an impressive Motion. It reads:
"To call attention to the desirability of increasing teaching about the Commonwealth and Colonies; and to move. That this House, realising that the beneficial influence of this nation in world affairs depends on a united Commonwealth, urges Her Majesty's Government to stimulate by every possible means, including teaching in schools and colleges, a widespread knowledge in the United Kingdom of the dependent and independent countries of the Commonwealth and of its political, economic and cultural development."
It would be fitting and proper, when the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, their staffs and delegates are in London, that this Motion should have priority over what we are doing.
Finally, on the Order Paper for tomorrow the Traffic Control (Temporary Provisions) Bill is listed for Second Reading. This is a curious Bill to bring forward on the Order Paper of the House of Commons at a time when the Government are associating themselves with the biggest traffic block which is liable to take place in London for a very long time.
The Motions on the Order Paper should have priority over anything which happens tomorrow on the other side of the street. If hon. Members concerned have decided that they would prefer to postpone their Motions, there are a very large number of Motions on the Order Paper which could be discussed. Scotland would have had no hesitation in coming forward and filling the vacuum.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Clearly, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is getting near to danger limit. Scotland might have the best of intentions, but it would need to have something to give notice about on the Order Paper if it was to get outside the Motions already there.
Mr. Hughes: There are two lines of approach to that, Mr. Speaker. First, there is already a Motion on the Order Paper affecting Scotland, which was mentioned by hon. Members last Friday. Indeed, even if that failed, there would then be a Motion to adjourn. On the
1278
Motion for the Adjournment we could raise the whole question of Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member is quite right. I had thought about it before I ventured to interrupt him. The Motions for discussion tomorrow, if we sit tomorrow, have been appointed by the operation of the Ballot which we held for the purpose. As regards the Adjournment debate, it has long been the practice, under arrangements which we have, for one hon. Member normally to have the subject matter of the Adjournment debate and for my predecessors and myself as far as possible to deprecate the sudden interjection of some other subject.
Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. If the debate were held as usual tomorrow, and it collapsed because of an insufficient number of Members being interested in those subjects, if there were hon. Members here from Scotland who were interested in Scottish questions would it not be permissible for them to raise the question of Scottish unemployment and carry on that debate until 4 o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: They could raise it on the Adjournment, subject to the interests of the hon. Member who has at present the right to that Adjournment under our existing arrangements. If he, in turn, collapsed altogether, the Chair would do its utmost to discourage the introduction of a new subject, unless the Minister had had adequate notice.
Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order. I know that the Chair seeks to discourage the continuation of a debate on another subject, but, according to the rules, would it not be in order for hon. Members who were here to carry on with a debate? Therefore, the matter hinges upon whether or not tomorrow a sufficiently large number of hon. Members turn up. If Scottish Members were prepared to turn up and others did not, would they not be in order in raising their subject?
Mr. Speaker: There are several points involved. Technically, what the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) says is right. Should a vacuum occur in an enlarged Adjournment, it would not be within my powers, nor should I

1279
wish to do so, to stop any hon. Member discussing any topic. We work it the other way as a matter of convenience.
The point of order, on which I am sorry to have caused the hon. Member so much interruption, is this. The argument now being discussed must be reasonably related to the Amendment being moved, that is, to the need to have a sitting tomorrow. Clearly, one gets into a realm not reasonably related to that proposition when it is said, "The topic that I say we ought to discuss tomorrow is one which we shall only be able to discuss if all the other business collapses and the Adjournment debate collapses and then I can get in rather irregularly at the end of it".
Mr. Hughes: I already envisaged the possibility of the collapse of the Motions in the names of the hon. Members for Twickenham, Leicester, North-West, and Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). There will then arise a situation in which certain hon. Members will not collapse. Then the Chief Government Whip will move the Adjournment. We shall have informed the Secretary of State for Scotland of the possibility that we wish to discuss on the Adjournment matters concerning Scotland. Then the field will be open for the discussion of the affairs of Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: I ought to tell the hon. Member how it strikes me. I do not think that in advancing his Amendment he can go through reciting every possible topic which might be discussed if the other business collapsed. That is impossible.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Perhaps is would help all hon. Members if I say that, if the House did meet tomorrow, I should be perfectly ready— I am sure that many of my hon. Friends would be ready, also—to attend the House and move the first Motion, which would occupy the whole day.
Mr. Hughes: That certainly is a strong point in favour of my Amendment. The hon. Member for Twickenham is prepared to make the supreme sacrifice and give up his place in Westminster Abbey, if he has one, because he attaches such importance to the extension of industrial ownership.
Mr. W. Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in the event of the House sitting tomorrow, and
1280
the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) not being here, would I be in order in moving the Motion on the Order Paper concerning profit sharing in industry?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) could not move the Motion in the hypothetical circumstances he states.
Mr. Hughes: This has brought a new element into the debate. In the event of the hon. Member for Twickenham moving his Motion to call attention to the desirability of the wider ownership of industrial shares, we would point out that that could be abundantly illustrated by the need for getting a different kind of wider ownership of industrial shares in Scotland. If the House met tomorrow, I do not think that it would be beyond the ingenuity and persistance of Scottish Members ultimately to raise the question of unemployment in Scotland. However, I do not wish to pursue that. Probably my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) will be able to do so.
I detected in the speech of the Leader of the House a rather aggressive attitude towards Scottish Members. He said that the Scots would appear on any occasion to speak indefinitely on any subject. He must have been at a very difficult meeting of the Cabinet presided over by the Prime Minister, who is, of course, a Scot. Even if there are long speeches at Cabinet meetings, Scottish Members can make very short and very relevant speeches when discussing unemployment in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see a model of conciseness and brevity in debate, he should read the account of a meeting in Glasgow, where 41 Scottish Members met to discuss Scottish questions. They did it all in a time limit of ten minutes and five minutes.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know what rules of order applied to that meeting, but it seems a little far away from the Motion.
Mr. Paget: On a hypothetical point, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to introduce a Motion that the attempts of the beggarly Scots to exploit the ancient Kingdom of England should be confined to the Scottish Grand Committee?
Mr. Speaker: There are many charming proposals, but I would rather not rule on that one so that we can get on with business.
Mr. Hughes: I think that I have said enough to suggest that there is what legal Members call a prima facie case for my Amendment. It is not an unreasonable Amendment. If it is defeated, I hope that the Home Secretary will enjoy himself at the wedding. I am quite sure that if Mr. Richard Dimbleby were to collapse as a result of an outburst of emotion, the Home Secretary would gallantly fill his place. I move the Amendment because I believe that out priorities are wrong. I am sure that our people wish the Royal couple every success in their future life, but we want priority to be given to Parliament and to the matters we should be discussing tomorrow.
4.21 p.m.
Sir Thomas Moore:The whole House will be rather sorry for the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He had obviously prepared his speech at some length—as we have heard —before he knew that the Government were prepared to give Government time for consideration of the Motions already on the Order Paper for tomorrow. Yet, and here we must admire him, he was completely undeterred. He went along with his confused and confusing argument with the same verve, the same lack of conviction, and the same synthetic-sincerity that we have come to associate with all he says.
Apart from that statement of fact, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may remind you of a question that I tried to put to you last week—but I do not think that you quite saw through it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House replied to an hon. Member opposite about the arrangements that the Government were to make for free access of hon. Members to this House tomorrow. I thought, "Well, on Friday, it is Motions." Most of us know just how many hon. Members come here on Friday—and for Motions. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire certainly does not, and I think I can say of a number of other Scottish hon. Members, and a large number of English and Welsh hon. Members, that they would not have the slightest intention of being here. The
1282
only hon. Members who can be depended on to be present are the movers of the Motions and the unfortunate Government spokesmen who might have to answer.
It was then, Mr. Speaker, that I asked you, on a point of order, whether you could give an estimate of the number of hon. Members who would be likely to be affected by these Motions being postponed from tomorrow to another date—
Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Baronet, with great respect, that I told him on the last occasion that it was not a point of order for me to deal with. Making estimates of Friday attendances is astonishingly difficult—hon. Members seem to come out of holes in the ground in hordes at four o'clock sometimes.
Sir T. Moore: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have studied the matter more deeply than I have, but the fact remains that on an ordinary Friday the average number of hon. Members whose attendance would likely to be disrupted by the non-sitting of the House would be limited to about 20. With the competition of the wedding of Princess Margaret, we know perfectly well that the House would be very lucky if it saw more hon. Members present than the movers of the three Motions.
The whole thing, therefore, is a storm in a teacup, as everyone knows, including the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—
Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the Scottish Members on this side thought that tomorrow there would be any chance of discussing Scottish unemployment, they would not be here in all their numbers—coming out of all the holes in the ground through which it is possible to come?
Sir T. Moore: Scottish Members would certainly come here if they thought there was a possibility of making a speech—and, preferably, a long one.
Mr. Speaker, you have given this matter consideration and have decided that it is not a point of order. The whole thing is a storm in a teacup, deliberately engineered to give the hon. Member for South Ayrshire another

1283
opportunity of raising a hare that nobody wanted to chase. I therefore hope that nothing more will be said, but that we all join together in wishing Princess Margaret a very happy wedding and a very happy married life.
4.27 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) starts from a false premise—
Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member must not be so dogmatic.
Mr. Hamilton: The Leader of the House has indicated that he does not propose to give up any public time, but is providing an alternative Friday that was also private Members' time, or so I understand. He did that in a clear and obvious attempt to scotch the Scotsmen's attempt to debate the most important social problem in Scotland.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acquit any of us on this side of any discourtesy to the people involved in tomorrow's proceedings. There is no disrespect whatsoever in that regard— but the right hon. Gentleman's original decision was based precisely on the grounds that there would be difficulty in providing access to the House for hon. Members. When I raised the possibility of debating Scottish unemployment tomorrow, he doubted very much whether many hon. Members would be here in any event, and that the attendance would not match the importance of the subject.
As to access, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked who decided on this day. It is a working day for this House, and it is a working day for the country. I might also ask: why decide on London as the venue for this big event? Why not have it in Balmoral? After all, Princess Margaret is a Scot, and there is 6 per cent. unemployment in the Balmoral area—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The fact that the ceremony is not to take place in Balmoral does not appear to me to be a reason why this House should sit tomorrow. It is to that that the hon. Gentleman should address himself.
Mr. Hamilton: I suggest that had another venue been originally decided
1284
on this Motion would not have been necessary. That is my only point on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire referred to congestion, and at Question Time during the last week or two he has referred to the cost of tomorrow's operation. I am not so much concerned about the cost of the actual ceremony, but I am concerned about the cost to industry and commerce, which would have been avoided had my suggestion been accepted. It is, of course, too late to deal with that, but I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his assumption that had the House sat tomorrow there would have been nobody here.
I can tell him that were the House to sit tomorrow, and had he announced that because of other commitments the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and other hon. Members could not attend and that he would, therefore, leave the field to the Scots Members to debate a subject of our own choosing, there would have been a full turn-out—on this side, at any rate—to debate that over-riding social problem across the Border.
I ask the hon. Gentleman not to underestimate the lack of impact of tomorrow's events on Scottish Members whose minds are exercised by this problem. I have in my area a tremendous problem and there are other areas of Scotland which have the same, and the minds of some people there will not be on the tinsel and the glitter or the brass that we shall see and hear tomorrow. So long as the problem exists we shall have it uppermost in our minds, and we should certainly have liked an opportunity to debate it tomorrow.
In the event, I feel that it would be a good gesture on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to give us an undertaking that he will find a day for us. We should not have caused this slight disturbance today—I was going to use the word "rumpus"—had an undertaking been given last week, or even after Questions today, that we could debate this Scottish problem at some time in the future. On this wedding eve, it would be a nice gesture to Scottish Members and to the Scots leading lady tomorrow if the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "All right; in the very near and foreseeable future

1285
Scottish Members shall have an opportunity to debate this extremely important social problem."
4.32 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I think that it is only right to say that the three people most intimately concerned with tomorrow's business are the movers of the three Motions already on the Order Paper. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction, on behalf of all three hon. Members concerned, one of whom is in the Chamber now, apart from myself, that we realise that tomorrow is a very important occasion which the public will appreciate very widely indeed and which will have repercussions all over the Commonwealth and the world. In the light of those considerations, despite the fact that the Motions are very important and we knew that several hon. Members were anxious to come and speak on them, we were willing to give up tomorrow's business, thinking it right that the House should take a holiday and meet on another occasion. With that, I hope that we shall be able to decide the matter very soon.
4.33 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Lipton: The attitude of the Government throughout has been somewhat curious. It will be within the recollection of the House that the date of this Royal wedding was announced on 9th March. It will be within the recollection of the House also that not until 26th April, and than in reply to a Question by one of my hon. Friends, did the Government announce that the House would not sit. The reason given for this somewhat belated decision taken so long a time after the date of the original announcement, according to the Leader of the House, was that:
"On consideration of the … difficulties of approach to the Chamber … and out of regard to the solemnity and importance of the occasion"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 31],
the House would not sit.
In moving the Motion, the Home Secretary, in his capacity as Leader of the House, made it quite clear that the argument founded on difficulty of access does not apply, so the excuse he made for his announcement on 26th April,
1286
based on difficulty of access, is no longer relevant.
We come now to the other leg of his argument, regard for the solemnity and importance of the occasion. The only comment I make on that, with all respect, is that it has taken the Government a long time to be seized of the solemnity and importance of the occasion. It took them from 9th March until 26th April to realise how solemn it was. I feel that there is a certain amount of humbug about the Government's attitude in this matter, and, frankly, I think that I should put that on record.
I will not pursue the argument further. There is only one argument which can be adduced in favour of the Motion. It is that, unlike the 257 sailors who are sailing on the Royal Yacht tomorrow, we at least know when we are due back.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I wish to make one small but important point. While the right hon. Gentleman has been conveying the felicitations of the House on this auspicious event and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has been devoting himself, as always, to duty, it has, apparently, escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention when thinking about access to the House that a lunatic, in the early hours of the morning of Monday or Tuesday, erected enormous doors across Bridge Street. These doors afford only limited means of entry and exit; the traffic is forced into two streams each of which has to work its way very slowly through.
Yesterday, in approaching this building—this is literally true—it took me 20 minutes to pass from one end of Westminster Bridge to the other.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): This is beyond the scope of the Motion.
Mr. Hale: You did not have the advantage, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of being here when the Home Secretary addressed the House. He devoted his remarks entirely, or almost entirely, to the subject of access. A great deal of his time was spent in saying that there would be provision of free access to the House tomorrow even if the House did not sit. Whether it sat or not, he said, he had made provision. I am trying to

1287
deal very briefly with that point. Car labels had been issued, whether the car labels would be used or not. My point is that the car labels cannot be used if the situation to which I am referring continues.
I do not wish to carry on for long about it. I do not object to these arrangements for tomorrow. It may be very necessary, very proper and sensible to have such a structure in the road for the protection of crowds. But why could it not have been put up tonight? Why has it to be there for three days in one of the busiest places of London? Why should the A.A.—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but that is not relevant to the Motion.
Mr. Hale: The Amendment is to the effect that the House do sit tomorrow. I am pointing out that we are discussing—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Whether the obstruction was put up tonight or three days ago does not affect the Motion.
Mr. Hale: But whether we sit tomorrow depends to a great extent upon it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has suggested that we sit tomorrow. My submission is that it is almost physically impossible to sit tomorrow, in spite of the arrangements made, because of the obstructions.
I do not wish to develop the point at length, but I must insist that three days is a little too much. No doubt, this erection was designed on the advice of the highest military and technical experts. No doubt it will not last very long. If this is the work of the Minister of Transport, it is time that something was done. After his speeches in Chicago and elsewhere in America, I suggest that the Leader of the House should have a quiet word with him and ask him to be a little more sensible in future.
4.38 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: My concern is not with private Members' time on this occasion, or with Scottish Members—not least, of course, because Scottish Members would not permit any other Member to be concerned on their behalf—but with what appears to be a very important issue, namely, that the
1288
decision not to sit tomorrow has been to some extent forced upon the House by outside events. If that is so, I suggest that it is rather serious.
I understood that the decision not to sit tomorrow was taken, after consultation with both sides, on the basis that very many Members would probably wish to be elsewhere. I do not argue for or against that; it is a different matter. However, it has since been suggested to me that the Metropolitan Police made representations that they would not be able to guarantee access for hon. Members to this House if there were a sitting. If that is so, it seems extraordinary that Parliament cannot sit because of a factor over which it, apparently, has no control. I should have thought that the whole purpose of a Sessional Order was to ensure that Parliament, in its desire or decision to sit or not to sit, should be under no duress as a result of any other events.
It was not essential that the wedding should be held tomorrow. It could have been held on a Saturday. I got married on a Saturday. I had a honeymoon for £12. It could have been held on Sunday, or during the Recess. Alternatively, if it was necessary that the wedding should be held on a Friday, knowing that it would mean that this House could not sit, the decision should have been debated by this House. The final decision whether this House sits must surely always remain solely with this House alone, and with no other outside activity.
That is the only point which I wish to make, but I think that it transcends all others. I understand that one of the original reasons for the introduction of Sessional Orders was that some of the Princess Margaret's royal predecessors occasionally had processions which prevented people coming into the House. If the matter were turned full circle, that would be a pity. I am sure that every hon. Member extends his best and sincerest wishes to Princess Margaret and her fiance. Everyone wishes them, and any other young people who get married tomorrow or any other day, the very best, but it is essential that Parliament should decide when it sits and does not sit.
4.41 p.m.
Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like shortly to reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) wanted

1289
to know whether the Government would give time after Whitsun to compensate for the time lost tomorrow. It is quite clear that the Government are giving their own time to compensate private Members for the time that they are losing. I think that that is an indication not only that we do not wish to deprive private Members of their privileges, but also, in view of the importance of the occasion, that we thought it right ourselves to provide time to compensate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and others for the time which they will lose. I hope that that is an indication of the importance which the Government and the House attach to the event which will take place tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said that outside events should not influence the judgment of Parliament. I absolutely agree with him. That is part of our ancient tradition. If the House were to decide, in response to the Amendment moved to my Motion, that we should sit tomorrow, that would be a decision of the House itself. Our liberties are preserved by the fact that there can be no decision by the House not to sit tomorrow without a Motion being moved, having it debated, if necessary voting on it and deciding it in the proper manner. In that way, we preserve absolutely our liberty to sit tomorrow if we should so desire. The hon. Member is perfectly at liberty, quite beyond the bounds of legitimate criticism, in expressing the view that we should sit tomorrow.
The other point raised concerned access. It was said by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that there is some discrepancy between my original remarks and my remarks today. My remarks today, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, were that we are doing our utmost to make it possible for an hon. Member who wishes to come to the House at a reasonable time tomorrow to get here, but I made it plain that there can be no absolute guarantee. The words of the Sessional Order are that
"the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House …"
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), in one of his characteristic interventions, referred to an obstruction
1290
to which he takes strong objection. I am informed that, unfortunately, these obstructions have been essential for the proper conduct of the crowds and affairs tomorrow. Whether that be so or not, we cannot guarantee absolutely the access tomorrow that the Sessional Order claims. I think that if hon. Members want to come to the House tomorrow, they will be able to reach here in the way I suggested at the times I suggested. I still think that it could not have been guaranteed that the House would have had a very easy or satisfactory attendance here tomorrow. Therefore, that was one of the items that we took into consideration.
To deal with the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I thought that every one of his arguments answered itself, which is typical of his orations on these great occasions. He started with a magnificent flourish, saying that we must give priority to the widening of industrial democracy and the needs of youth in our time. It is precisely because the Government think that a proper time, with opportunity for all Members to attend, should be given that we are deliberately not sitting tomorrow, when there would probably be a truncated audience and not sufficient opportunity to give priority to the subjects. It is a deliberate decision by the Government that some of our time should be given for the furtherance of industrial democracy in Scotland and elsewhere and for attention to the Youth Service and other matters.
To follow through the absolute inconsistency of the hon. Member's arguments, he went on to build the second part of his speech on the belief that all these subjects would immediately collapse, and that Scottish Members would not have an opportunity of debating them. Never in the history of Parliament and our great debaters has there ever been such inconsistency in argument. First, we are told that the House is panting to widen industrial democracy and the next moment Scottish Members axe willing to pounce on the vacuum created by the subjects being undebatable.
This shows the hollow character of the hon. Member's rhetoric and puts his speech where we wish it to be—not among the greatest contributions to English oratory, but as a genial and perfectly warm-hearted and open attempt to keep open the rights of Members to

1291
meet when they will. It is in that way that I accept the speech, at any rate.
I should like to conclude by saying in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), and to other hon. Members who have spoken, that I think that the spirit in which this matter has been discussed should indicate to those who are engaged on one of life's greatest adventures tomorrow, Her Royal Highness, Princess Margaret and her future partner, that the House of Commons wishes them well. We shall not be sitting tomorrow, but we shall certainly take the opportunity to widen industrial democracy when the honeymoon is over.
Question, That "Monday next" stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  BETTING AND GAMING BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  BETTING AND GAMING BILL

    New Clause.—(LOCAL AUTHORITIES NOT TO SUBSIDISE PREMISES FOR GAMING.)
    It is hereby declared that nothing contained in section one hundred and thirty-two of the the Local Government Act, 1948, or in any local or private act shall be deemed to authorise any local authority to maintain or subsidise any premises solely or partly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for the playing of games for money therein. —[Mr. Fletcher.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.47 p.m.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    By way of introduction, I should like to remind hon. Members who did not have the benefit of serving on the Standing Committee, including the Home Secretary, that the object of this proposed new Clause is to amend Part II which deals not with betting but with gaming.
    It will be appreciated that, as the law stands at the moment and as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary explained so admirably on Second Reading, all gaming is illegal, although it is widely practised, and the law on the subject is not enforced. The object of this Part of the Bill is to make all gaming legal, subject to three conditions—first, that all chances should be equal; secondly, that the promoter should not take a cut in the profits; and, thirdly, with the reservation in the case of clubs, that there should be no charges. As the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Undersecretary of State explained in Committee, the object of these three things is to introduce financial conditions and to produce a position which would legalise gaming in private houses, hotels and clubs, but at the same time prohibit commercially organised gaming.
    In Committee, some of us had considerable doubts as to whether the terms of the Bill would effectively prevent commercially organised gaming. Attention was directed to the fact that one or two enterprising people had already announced their intention of opening casinos in different parts of the country,

    1293
    notably a Mr. Snaffer, who announced that he had bought the Eel Pie Island in the River Thames between Richmond and Twickenham for that purpose. The Joint Under-Secretary appears to have satisfied the bulk of the Committee that it would be difficult to open a commercially organised casino.
    On the other hand, the Joint Undersecretary was driven to concede that under his Bill there would be a definite risk of municipalities or other local authorities being able to open and conduct the kind of gaming house which colloquially is called a casino, where games of baccarat, boule and roulette, and various other games with which the Continent is more familiar than we are, are normally conducted.
    The reason for the difference is that municipalities who were minded to open casinos would not suffer the same necessity of having to conduct the casino for profit as a private promoter would. They would be able to subsidise it on the plausible ground that a casino in a seaside resort such as Blackpool. Brighton or Margate—
    Mr. Anthony Fell: Or Yarmouth.
    Mr. Fletcher: —or Yarmouth or elsewhere, would be an attraction to the town and would tend to attract visitors and, presumably, divert custom to a town with a casino as against its rivals and competitors.
    Since the Bill was introduced, it is well known that various localities have already been canvassing the possibilities, when the Bill is passed, of opening a municipal casino. If that is what the Bill permits, one could not criticise Blackpool, Southend or some other enterprising municipality whose prosperity depended upon its attractions during the season for doing what the law permits. With such a possibility, the temptation for other localities to follow suit would be even greater. The danger is that the competition between various seaside resorts to attract visitors is so strong that the mere suggestion that a casino was being considered in one place would be enough to prompt several others to commence operations.
    Therefore, the object with which my right hon. Friend and I have put down the new Clause is to ensure that muni-
    1294
    cipalities are not able to open municipal casinos. I hope that the sense of the Amendment will be accepted by the Joint Under-Secretary. In case it is thought not to be perfect in drafting, I have reconsidered it since it was put down. If it would meet any technical objections, I should be quite happy to substitute, in the last line of the new Clause, for the words
    "for the playing of games for money therein".
    the alternative words
    "for the purpose of taking part in gaming."
    That would be an improvement. Criticism might also be directed to the words "solely or partly", which I would regard as apt. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would prefer "wholly or mainly" or some similar words, I should be quite happy to accept any technical improvements of that nature which he suggests.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Speaking in Committee on the afternoon of 22nd March, I said that
    "the Government do not consider it desirable that casinos should be established under the Bill ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 22nd March, 1960; c. 1004.]
    I repeat that statement now. I had previously explained to the Committee, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has explained to the House, that a casino as we know it would not be possible under the Bill because of the financial conditions in that the promoter of a casino either desires to have a cut on the stakes or to manipulate the bank so that he has a financial interest. I also told the Committee that under the Bill a casino could only be run in the form of a club, because public access would not be possible. At a later stage, we inserted words to deal with "a club" which would, again, make it more difficult for anyone to organise a casino.
    I believe that I had the support of the Committee, as the hon. Member for Islington, East has said, when I suggested that a private individual who organised a casino would find it a singularly unprofitable venture. As the hon. Member has pointed out, however, I said that it would be possible for a local authority which thought that it could attract people to a locality to subsidise a casino of a limited type from the rates. There was doubt about that,

    1295
    however, because of the interpretation placed upon the word "entertainment" in the Local Government Act, 1948, and I thought it unlikely that a local authority would in fact do it.
    I went on to say that I would consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see whether any use could be made of the 1948 Act to tidy up what, I thought, was the only possible loophole by which a public municipality could establish a casino. The hon. Member for Islington, East has forestalled me in my consultations. The wording of the new Clause is not perfect. I should like to consider what the hon. Member has suggested as the alternative wording, but on condition that I may reconsider the wording with a view to readjustment in another place, I suggest that the House should accept the new Clause.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I regret that decision. This is one of the occasions when, unlike hon. Members opposite, we on this side each express our own opinion. I would vastly prefer a municipal casino to an outbreak of privately-owned betting shops. A municipal casino is vastly more consistent with order; it is more consistent with control and, what is of some importance, it provides a better chance for the people who wish to gamble.
    Under the Bill, a municipal casino would have to give the right odds. It would have to give odds which did not provide any cagnotte or any turn of the chance, such as the "O" on the roulette wheel, in favour of the bank. Thus would be provided for the first time an opportunity for people to bet and get fair odds. If betting is to be allowed at all, I cannot see why there should be discrimination against the only form of betting which would not be conducted for private profit and which would give fair odds to the people who bet.
    Having said that generally, however, and aware that probably our national hypocrisy is such that we would regard it as profoundly wicked to allow, say, Torquay to compete on even terms as a resort with Dieppe or Deauville, I am assuming that probably something will be done about this which I shall regret.
    1296
    5.0 p.m.
    I hope that pains will be taken to see that the Clause is not too wide. I have in mind the huts which are provided for old-age pensioners in Northampton parks. They are provided by the municipality and the old gentlemen go there and play cribbage. It is a very delightful pastime and I always enjoy visiting the huts and watching the cribbage which is conducted with great passion and incredibly ancient cards. I hope that nothing in the Bill will overlook that and make it illegal for these cribbage games to be played in municipal huts.
    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am a little worried about the new Clause. I do not think the Government have it quite right, if they propose to accept it. As it is of great importance and affects the tourist trade of the country to a marked degree, I hope that I may be forgiven if I try to elucidate my reasons with some care.
    The all-party Tourist Resorts Committee of the House of Commons unanimously put forward the suggestion that we should not have casinos in this country. My own view is very strongly against them. I am sorry but I shall therefore be violently opposed to the views expressed in the earlier part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). On the other hand, I am in agreement with the latter part.
    We must first look at this rather carefully and then I will give an illustration. The Local Government Act, 1948, gives very wide powers to the municipalities. The reason I did not hear the whole of the opening speech in this debate was that I went out to obtain a copy of that Statute. Section 132 of the Act says:
    "A local authority may …"
    arrange for
    "(a) the provision of an entertainment of any nature or of facilities for dancing;
    (b) the provision of a theatre, concert hall, dance hall or other premises suitable for the giving of entertainments or the holding of dances …
    (d) any purpose incidental to the matters aforesaid …"
    The Winter Gardens in Margate is one of the best concert halls in the country, and it is a quite regular event to have large whist drives held there. At the moment we have the annual conference

    1297
    of the licensed victuallers, gentlemen who are giving great deliberation to matters which the House will deal with next year. At the end of the week we have a gigantic fete at which there will be tombola, housey-housey, cribbage and all types of games, and then there are to be some big dances and balls and conferences.
    This is equally true of Blackpool, Brighton and elsewhere. Therefore—and this is the point—these premises are partly used habitually for the purpose of playing games of chance therein. That is to say, not only are the premises habitually used for that purpose, but it is only one of their purposes. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is present. The Leas Cliff Hall in his constituency is one of the finest in the country. I know it well from my youth. I am sure that the people there will want to have whist drives and perhaps international tournament bridge.
    Bournemouth is one of the centres for great international bridge, and I am sure that the municipal hall there is used for that purpose. Blackpool in the North gets almost everything and even things which we are not prepared to deal with in Margate. The West Cliff Hall in Ramsgate is also used for some of these purposes. They are keen there on providing for old-age pensioners, and every kind of card game is played.
    I wanted to give that background before looking at the precise wording of the proposed new Clause. I am sympathetic, and I am sure that my views are not very different from those which the Government will express or those which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) seeks to express. The new Clause states that matters contained in Section 132 of the Local Government Act, which is the Section that provides the widest powers for the provision of entertainment in municipalities
    "or in any local or private act shall be deemed to authorise any local authority to maintain or subsidise"—
    Let us exclude "subsidise" for the moment—
    "any premises solely or partly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for the playing of games for money therein "
    1298
    That does not even limit it to the same people resorting therein habitually. Persons resorting therein habitually for the playing of games may be different people.
    I believe that this wording would be construed by the courts to mean that if the Winter Gardens were being maintained by Margate Corporation partly for the purpose of people resorting habitually therein to play bridge or whist or any of these games for money, it would automatically make it unlawful.
    This is a very serious matter. For example, it is a very serious matter to the Labour Party as well as to the Conservative Party. We take the Winter Gardens for our annual fetes and we both of us play housey-housey there and so do the churches and other people, and not only play housey-housey for money but also have mammoth whist drives. Frankly, I have great doubts, therefore, about the Clause in its present drafting. I would not say that it would not be possible to draft it otherwise in order to limit it, but I should like to say something on the argument whether the Clause is necessary.
    I do not believe that the Clause is necessary, and I pin my faith on the fact that one cannot possibly conduct a casino under the Bill as drafted. There is no danger of any municipality doing so, and the feeling of the country broadly is undoubtedly that there should not be casinos. I know that there is a gentleman who thinks he may do something on Eel Pie Island and I know that some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) are a little bit minded to have casinos if they can. But they cannot.
    Here we are dealing with local authorities, and I see no reason why they should seek to set up casinos and flaunt the law. But if they did, all that they could do would be to authorise a bridge club on the premises and perhaps authorise the playing of bridge or whist or games of that kind regularly. Will it really be an evil if people play their progressive whist at these halls? I think not. Therefore, on the whole, my view is that we do not need these safeguards to any extent and we do not need them for this Clause.
    To come back to the actual wording. I hope that the Clause will be withdrawn on the undertaking given by my right

    1299
    hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but I also hope that he will not accept the Clause as it stands. I hope that he will consult those concerned with the municipalities, because in practically every one of these constituencies the main centre is some large municipal hall which is used for activities by people who come there from all parts of the country. Great damage would be done if they were not given the widest powers to enable them to have entertainment of every kind.
    All these halls that I have mentioned— and one knows of them all over the country—are extremely well conducted and there is no indication that they want to engage in, if I may use the phrase, "excessive gaming" as such. But, if they did want to engage in the playing of whist and bridge, practically all of these halls are used for such a diversity of purposes, such as conferences, that the amount of time that could be given to such games is negligible.
    We do not want to see, if we can avoid it, any conflict or to prevent them from being able to hire these halls to all sorts of charitable purposes. I hope that we will do our best, as we and the Government have done so far, to keep this gaming part of the Bill as simple as possible and see how it works.
    I hope that on reflection the hon. Member for Islington, East will withdraw his Motion. We are to have a very great opportunity. This Bill will be passed this year and next year there will be a licensing Bill. Matters which may happen not to come within the scope of this Bill may have the opportunity for remedy at a later date if any particular harm arises. I do not see any harm arising here, and I do not think that it is necessary to impose any further duties upon municipalities than those which exist and which they have carried out properly. As this stands at the moment, I do not share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State or by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East.
    Mr. Ede: I thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State—I think ft is the first time I have done so in the course of discussion on this Bill—for the way in which he has responded to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member
    1300
    for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). We were fascinated throughout the Committee stage of this Bill by the detailed knowledge of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) of all the ramifications of every one of the activities that comes under review in the course of our consideration of this matter.
    In Committee he convinced me that it would not be possible to run a casino in this country, even by a municipality, unless the municipality, in addition to getting the mere power to have a hall of this kind, also took steps to exempt itself from the provisions which we understand that the Government, as well as certain of my hon. Friends on the Committee, want.
    I am sure that on both sides it is the desire that this Bill, when presented for the Royal Assent, shall be in a form simple enough for ordinary people to understand wherever possible. I therefore welcome the promise made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that consideration will be given to the, wording of this Clause. I gather that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet still takes the same view that he took in Committee—and we understand from him that the Parliamentary Committee that deals with the affairs of tourist resorts in this House also came to that decision—that we do not want to see Continental-type casinos in this country. I do not think that anything which happened on Canvey Island could be dignified by any suggestion that it would be a casino of the Continental type.
    I regret that we do not carry my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) with us in this matter. On this side of the House, in consideration of this Bill, we are allowed to express such views as we have and to vote as we like. I hope that he will not resist my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East withdrawing the Clause in order that the Joint Undersecretary of State can have the opportunity, on reconsideration, to submit to another place something that we may hope to embody in the Bill.
    Mr. A. P. Costain: My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made the point which I wanted to make about the Leas Cliff Hall at Folkestone, and I shall not repeat it. However,

    1301
    I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State that these halls are booked up sometimes a year or two ahead. Our thoughts are one on this, and I hope that a decision can be reached so that these halls can get forward bookings made, otherwise this delay will cause inconvenience.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful for the reception given to this Clause. I understand that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State was that the Government should accept the Clause on the understanding that it should be modified. As he said, I had to some extent forestalled him by stating that I did not think the words "solely or partly" are appropriate.
    It would be much better to change them, as I indicated. I think that would meet the point of view of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). Listening to his observations, I was more convinced than ever of the necessity of incorporating this Clause in the Bill, because I am sure that it is the desire not only of the Government but of the majority of my hon. Friends that it should be made quite clear that this Bill is not intended to legalise casinos either in the hands of a private promoter or of a municipality.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1.—(REPLACEMENT OF BETTING ACT, 1853, ETC., BY NEW PROVISION.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "1874", to insert:
    "'the Street Betting Act, 1906', in so far as it affects England and Wales".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Perhaps it would be convenient if we also discussed the Amendments in page 1, line 11, at end insert:
    (2) (a) It shall be lawful for the holder of a bookmaker's permit or for his servants or agents duly authorised by him in writing:

    (i) to accept in a street or public place written instructions accompanied by cash from persons desiring to bet with him or his principal, and

    (ii) on a day subsequent to the event upon the result of which the bet has been made, to hand over to persons who have made winning bets an envelope containing their
    1302
    winnings together with a statement of the bet in respect of which payment is made.

    (b) It shall be an offence for any person to frequent or loiter in a street or public place on behalf of either himself or any other person, to do anything by way of or for the purpose of furthering or completing any betting or wagering transaction other than those expressly permitted by paragraph (a) of this subsection and it shall be an offence for such a person to display any sign or notice or advertisement or to call the odds or to do anything likely to cause any nuisance or obstruction in such street or public place.
    (c) For the purpose of this subsection the word "street" shall include any highway and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and the words "public place" shall include any public park, garden, or sea-beach, and any unenclosed ground to which the public for the time being have unrestricted access, and shall also include every enclosed place (not being a public park or garden) to which the public have a restricted right of access, whether on payment or otherwise, if at or near every public entrance there is conspicuously exhibited by the owners or persons having the control of the place a notice prohibiting betting therein.
    (d) This subsection shall not apply to Scotland;
    In Clause 6, in page 5, line 27, leave out from beginning to "be" in line 29 and insert:
    "(2) of section one of this Act shall".
    In Clause 8, page 6, in line 13, after "permit", insert:
    "or any servant or agent of such holder".
    In page 6, line 17, leave out "subsection (2) of".
    Mr. Ede: That would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will also deal with the other Amendments you have suggested should be taken with this Amendment.
    We had 25 sittings of the Committee and the first seven were devoted to the problem which this Amendment raises. The Times had a leading article yesterday headed "Better Betting". I want to direct the attention of the House to a couple of sentences in that article. It said:
    "Throughout the first seven sittings of the committee the Government was challenged on its decision to force cash betting off the streets into betting shops, and in the course of that debate that began to appear that neither the royal commission of 1949 nor the Government in drafting the Bill on lines recommended by the commission was fully acquainted with the betting habits of the nation. It may be doubted whether the Minister in charge of the Bill had the better of the argument."

    1303
    I never mind being beaten in Committee. What I object to is a feeling that I ought to be beaten.
    Sometimes I have sat on the Government side of the House and gone into the Division Lobby feeling that I ought to be beaten. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in Committee we had a reasonable attitude on both sides. There was no violent denunciation of one side by the other on any of the matters which were raised. But I agree with the estimate made by The Times yesterday, that the Minister in charge of the Bill did not have the better of the argument on this matter. Therefore, I am very grateful that it has been possible to raise it again on Report.
    In the Bill, we are engaged on the very difficult task of trying by legislation to regulate the social habits of our people. In the 700 years or so that the House of Commons has been engaged in legislation, it is very difficult to find cases where the House has undertaken the task of regulating social habits, what may be called either the feelings or the prejudices of the population, and been able to achieve success.
    At the moment, there are two forms of cash betting in Great Britain, both illegal. It is illegal to have a betting office, what is more colloquially called a betting shop. I understand that they are very popular in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes); who is a person of very great experience in the administration of the law in Scotland and in his knowledge of the social habits of the people, and the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), are convinced, so far as one could ever convince a Scotsman of anything about which he ought not to be convinced, that the betting shop has been taken to the warm heart of the Scottish people and that the crofter's Saturday night is now engaged in considering what he is going to do in his visits to the betting shop during the coming week. Therefore, we are not trying to upset any of the habits which the Scottish people have formed.
    However, when we come to England and Wales the position is by no means as simple as it appears to be in Scotland. There are some cases in which there are numerous betting shops known to Mem-
    1304
    bers of Parliament representing the constituency but unknown to the chief constable. In fact, one hon. Member assured us that he had consulted the chief constable who had said that there was none in his constituency. The hon. Member then found one of his supporters whom he believed occasionally to venture sums of money on the speed of horses and he inquired whether it was possible to put the money on. He was then taken to a number of places whose exact object to the innocent onlooker and visitor did not appear very plain, and inside and behind the heavily painted windows he found that betting transactions could be carried on, particularly on a Saturday afternoon, when there was no football match at home by the local team.
    The hon. Member for York (Mr. Longbottom)—a place represented in previous Parliaments by a very distinguished Member—also went round and found that there were 40 betting shops in that cathedral city, every one of which he said he visited, and that there had been no prosecutions in York in respect of betting.
    Undoubtedly, this is a phenomenon which has grown in recent years, but there is still a great part of the country where betting shops or betting offices have not made their appearance and where the ordinary population of the country who desire to bet carry on their transactions with people whom they find in the streets. What the Bill does is to say that in future the first system is to be allowed and the second is to be prohibited, and, in addition to being prohibited, the penalties in respect of carrying it on are to be made much bigger.
    I regret that it should be sought while legalising the one to suppress the other. I make it clear that I do not follow the line of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)— that I dislike something and would therefore sooner have something else. If people like to bet in an office, let them do it, but if they wish to carry on the tradition of their locality and bet in the street, let them do so. But let the arrangements for doing it be under such regulations as will enable us to ensure, first, that there shall not be continuous betting, and, secondly, that there shall be proper control over what is done.

    1305
    The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is honouring us with his presence this afternoon. We did not have the benefit of his presence in Committee. I point out to him the great difficulty which will confront him when we get to Third Reading. He cannot repeat on Third Reading the speech which he made on Second Reading, because most of the things which he pledged himself to maintain have been whittled away at one time or another and in some of the new arrangements it is difficult to see how continuous betting can be prevented and how youth can secure immunity from this temptation.
    At one time, I favoured betting shops. I thought they might relieve us of the problems which confront us with street betting. I no longer hold that view, but I accept the position that there are some places in the country where betting shops and betting offices appear to have established a hold and to have become a recognised way in which people indulge in this particular social habit.
    Therefore, I am prepared to accept them if the Government can control their use so that continuous betting is prevented and the access of youth to betting facilities can be prevented. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton does not agree with that, for he said that the minimum age at which people should be allowed to bet was six, and that he started at that age. I doubt whether he is holding himself up as an example, although I am sometimes astonished at the way hon. Members hold themselves up as examples of what flogging can do and, in my hon. and learned Friend's case, what an early acquaintance with betting can do.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: My view is that people had better learn that gambling is a mug's game. When one is six years old, one can learn that lesson fairly cheaply.
    Mr. Ede: At the age of six one is hopeful enough to think that by the time one reaches a reasonably old age one will have recouped all one's losses.
    There was a time when I thought that the betting shop would be the answer to this problem, but during the Committee stage of the Bill I had the advantage of hearing a number of speeches and a number of points made by my hon.
    1306
    Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who has the great advantage of being able to convey the thoughts of his constituents in language that is both simple and convincing. His phraseology is human and shows the way in which his constituents look at things of that sort.
    Among the ways in which it is hoped to get rid of street betting is an arrangement by which there shall be what is called a factory runner. I doubt whether employers will welcome a recognised factory runner. When I was about the age at which my hon. and learned Friend thinks that one ought to start betting, I used to see a man—and very often it was not man, but a youth—carrying a broomstick leave a building site. He would return about half an hour later with the broomstick festooned with cans of beer.
    It was a recognised thing on every building site in the area where I lived, where factories were unknown. That was the regular way in which refreshment was obtained during the morning. Anybody who suggested such a thing while on the job now would be asking for his cards, and his remarks would be as unpopular with his workmates as they would be with his employer.
    I know that some employers have expressed the fear that in some way we will give people permits that will enable them to go on to factory premises for the purpose of getting bets there. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, and nothing in the Bill—or, as far as I can see, in any other Bill that is likely to go through the House-will achieve that.
    It is suggested that this is the answer to street betting. It may be in towns where there are factories employing people in sufficient numbers to make the employment of such a runner worth while, but the greater part of England consists of small towns and villages where there is not a large aggregation of workpeople, and in those places there will have to be either a betting shop or a street bookmaker.
    The social habits of our people must be borne in mind. I do not want to repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say that in my experience as a magistrate the evidence shows that most of the betting in such places takes

    1307
    place after the appearance of what are generally called the noon editions of the evening papers in which the runners of the day are set out, and certain advice as to those which are most likely to win are given.
    People make their bets and those bets are enforceable only by the standard of conduct maintained by the locality. The street bookmaker can continue in existence only if he is known to be a man who honourably meets his obligations even when he has had a bad day. He is dependent on the good will of his clientele and he is scrupulous in maintaining it.
    I repeat now the example that I gave in Committee because the other night I saw on television a representation of that great play, "Love on the Dole" which describes the social habits and experiences of our people during the great depression. There one has a community which is mainly unemployed. There is one lad who has the bright idea that he may be able to win the 3d. Treble, and, as it is necessary for the play to proceed, he succeeds in doing so. His neighbours then say, "You think that you are entitled to £25, but you will find the bookmaker's runner has a £5 limit on this, and the most you will get is £5".
    Then the great bookmaker, obviously much better fed than any of the other members in the play, comes on and makes a great oration when a sufficient number of the population has been assembled. He announces that with Sam Grundy the sky is the limit. The boy is placed on a barrel beside the bookmaker, who then says, "I am going to pay you £25; put your cap out", and very slowly and deliberately, to the great admiration of the bystanders, one after the other he puts 25 £1 notes into the lad's cap.
    The bookmaker turns to the assembly and says, "The sky is the limit" and three old women, who, in this play, seem to play the part of the three witches in Macbeth, say, "You have forgotten the 3d. stake money". As an anti-climax he then deliberately pays out one, two, three pennies, to maintain his standing in the community. That is the social basis on which the street bookmaker works and operates, and there are very few quarrels in the course of his business.
    1308
    The provisions contained in my Amendment, in conjunction with those put down by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northampton, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), will make it possible to carry on this system in a well-regulated way, which will enable many decent citizens to back their fancies occasionally in the way that they prefer. The other day I had a visit from a man who was against betting shops. He said, "I bet with the bookmaker in the street." He even told me the name of the street, and although I have walked along it a good many times my appearance always seems to cause the disappearance of all the bookmakers. That is the disadvantage of having been a justice of the peace too long.
    This man went on to say, "If I had to use a betting shop I would have to get my wife to put the money on. What is more, she would have to go to collect the winnings." There are some things that even the best of husbands like to conceal, and a little fortuitous good luck on occasion enables them to feel that although they are married they can still live an individual life.
    I ask the Government to realise that we are not putting down these Amendments in an effort to spread street bookmaking. I do not believe that it will spread. On the other hand, I believe that the creation of betting shops may induce many women to bet who ordinarly do not do so. Concessions were made during the Committee stage enabling ordinary shops to have betting rooms adjoining, although with separate entrances, and that will enable women who have never done so before to bet during the hours of the day when they are out shopping.
    I have received a document from some bookmakers in South Wales. They appear to have been in rather close negotiation with the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary. I am bound to say that he led them up the garden path in exactly the same way as he led the Jockey Club up it in Committee, until the hon. Member whom we understand to be its principal representative had to complain that it was being led up the garden. Provisions dealing with the Jockey Club are now postponed

    1309
    until next year, but the street bookmaker and his clientele are due for execution this Session.
    By means of the provisions contained in the Amendments that we have put down it should be possible to introduce a system which will control the street bookmaker in every desirable way. As he will have to operate in public, and he will be more closely under supervision than he is now, it will be possible to prevent him from recruiting his clientele from youths of such tender years that the House generally would desire them to be prohibited from having any connection with betting transactions.
    During the lunch hour I had a visit from Mr. Beesley, the street bookmaker, who was the principal witness—in fact, I believe he was the only witness—from the street bookmaking fraternity appearing before the Royal Commission. He tells me—and who am I to differ from so renowned an expert, with so many convictions that if he applies for a licence under the Bill he will have no difficulty in getting one?—that the street bookmaker pays at least £2 a week to the look-out man, whose job it is to signal to the bookmaker when the police are about to make a raid on the street.
    Mr. Beesley put a practical point to me, and I will put it to right hon. Gentlemen, because I want them to understand how closely their activities in this matter are being watched by the practical experts. Mr. Beesley said, "It would be far better to pay a licence fee of £100 a year and do away with the look-out man". I cannot help thinking that that is a sound and practical way in which to deal with some of the difficulties that confront us.
    Mr. George Wigg: Did he ask if Mr. Beesley could tell him how much the look-out man sometimes has to pay the police in order that the police can tell the look-out man that they are coming?
    Mr. Ede: No. We did not get on to any controversial matter. But he hinted that occasionally the look-out man did not pass on the information quickly enough. If the street bookmaker were licensed he would not have to worry about that.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: If the police want to find street bookmakers they can find them at the St. Stephen's Entrance to the House of Commons, waiting for a formal interview with the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who has sent an official invitation from the Home Office to their organisation, calling itself the Street Bookmakers' Federation, to discuss this legislation with him.
    Mr. Ede: Let us give the right hon. Gentleman full credit. He did better than that. He persuaded some officers of the Metropolitan Police to take him to a place where he could see street bookmaking being carried on.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Did he have a bet?
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member must not inquire into his right hon. Friend's activities any more than anybody else's.
    The right hon. Gentleman had his opportunity. I do not know whether the police got in touch with a few street bookmakers and said, "It would be very convenient if, at the luncheon interval on a certain day, you could be in a certain street. You may see us there, but you will understand that it will not be a business engagement as far as we are concerned." In Committee, I inquired whether any prosecution occurred in relation to what the police and the right hon. Gentleman saw on that occasion. So far, I have not received an affirmative answer.
    I would remind the Home Secretary that this is a country whose people are reasonably well conducted, and where the law is complied with if it is reasonable. But where the law does things which the people regard as foolish and vexatious there is a strong social feeling that no great turpitude is involved in breaking it. I do not suppose that any hon. Member in the House this afternoon thinks that the placing of a bet in the street is an act of moral turpitude, although it is against the law.
    It is a social habit which people like to practise in this country. Where it is the reasonable way to bet and in conformity with the tradition and practice of the neighbourhood, I cannot think that there is anything which can be regarded as so earth-shaking about it, especially

    1311
    as we are proposing to have licensed betting shops and give them a lawful position. At the moment, betting shops are not legal. Everyone knows that the betting shops in York, Bolton, and other towns and cities which have been mentioned are being conducted outside the law. There will be a great deal of capital expenditure involved on buildings if these legalised betting shops are ever started and a number of people will be employed at a time when we need everyone we can get to be engagd in productive industry. To introduce betting shops and to shut down this other form of betting which admittedly is also illegal, but which mets the social needs of many people, seems to me the sort of thing which no Government should undertake.
    I apologise to the House for the length of time during which I have spoken. But this is a matter about which I feel very deeply, because I fear that we shall find ourselves getting further involved in class legislation. The wealthy, the reasonably wealthy and the people of certain social habits may make use of credit betting facilities. Another class of the community will use the betting shops. Those who work among large aggregations of people can use the factory runners. We are proposing to create a third category whose social habits are to be repressed because they do not conform with the other categories and because their lives are not conditioned by the sort of things which enable people to use credit betting, and the betting offices or shops which it is proposed to create.
    Even at this late stage, therefore, I ask that this form of betting in which some of our fellow countrymen wish to indulge, this social habit, may be permitted and brought within the law. I ask that it may be made subject to regulation and control. I should imagine that the last thing any of us wants to do in these days is to allow a certain class of people to be driven into a course of conduct which is regarded as illegal simply because they happen to live in streets where there are no front gardens and under conditions of that kind.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: I wish to support the Amendment moved so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). If we could have secured a free vote during
    1312
    the Committee discussions on this Bill, I am certain that the point of view of hon. Members on this side of the House regarding street bookmaking would have prevailed. I sincerely believe that. One has only to read the speeches made by hon. Members opposite on the question of legalising the street bookmaker— which is what this Amendment is all about—to see that there is a genuine belief among many Conservative Members that, in practice, that would be a right and proper procedure.
    I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) who, as Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, took part in the Committee discussions on this Bill. As the discussions proceeded my respect for the right hon. Gentleman increased. I consider that his behaviour, and the way he acted on behalf of the Government, does him a great deal of credit. I say that today in the presence of his superior, the Home Secretary, whom we did not see at any time throughout the Committee proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman promoted this remarkable Bill, but he having done so, we did not see him during the Committee proceedings and we have not seen him until now, when all the hard work has been done. The right hon. Gentleman may take solace from the fact that his right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary did a first-class job of work.
    Like the Joint Under-Secretary, I learned a great deal from our Committee discussions. I learned, for example, that in certain parts of the country we have an unofficial system of betting shops, in addition to what occurs in the southern part of the country—of which I was aware—about street bookmakers. In Committee we tried to legalise the status quo in the southern part of the country, and we advanced what I considered serious arguments in support of the activities of the street bookmaker.
    There was only one objection to them from the Conservative Party and it was voiced by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). The hon. Gentleman said that if street bookmakers were legalised there would be a return to the conditions of yesteryear, when the old race gangs operated; there would be fights for pitches, and so on. I took the remarks of the hon. Gentleman very

    1313
    seriously because I did not want to be associated with any change in the law which would create such a situation, and I propose later in my speech to deal with that argument which the hon. Gentleman advanced.
    Let me put to the Home Secretary the position as I see it. I am convinced, as was said by my right hon. Friend, that we shall have an extension of betting throughout the country if this Bill becomes law. I do not believe that was what the Government had in mind in introducing this legislation. I feel certain that the whole idea of the Bill was to try to legalise betting but not to do anything which would extend the area and range of betting. I am certain that the Government, with all the good will in the world, are supporting a proposal which will extend betting in a manner they have never visualised.
    In a constituency like mine—I have cited examples from my constituency again and again because one can speak only from one's own knowledge on these matters—there is an area in which about 60,000 people live, and into which every day there come about 150,000 to 200,000 people to work. In the main they are engaged along the London waterfront or perhaps in the well-known factories in that area. So that in my constituency there is an enormous industrial population. How are the betting needs of these people catered for at the moment? Let us be honest about this, because the Home Office knows it to be true. The betting needs of the area are catered for by about sixteen street bookmakers who operate on different pitches in a way which is not offensive to anyone. During the time I have been a Member of Parliament I have never had a single complaint about them from any religious body or from the local authority and, so far as I know, there has never been any complaint from the police about the way in which these people conduct their business.
    As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, the social habits of our people are formed over a great number of years; they are not formed suddenly overnight. I think that what happens in my constituency represent what goes on in the whole of London. These social habits have grown up over the years, and the troubles of
    1314
    yesteryear are well behind us. Were there any question of incidents occurring, such as happened during the days of the old race gangs and so on, one would expect it to arise while street bookmaking activities were illegal, rather than when they were legalised.
    Those who operate as street bookmakers now, and who have been doing so for a considerable number of years, remain on their pitches because they are honest people who can be relied on to pay their clients. Those of the 200,000 workers in the Bermondsey area who bet do so between the hours of midday and 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock. That is the time the bets are placed. If they win—and some of them must win or they would not go on betting—they draw their winnings the following day from the same bookmakers with whom they laid their bets.
    6.0 p.m.
    I suggest that if we take away street betting as it is and replace it by the Home Secretary's idea of betting shops in the main road and down side streets, with runners in factories, and if we legalise the type of betting which he wants to see, betting will extend, and not be confined, as it is at the moment, mainly to between the hours of midday and 2 o'clock. I say to the Home Secretary frankly that in those circumstances betting will be extended. It will encourage, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields rightly said, people who have now no idea of having a bet— women going shopping, for instance—to go into a betting shop and bet. Under present conditions I defy any hon. Member to visit my constituency and find a street bookmaker. One would not know where to start. The street bookmakers are discreet and they want to carry on as they have done hitherto.
    I want to see these street bookmakers licensed and have to pay a very substantial licensing fee—£100 has been mentioned. I am sure that I can speak for many of them when I say that they would be prepared to pay more than that. They should be licensed on a yearly basis and apply to a magistrate for their licences. The police would know whether, during the previous year, they had behaved themselves or not. Every year the renewal of their licence would be subject to police approval.

    1315
    The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet says that race gangs would come back into the picture if there were legislation such as I have suggested. But does he believe that a bookmaker of the present type is likely to get involved with race gangs when his own licence is at stake? He would be the first to demand the protection of the law because he would have become a member of a legal profession. I suggest that the hon. Member has introduced a "red herring" and that his argument is not justified. He has clouded the position.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I know that the hon. Gentleman has given deep thought to this matter and that there are many bookmakers in Bermondsey. The reason they are able to operate at the moment, although they are all known—the police know their pitch and everything about them—is that they are properly conducting themselves and causing no trouble to the police. Therefore, the police wink an eye and permit this to go on. In the event of betting in the streets becoming legalised there would be an immense potential value in the pitches. One cannot license a particular pitch—
    Mr. Paget: Why not?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: —because that would lead to trouble in the streets.
    Mr. Mellish: If bookmakers were licensed and had to give an account of their stewardship and conduct each year they would want to avoid any friction which would lead them into trouble with the police. That seems so obvious.
    At the present time street bookmakers are decent people. They want to remain so, and in the event of any trouble such as the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet has in mind, they would seek the protection of the police. I do not believe that such trouble would happen.
    I think that the Home Secretary should look at it in this way. What he is proposing must be compared with what is now being done. Does he honestly believe that we shall not get an extension of betting? Does he not see that, whereas the present position is under control, if the proposals are carried out ordinary decent citizens will become involved in this betting racket? I would plead with him to reconsider this matter even at this late stage.
    1316
    It is a problem of recognition. I know that in parts of the country we have betting offices, but I did not realise this at one time. I am a typical Londoner and anything which goes on outside London does not greatly interest me. It is what goes on in the areas which I represent that is important to me. I recognise the anomalies. I do not know why we should not have had legalisation of betting shops and street bookmakers.
    What will happen now is this. Street bookmaking will be illegal but as I understand the Bill—and I hope that the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong— a man can in fact take bets provided he does not loiter and stay in one place as he does now. The milkman has been mentioned. He will be able to go round blocks of flats quite legadly and lawfully to collect bets. I do not think that the Home Secretary realises that we shall get a betting gang going to the homes of people, knocking on the doors, ostensibly selling milk, in order to get bets. The right hon. Gentleman is a shrewd politician, but he will be dealing with people who will know how to get round the Government's proposals quite easily.
    One anxious bookmaker said to me, "I understand that I cannot stand still in the street to take bets." I said, "I am afraid not. As the Bill stands you will be arrested and fined £100, and probably on a second offence get three monhs' hard labour." He said, "If I move about selling laces and have a little box in front of me, will that be legal?" I hope that I was right in suggesting that it would be legal because I told a bookmaker that it would be, provided he was selling laces, moving around, or knocking on people's doors. There is nothing illegal about that. In order to destroy these terribly evil men, these wicked criminals—there are sixteen in my constituency of 200,000 people—the Government say that they shall not stand still and remain in one place.
    We had the most ludicrous example of how bookmakers operate. It was in the early days of the Bill that the Joint Undersecretary said this; later he became more intelligent; and I think that he now realises what would happen. If we legalised the street bookmaker he thought that he would be a man dressed in a check suit with brown boots and a bowler hat, going up and down Oxford Street,

    1317
    trying to get bets. I do not know how he could have thought that. Does he believe that the British public would place bets with that sort of person? They would want to see the man in the check suit and brown boots in Oxford Street the following day. At the present time, the street bookmaker is in the same place each day, and the factory worker, who generally does not bet much, perhaps three, four or five shillings, when he comes out in the lunch hour knows that "Joe Snooks" will be waiting.
    I think that we have to cut out all that nonsense. I admire the Government for having the courage to bring forward a Bill to tackle this subject. I doubt whether my party would have done it had it been in power—there are so many Nonconformists in it. I have been speaking like a Nonconformist because I do not want to see gambling extended throughout the country in the way in which I think the "wide boys" would operate. I want to see a system by which bookmakers apply for licences. They would have to gain the approval of the police authorities, whom I want to be involved up to the hilt. The police would have to say that from their knowledge an applicant was a decent man who should be licensed as a street bookmaker; he would have a licence number and a badge, which he would be compelled to wear. He would have a pitch allocated to him by the police.
    I see no reason why this could not be done. I can well imagine that those at Tower Bridge Police Court would know exactly where the pitches should be because they know the area well. The bookmakers would operate in certain areas and would pay a very substantial fee for the licence. Every year they would come before the magistrate to apply for renewal of the licence, the police would be asked if there was anything known against the man and, if not, it would be renewed.
    Apparently that is all too simple, and in place of it we must have betting shops and factory runners. When we went into the argument in Committee we got into very deep water about what sort of shops were likely to be licensed. I know the Under-Secretary was acting on behalf of his superior, but we have never seen such a fine performance, as he made
    1318
    with a completely dead bat. He either did not see or missed completely everything which was bowled at him, but the umpire would not give him out, so that by the end of the day he was not bowled. Yet almost every speech made by hon. Members opposite supported our view. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, and at this late stage I urge the Government to accept this Amendment. Otherwise the "wide boy" will get round the provisions.
    Mr. Eric Johnson: I spoke more than once in favour of a similar Amendment in Committee upstairs, but I am ashamed to say that eventually I voted against it. I have discussed this matter with a great many people connected with racing and I am convinced that this Amendment is a good one.
    I hoped that the Government would go further and make their decision more acceptable by allowing bets to be collected in licensed premises, shops and places of that kind. I do not think that we are right to attempt to change the social habits of a large section of the community by choosing between two methods of betting, both of which are illegal, and saying that from now on one will be legal and one will not be legal. For the life of me I cannot understand why it should be better in any way to bet in a betting office than to hand a bet to a runner in the street. All that was necessary in the Bill—and what would have saved us an immense amount of time from the start—would have been to say that in future cash betting would be legal.
    I agree, in the main, with what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said about street bookmakers. I would have gone further—this is something which the Government did not accept upstairs—and would have licensed, not only street bookmakers, making them pay a large fee for their licence, but also their employees and runners, and those licences would not be at all cheap. By doing that and allowing people to collect their bets where they thought fit, by charging a heavy fee and making the principal responsible for his runners' actions, a great many possible dangers in street betting would have been removed.

    1319
    I am convinced that that would be a better way to deal with the matter. I hope, though with very little confidence, that my right hon. Friend will see his way to change his mind. I am sure that what is proposed in the Amendment would be supported by practically everybody who has any close connection with racing. I shall not oppose this Amendment.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: I have added my name to this Amendment, which was moved so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I express my gratitude to the Chair for giving us a further opportunity of discussing this matter, even though we have spent many hours on it already.
    Although I have grave doubts about the wisdom of the policy of the Government, I very much hope that it will succeed because, if it does not succeed, not only the Government, but the country, will find themselves in some difficulty. We are glad to see the Home Secretary with us today. It is a great pleasure to have him here. I wish to add my compliments on the very able way in which we were assisted in the Committee by his right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, but his right hon. Friend is no substitute for the genuine article.
    I wish to remind the House of what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, because it is a great problem with which we are dealing:
    "The existence of a restrictive law which is outmoded and unpopular cannot but lead to attempts to corrupt the police by street bookmakers. The Royal Commission reckoned that while such attempts are occasionally made, the number of police officers who succumb to them is very little. But the temptation is obvious, and it is one of the most deplorable features of the present law that the police should be exposed to suspicion, particularly when that suspicion has very little foundation in fact."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 811.]
    I agree with every word that the Home Secretary said. Allegations are made about the police, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of the police are honest, able men who do their job in most difficult circumstances and that they need the support of all of us.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) speaks for
    1320
    Bermondsey and I speak for Dudley and Stourbridge, whose habits are not very dissimilar from those of Bermondsey. When my constituents have a bet I should like to assure them that I do not think they are doing wrong. I am not mealy-mouthed about it, but I say that I hope they will not extend the practice. I do not think that going racing and having a couple of shillings each way is a worse character-forming habit than sitting in front of the T.V. and watching the kind of muck which is put over the air. I make no bones about that.
    Equally, one must accept that not all police forces or policemen are as incorruptible as they are in Dudley and Stourbridge, and even in Bermondsey. The right hon. Gentleman has the backing of the House in putting forward this legislation to bring the law into conformity with the social habits of the great mass of our population. During the Committee stage, which the right hon. Gentleman did not have the privilege of attending, he would have learned that in parts of Britain, namely, in Scotland, no attempt whatever is made to enforce the law. Betting shops and every form of non-adherence to the law in whatever form exist and are practised in Scotland.
    I have always had a sneaking feeling that the English should separate themselves from Scotland. I became absolutely convinced that in the interests of the English and English nationalism the further we are from Scotland the better. So far as I could see, not a single policeman or magistrate in Scotland has not been "straightened" in some way or other. The habits of postal betting and of the betting shops go on in Scotland and I regret to say that the habit has come south of the Border. It only pays out when one gets two or three hundred yards from Berwick, and the further South one comes the better it becomes.
    The issue before the House is not one of "wide boys". That is an expression which my hon. Friend borrowed from a song. The overwhelming majority of bookmakers are not "wide boys". His bookmaker, like mine, is not a wide boy; bookmakers are hard-working men, working on commission. Indeed, they are often not even bookmakers. They are men who, on average, take 1s. 6d. in the £.

    1321
    The crux of the Home Secretary's problem is: what do they do with that money when they have collected it? The right hon. Gentleman, in his innocence and remoteness from the habits of ordinary people, imagines that when the runner, or the so-called bookmaker who is merely a prosperous runner, has had a few losing favourites and has received the money, he will feed it into the betting shop. He will do nothing of the kind. There will be a war. We have moved on from the days of the gang warfare which my hon. Friend envisaged, but the signs of the new war are to be found in the Sporting Life today.
    A few weeks ago, if an hon. Member had a bet each way, it would have been at one-quarter of the odds irrespective of the number of runners. If he had the privilege of betting on credit—which my hon. Friend apparently has not—and tried to back a horse each way in a race for two-year-olds, he would be told, "You can jump in the river." But all that has changed. The prospect of the Bill becoming law has already started a war. One can now get one-third of the odds if there are 16 runners in a handicap. Moreover, one is paid for first, second, third and fourth if there are 22 runners.
    There will be a war of commissions. Indeed, the war of detergents will be as nothing compared with the war between William Hill and David Cope. Nothing will be merely "whiter than white" when it comes to these gentlemen. There will be a battle of commissions and for monopoly. What do Mr. Cope and Mr. William Hill want? They want a situation created in which they can control starting prices. We should then go a long, long way towards a monopoly position, and that is one reason why I think that the local bookmaker fulfils a very important social function. What are fun and games and what is almost a joke or a habit to the millions of people who have a bet each way becomes big business to Mr. Cope, written in very big letters indeed in neon lights.
    That is why we want to be careful about this. We have already got into a dangerous position when Littlewoods and the other czars of the pools world and the emperors of the bookmakers have far too much say in our economic life. We have almost reached the point
    1322
    when no Government—certainly in an election year—could do anything which was inimical or would be regarded as inimical to the interests of the big pool operators.
    That is one danger. The next concerns the Government's proposal to put all their money on the efficacy of the betting shops, as it were. That is the gamble which they are taking. I told the Committee, and perhaps I should repeat it to the House, that I have an interest in this matter, although not a financial interest. Following fourteen years of the very distinguished service by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I am the nominee of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Race Course Betting Control Board. The Board, very wisely, has looked at this problem with very great care. I told the Standing Committee the results of some of its researches. It has gone into the economic possibilities of trying to operate betting shops.
    I do not know my hon. Friend's constituency as well as he does, but from the little I know I do not see where, physically, the betting shops will fit in. The accommodation is not there to be utilised. Let hon. Members think of their own constituencies. What are the possibilities of shops or other accommodation being found in places where people congregate? Such places must be in the High Street, the main street, where people meet. If the rents are very high, and if the bookmakers not only have to have central premises but have to conform to fairly strict conditions which will be laid down as a result of the passage of the Bill, it will not be easy to provide the betting shops. Taking the average of a bet as about 6s. a person, it is clear that the number of people who will be required to bet so that the shops should break even is so high as not to make the betting shop an economic possibility.
    I hope that I am wrong and that the betting shop system, which has grown up in Scotland, will rapidly spread in the South over the breathing space which the Government have allowed themselves. But let hon. Members stop for a moment and think of the position in the House and the immediate vicinity of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary no doubt knows, this is one of

    1323
    the easiest places in which to make a bet. If he were ever so tempted, Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that an hon. Member would probably not even have to leave the Chamber before facilities were available to him if he wanted them. He certainly would not have to leave the Palace of Westminster, When we go outside, however, into Whitehall, I assume that the Home Secretary is most anxious that there shall be a betting shop next door to the Home Office for the use of the Permanent Secretary and his staff.
    But all that will present very great difficulty. What the Home Secretary has done is to shut his eyes and hope. He hopes that these betting offices will be established. All of us who are interested in these matters hope that he is right, but we have the most serious doubts, and I think that he would have been far better advised to have had a more flexible system, particularly in those areas in which the habit of the betting shop has not taken root.
    In Scotland, they are so obviously lawless that it was a comparatively easy matter. The police were bribed there in the first instance, about 4th August, 1914. We were informed in Committee that this happened in Scotland because of the superior social habits of the Scottish people. I felt some pleasure in rebutting that, and perhaps I may weary the House by explaining why, on 4th August, 1914, the social habit which had been practised by a considerable number of the Scottish people was changed. The habit had been for them to send their bets over the water, possibly to Switzerland or Holland, but on the outbreak of war in 1914 the exercise of censorship and the delay consequent upon it, with the restriction on sending money out of the country, brought ruination, or possible ruination, to a large number of advertising bookmakers who relied on postal betting. What they did was quite simply to bribe the police in Scotland, with the result that the habit of postal betting has been centred on Scotland.
    If hon. Members doubt what I say, they should go into the Smoking Room where, if it has not been taken by a Member, they will find a copy of the Sporting Life. They will find that all the advertisements for postal betting are advertisements inviting them to send
    1324
    money to Scotland. This has gone on for the last forty or fifty years, since 1914, and it goes on now. I cannot believe, however, that this habit which grew up in the emergency of the war and which has lasted for fifty years and taken root in Scotland, will do quite the same thing in the South, because people's habits have changed.
    There are very many ways of betting. To reflect credit on the right hon. Gentleman, we ought to make a list of the possible ways in which people will be able to bet. They can have a credit account, and use the telephone, and for this purpose they need not have a banking account. The bookmakers will open an account for anyone, with a possible restriction on amount, so that he can bet with the greatest possible ease. They will be able to send a bet through the post not only to Scotland, but to addresses in England when the Bill becomes law. There will also be the betting shop. That is not the whole story, because there are also the facilities of the racecourse and the dog track.
    When one examines these statistics I think that one will find that they have a clear similarity with those for Army recruiting. The number of people who want to join the Army will always remain constant. It is just a question that if they join in January, they do not join in June or December. Similarly, the amount of money spent on betting remains constant. If it goes into football, it does not go into racing and there is none available for dog racing. It remains constant, and though it can be diverted here or there, the overall amount remains the same.
    6.30 p.m.
    Therefore, I do not anticipate any vast expenditure on betting. I have felt that there is a very great danger indeed that the position from which the Home Secretary was anxious to escape—and he framed his Bill to escape from it—will, in fact, be recreated as a result of the Bill, and that the betting shop will not take root in the South, because in some areas it is not physically possible for it to do so and in others the economic conditions will be such that the charges would be so high that the street bookmakers will continue to carry on in defiance of the law, despite the Home Secretary and the good wishes of all of

    1325
    us who want to see the Home Secretary's courage in this field rewarded.
    The other factor all the time is that, with the emergence of the great advertising bookmakers and the propaganda possibilities of the pool promoters, there are large economic forces at work here which may be too strong for the Home Secretary. So far as I am concerned, I think that the small bookmaker—one of the 16 men defended by my hon. Friend —even though he is not a bookmaker in the old-fashioned sense of the word, is performing a social function and is engaged in a business which has a very important social value. I believe that if we were to carry out tests, and it might be a worthwhile piece of research, it would be found that productivity is probably better, particularly by people doing humdrum jobs, because of the hope that they might bring off a double, or that the 4.30 might produce a winner, because that is something they can look forward to. I do not regard it as a profound social evil, and I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman's courage in this legislation will be rewarded.
    I must say to the Home Secretary that I hope that he is right contrary to my doubts, and I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but if he is wrong, and is shown to be wrong, I hope that he will come back to the House at the earliest possible moment and seek fresh powers as a result of his experience. I wish that he had included in the Bill powers to vary the Act by regulation over a considerable number of fields. In 1956, when we were having debates on the Royal Commission's Report, I said that I did not believe that any Government would tackle this problem. I freely acknowledge that. I will not say that I agree with my hon. Friend, who was so despondent about our leadership as to say that if we had won the election we should not have done it.
    There are very real difficulties for any Government, including a Conservative Government, even if all the Members of the Cabinet were as courageous as the Home Secretary. It is very difficult to tackle such problems in the third or fourth year of a Government, and, therefore, if the Bill becomes law and becomes operative half-way through this Parliament, and in the course of a year or eighteen months—and we shall not
    1326
    have to wait too long in Bermondsey or Dudley to find out how it works—it does not work, it will be another five years before anything can be done about it. To my mind, that is wholly deplorable.
    I believe that one of the major factors in handicapping the work of the police and in bringing them, as it were, into conflict with public opinion in the performance of their duties, is the fact that the police have been asked unfairly by successive Administrations to carry through an unpopular law, which the public have come to regard wholly with contempt. We start here by being contemptuous of the police and by thinking that this matter is just a joke and that it does not matter if a policeman gets half-a-dozen bottles of whisky. That is the foundation of disrespect for the law which subsequently leads to gang warfare, not only about betting, but also in other ways. If those of us who are now getting a few grey hairs about juvenile delinquency, and about prisons being too full, pressed our researches into this matter we might find that these problems are not as complicated as we tend to make them, and that the truth is much nearer home than we have thought, and arises from the fact that we have allowed out-of-date laws concerning the social habits of the people to remain on the Statute Book, so that not only the police but the general law have been brought into contempt.
    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his Bill. I am certainly appreciative of the efforts of his right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary during the Committee stage, but I hope that the Home Secretary will give the House the firmest assurance that if he finds that we are right and he is wrong, he will come back to the House and ask for the additional powers which may be necessary.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I believe that the Home Secretary will be right, as the Home Office has, in my view, been right over the Street Offences Act. I have not varied one whit, as those who served on the Standing Committee know, in the very strong view that in this respect we should have betting offices and that street betting should end. I hoped at that time to carry a number of Member of the Committee with me, and, to some extent, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).

    1327
    What is it that we all want to achieve? I think we can restate it simply. First, we want an adequate opportunity to be able to place our bets. Secondly, we want to be able to bet with the certainty of payment; and I mean by that, not only the punter but the bookmaker. Thirdly, we want to get an easy enforcement of the law for the police, and also the creation of respect for that law. Fourthly, many of us—I am one of them and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is most certainly another—want to do everything we can to help the sport of horse racing.
    These four things can be done only by betting offices. This is a new approach to the matter. First of all, when I was carefully considering how we could get the benefit of what is proposed by the Peppiatt Committee, it became quite obvious to me that nothing could be done to ensure that bookmakers paid a contribution for the benefit of racing unless, first of all, we could get them all licensed. The only way we could get them all licensed would be to ensure that we would get them somewhere where we could license them. I will deal in due course with the question of the allocation of pitches mentioned by the hon. Member for Bermondsey. Therefore, it seems to me that the first thing we have to do is to try to turn the bookmakers' trade into a decent profession, and what I want to do is to try to better them and give them a greater sense of responsibility and respectability.
    Mr. Mellish: So do I.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I believe that there is adequate opportunity to place bets if there is the opportunity to do it on the telephone, on the course, by means of a factory runner, or by going to some office or shop set up for the purpose. It cannot be said that then there is not an adequate opportunity, and that one has to do it in the street. That is against the whole tenor of our legislation. We have not only taken the girls off the street, but we are taking the street vendors off She street except in certain recognised public fairs, mainly in country districts. I know that there is Petticoat Lane, but the whole tenor is against that. If betting goes off the street but offices are licensed there will be adequate opportunities to bet.
    1328
    Secondly, I come to the certainty of payment, which I think would be so much better at the betting office, for this reason. If we license the offices, one of the conditions will be that they shall be properly conducted, and if these offices are not properly conducted, the following year the application for that licence may be opposed. During the Committee stage, we were very careful to see that one of the grounds for opposing a man's licence in the following year should be that he was financially unstable. If he does not meet his obligations, he will lose his licence the following year. Thereby, we shall undoubtedly meet the condition of getting a greater guarantee of payment for the punter and the guarantee of payment for the bookmaker.
    Once the bookmaker has established his licence, the National Bookmakers' Protection Association will become a real trade association. At the moment it is nothing. It will become a very important body, because it will be necessary for each licensed bookmaker to become a member of the trade. The Association will lay down a decent code of conduot. As bookmakers will all be members of a licensed trade, they will become very much like the publicans and have very much the same standards. That is What I want to see.
    I think that not only will the object be achieved of securing better payment for punters, but that bookmakers will soon have lists, so that anyone who has big debts and fails to pay will not be able to get his money on with any bookmaker. In a short time that object will be achieved.
    Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I will give way in a few minutes, but I want to follow this point through.
    As to police enforcement, every police force in the country seems to be unanimously of the view that supervision will be very much better and easier for them. It must be conceded that it is much easier to supervise a law where there are licensed offices and rules laid down than to try to exercise effective supervision in the streets. It cannot then be done so easily. Not only can enforcement not be carried out so easily, but respect cannot be maintained.

    1329
    That leads me to the topic which has been of such deep concern. There is no doubt that there has been a certain amount of police corruption. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dudley that nothing causes more juvenile delinquency than the belief that the police can be bribed; not necessarily that they can be bribed, but the belief that they can be bribed. In my experience in the courts I have come across many cases recently of young men who seem to be of that opinion, namely, that the police are corrupt.
    We must take every step to ensure that there is no opportunity for corruption. There is a much greater opportunity and temptation for corruption where betting can be conducted in the streets than when it is conducted in properly set up offices. The opportunity for corruption, the opportunity for underhand things to go on and the inability properly to supervise, will arise if street betting is legalised much more than they will if there are properly set up licensed betting offices. On that score, the office is better than the street.
    Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) takes me with him almost completely, yet he has not faced the core of my argument, namely, that conditions are such that betting offices may not take root because of the economic conditions which exist in the South of England, high rent charges, and the fact that the places are not physically available.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I will come to that.
    Having talked about the opportunity to bet, enforcement of bets, respect for the law, and police supervision, my next point is the levy. I want to see horse racing benefit. Every one of us in the House and almost every one in the Jockey Club and everywhere else has been trying to achieve that. We have discussed every conceivable method to try to assist. We have talked about having a tax on the blower and of trying to find a method of general taxation on turnover, and so on. Archie Scott— God bless him—and those who have worked for him, applying their minds to it, recognise that the Government can only license. Bookmakers have to get a licence. Till we can have some method whereby one can determine who the bookmakers are and get the bookmakers,
    1330
    by virtue of their desire to have a licence, to disclose their turnover we shall not be able to hinge on to it the wanted levy.
    6.45 p.m.
    Of course, I do not want to see the system go out of the window, because I want to see the money, and the hon. Member for Dudley, who is interested in the Totalisator, also wants to see the money. Of course, he wants to see the system work, because if it works the money will come.
    The Scots have introduced a startling number of successes into our law. One of them is known as the law of diminished responsibility in our present law on murder. Many of the laws the Scots have passed have been for our benefit. I am minded to think that the Scottish system as it operates at present can be introduced and reborn in this country.
    Mr. Paget: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made the point that the system proposed by the Bill should be maintained because it involves licensing bookmakers. Licensing bookmakers is common to both schemes. Licensing is the same whether the betting shop is the centre, with the runners in the factory and on the milk round, or whether it is a betting office, with the bets taken in the street. The Amendment in page 1, line 11, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and my name, provides that the bet must be paid on the subsequent day and be accompained by an account. That imposes upon the bookmaker carrying on street betting the obligation not only to have a licence, but also to keep accounts, which have to be passed to the customer. If there is a breach of those provisions by the runner, the bookmaker's licence is imperilled.
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I appreciate the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and I was going to conclude with that aspect. The hon. and learned Member sought to forestall what I wanted to say briefly about it. I do not believe that the subsection he has put down is enforceable or could be supervised in any manner. It says:
    "It shall be lawful for the holder of a bookmaker's permit or for his servants or agents duly authorised by him in writing …"

    1331
    If a police officer stops someone in those circumstances, that person can produce a piece of paper. The words are:
    "authorised by him in writing".
    The proposed subsection continues:
    "to accept in a street or public place written instructions accompanied by cash from persons desiring to bet with him or his principal …"
    The whole of this very complicated setup, giving rights to hand over winnings on the following day, is quite impracticable. I can well visualise someone printing a whole lot of forged slips with the names of bookmakers on them in order to produce them in the streets. I can see a whole industry growing up around this system. I do not think that that is required, necessary, or enforceable.
    Street betting is offensive and undesirable for the future. At present it is illegal. It is, therefore, at the discretion of the chief constable of the neighbourhood. Consequently he may say, "We know that the men who meet at the dock gates in Bermondsey or outside the factories in Dudley are perfectly respectable agents for bookmakers."There is no such thing as the street bookmaker. There is only the runner for the street bookmaker. The bookmaker is never caught. He always stays behind in his own private premises.
    Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
    Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not want to be interrupted any more.
    The hon. Member for Dudley talked about premises. The street bookmaker already has premises. His own premises, which are his own offices at the moment, will continue to remain the official licensed premises which he will take in many cases. I do not share the view that it is necessary to have betting offices in main streets, as Burtons and the Fifty Shilling Tailors are in main streets. Many people will want and be prepared to go to offices upstairs, round the corners, in the small streets. Many women may not want everyone to know that they are having a bet every day, and will be very happy to go to small offices like that.
    Let us turn to future dangers. Betting in the street is today virtually legal. The men carry on normally, and there are therefore no troubles. In the main,
    1332
    the police close their eyes to this betting, and these people carry on. Every now and then, there is a raid, a fine of 40s. or, perhaps, £5 is paid, and on it goes again. If these street transactions become illegal, there certainly will be troubles.
    Let us take it the other way round and suppose that we legalise street betting. We could not legalise a particular pitch. We could not say, "You are licensed to have Hyde Park Corner"—that is a public highway—so the idea advanced by the hon. Member for Bermondsey is not possible.
    Mr. Paget: Why not?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: Because one cannot license someone to have part of the public highway on which to do business—
    Mr. Gordon Walker:What about the street vendor?
    Mr. Rees-Davies: The street vendor is not entitled to say, "I am a street vendor, so I am entitled to have a pitch in Piccadilly Circus or the Haymarket." If we give these people a licence to be licensed street vendors, I promise the House that we will get a war. If two of these big men are given a street licence in a particular area of the East End of London, each will try to push the other out, and we shall get the same system.
    We have the precedent in the point-to-points. It is well known that the failure of the National Hunt Committee to get proper control over point-to-points leads to wholesale bribery and rivalry between gangs to get the best pitches. The result is the wretched odds obtained at point-to-points. If one is trying to place a bet on a race at a point-to-point and there are six runners on the board, one finds that it is two to one on the favourite and two to one against all the rest. The reason for that is the large sums of money being paid for these pitches, and the fact that it is in the hands of strong-arm men. The whole point about the Comer case was the fights which were going on in that connection.
    I really believe—and I would not say it if I did not, and I am not wholly without experience of these matters— that if street betting is made lawful there

    1333
    is danger of gang warfare among these people, thereby making supervision difficult for the police and enforcement really impossible. My main point, however, is that adequate opportunities to bet in these offices, and on the telephone and on the Tote, will provide a better chance of enforcement. The man in the office has to be respectable. We shall be able to get our levy for the benefit of horse racing, which we all want, and we shall make enforcement easier for the police. For those reasons, I hope that both here and in another place the Government will stand absolutely firm on this.
    I entirely agree with Mr. Curling's letter in the Daily Telegraph. I made the point in Committee, and I repeat it now, that if there is any criticism of the Bill it really turns on whether or not one wishes the offices to close in the afternoon—to have limitation of betting hours. It is, however, quite idle to say that to permit street betting would do anything to discourage the quantity of betting. To limit betting one would have to close these places in the afternoon. To accept the Amendment would be unwise. I do not think that there is a social evil here, and I believe that, on the whole, the present system is well framed.
    Mr. F. Harris: I, too, feel that street betting should have been legalised. I have expressed that view to the Undersecretary of State, and I am only too sorry that our debates in Committee did not bring about that result. Like the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I hope that the Government are correct and that the Bill will achieve what we all so much desire. What I am strongly opposed to—and I want to make myself very clear about this—is the creation of betting shops. They are not wanted— certainly not in the South of England.
    In thirteen years I have never had a single request from anyone at all for the establishment of a betting shop in Croydon, and I very much doubt whether any other hon. Member has had a single similar request. I can only share the view of the hon. Member for Dudley that, apart from any other problem, it will be most difficult to create such shops in a place like Croydon, where there just are not the premises available.
    1334
    Apart from the fact that I have not had a single request for betting shops, I am sure that if they come into being hon. Members will have a lot of trouble. Imagine the situation of anyone who has to live near a betting shop, or has premises almost next door to one. However well-controlled the shop may be, it will be most difficult to ensure that there is no loitering there, with all the consequent disturbance.
    I do not know exactly to what the Government will eventually decide about hours of opening, but if the shops are to be kept open during racing hours it must encourage increased betting. Young people will be tempted to go from work in order to hang about the betting shops to put on extra bets—
    Mr. Mellish: And the housewife.
    Mr. Harris: Yes, and the housewife who goes shopping is almost bound to be tempted to do likewise.
    This must increase the amount of betting which, I understand, is the last thing that the House wants, it must increase the amount of annoyance and, as I say, hon. Members will have a great deal of trouble, particularly in the South of England. I am extremely sorry that the Government have not seen their way clear to legalise street betting which, I think, does very little ill to anyone at present, but have succumbed to the creation of betting shops. Speaking at least on behalf of my part of Croydon, I am certain that betting shops are not required, and I sincerely hope that they do not come into being.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I support the Amendment because, since our Second Reading debate, I have changed my mind on this subject. On Second Reading, I tended to be influenced by the views of the Royal Commission and, on the whole, to favour betting shops and to be against offices, but I found the Standing Committee on the Bill a very liberal education. I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not share that education; his right hon. Friend is now a better educated man than he in this important matter.
    I do not think that there is any substitute for what we went through in that Committee for learning about people's betting habits. Only when we had hon. Members from all parts of the country

    1335
    contributing to the discussion did we discover the real facts. I learned a tremendous amount about betting shops in the North, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) told us, in particular, of street betting in the South. I was also much educated by speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the end they did not always vote as they had spoken, but I was greatly influenced by what many of them told us.
    Eventually, it seemed to me that the right thing to do was to let these reasonably harmless and decent habits find their own level; that it was wrong to try to coerce people into using only one form of cash betting. Though at present illegal, street betting as it now occurs seems to be just as reasonable and harmless as betting in betting shops, which is also illegal at the moment.
    7.0 p.m.
    I came to the conclusion that we ought to let things find their own level and not push people around. What I really object to is that the Government are compelling people to use betting shops whether they want to or not. I regard this as wrong. It is wrong in the South. It is perfectly all right in the North and in Scotland. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State telling us that there are many other ways of betting, that people can bet in betting shops, through factory runners, or through the milkman, about whom we talked a good deal. That makes the argument worse. If there are all those other ways of betting, why not have one more, the one which many people in the South really like and want, namely, betting in the street?
    Since we started this operation, we have had a credit squeeze. There is no doubt that betting offices will involve much larger capital expenditure than street betting in the South. We should consider very carefully whether we ought to do this now and really drive people to this new method, whether they want it or not, with all the force of the law. We should not compel people to act in defiance of the law if they wish merely to go on with their ordinary social habits. Yet this is what we shall finish by doing.
    In the South, many people want to go on betting as they have been used to bet and they really will be compelled to
    1336
    act in defiance of the law if they continue. We should not bring about such a situation. The arguments which have led us, on the whole, to say that the betting shop in the North and in Scotland is a good idea because it fits in with social habits there ought to lead us to say that we should allow street betting in the South because it is an established, decent and reasonable social habit.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I expected the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) to continue for one of those marathons which so much typified the work of the Committee.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Not mine.
    Mr. Butler: No, not the right hon. Gentleman's, but some marathons did take place.
    Mr. Mellish: There were no filibusters.
    Mr. Butler: None at all.
    In reply to the right hon. Member for Smethwick, I should like to say that I quite agree that the education which can be derived from an association with such a number of sittings in Committee as were taken by Standing Committee D must provide one of our finer forms of education. I am sorry that this university course was not mine. I have, however, spent the whole time since I have been at the Home Office pondering on these matters, day and night, and I have done the penance of reading all the OFFICIAL REPORTS of the Committee's proceedings, which, I think, is more fatiguing than listening, because, in listening, one sees the different, glistening forms of human nature, whereas the columns of HANSARD are not all so enlivening.
    My right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State has received many compliments during the debate today. I, also, wish to thank him for the work he did together with my hon. and learned Friend the other Joint Under-Secretary of State and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I wish to make this further general observation. I have spent a good deal of my public life either in public office or out of it, and I have come to the conclusion that the work must be shared, yet the very people who tell me sometimes that I take on too

    1337
    much are the very people who tell me that I must spend the whole of my time on the Betting and Gaming Bill.
    When I was again asked to take on the duties of the Home Office, I was only too glad to know that my right hon. Friend would be able to help me. In the ancient British tradition, the division of labour is an extremely good thing. It takes the credit with it, and the credit for the work on this Bill goes to my right hon. Friend and my other colleagues, not to myself. I am equally satisfied, nevertheless, that I have been able to exercise my duty as Secretary of State in this matter, and I hope that I shall be able to answer the debate without having had the advantage of the education to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, who has had this fine, advanced, university education, that he came out with an absolute "whopper" in his five-minute speech. He made a totally ignorant remark, saying that the Government were compelling people to bet in betting shops. I noticed, in the general atmosphere of the House, the sense of disgust which hon. Members felt at the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance after his long period of education.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I meant. It is my general education which is lacking, not my education in this matter. What I meant was that the Government are driving them off the streets in a way which really is wrong.
    Mr. Butler: I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that there are certain defects in his education. I once wrote to congratulate him on his book on philosophy. The real trouble is that he comes from a university called Oxford, which does not provide him with sufficient training adequately to express his opinions, although, in the case of his recent book, I felt that he really did deserve our attention.
    The decision we have to make here is an extremely difficult one. While from the point of view of pure procedure it could be said that the matter had been sufficiently argued in Committee—it was argued for about seven sittings in Committee—it is good that we should have an opportunity to consider it further
    1338
    today. The only regret I have is that there has not been more participation by hon. Members in the House as a whole. To that extent, it is a slightly disagreeable abuse of our procedure; it would have been very agreeable if hon. and right hon. Members who had not been on the Committee had brought their minds to bear on the subject.
    The question put by the Amendment is whether we amend the law in the sense suggested by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and his hon. Friends in the various Amendments we are discussing, whether we leave things as they are, or whether we reform the law in the way suggested, which has been majestically and triumphantly secured by the passage of the Bill through Committee. It is a very difficult decision. Listening to the debate this afternoon, I could well understand the reason why certain hon. and right hon. Members have hesitations. Indeed, at least two right hon. Members have had a change of mind in the course of their consideration of the issues involved.
    I feel sure that the right hon. Member for South Shields, as he said in his speech today, was at one time, some years ago, tolerant of the idea of betting shops. He now has doubts. The right hon. Member actually spoke in favour of them during the Second Reading debate, and he is now doubtful.
    Mr. Ede: I am not opposing betting shops. I want to make that quite clear. For people who want to use them, they should be available. But I know very many people who speak the English language well without having been to a university who prefer to use the street bookmaker. I wish them to have their chance. If they do not, they may use the English language far too coarsely.
    Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman has made his position quite clear on this matter. I have followed, through his speeches, exactly what he feels, and I appreciate the conclusion which he has now reached in this matter.
    I listened with interest to the speeches made in the debate. I have tried to understand the motives of the supporters of the Amendment. As far as I can follow it, their motive is to make it possible to legalise the status quo. Why not, they suggest, leave things alone and let people go on as naturally as possible?

    1339
    Then we may be able to achieve some improvement.
    I wish to summarise briefly the reasons which move the Government not to accept this point of view. Very briefly, the reasons—we feel them strongly—are these. The street is not a proper place in which to bet. That is a consideration which, to my mind, overweighs and smothers the licensing difficulties referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), although those licensing difficulties are very great. Our second reason is that any relaxation would allow further solicitation for betting to take place.
    Thirdly, it would, I think, be difficult to prevent betting with young persons, about which, in my opinion, we have not heard enough in this debate today. Next the legalisation of street betting would mean that bookmakers on the streets would no longer have to be unobtrusive. They would have to be obtrusive. The mover and supporters of the Amendment have suggested that they should be licensed and should have pitches. Nothing can be more obtrusive than that. Lastly, we believe that alternative means of betting are being provided in the Bill. It is on the basis of those arguments that I want to persuade the House to reject the Amendment.
    It is simple to feel that by accepting the Amendment we would make agreeable and pleasant the present position. But what I have just said in the summary of our main reasons as a Government emerges when one examines the matter more closely. By accepting the Amendment we would make the street the place in which betting took place. The supporters of the Amendment say, "Yes, and you would, therefore, make legal a situation which is at present illegal. You will have no police trouble." I dare say that we would not have police trouble, but we would have other trouble of a social character which I think would be just as bad for law and morality as we are suffering from now.
    I would go so far as to say that the Street Betting Act has, in a curious sort of perverted way, controlled betting rather more than would any alternative suggested by the Amendment. For example, the Royal Commission on
    1340
    Lotteries and Betting, in 1932-33, stated, in paragraph 283:
    "In our view, those who propose that the Street Betting Act should be repealed are blinded, by the serious partial failure of the Act, to what the Act has in fact effected."
    The Act, in fact, had the following effect, that it instituted a considerable degree of control by the police. If I had to choose between the present very unsatisfactory situation under the Street Betting Act and the Amendment, I am not sure that I would not rather leave things as they are. But I am not prepared to leave things as they are because of the difficulty with the police. Rather than take up the Amendment, I would prefer to take up the proposal that we have in the Bill.
    To make my case absolutely strong and clear, I should like to dismiss the present situation. The right hon. Member for South Shields, who has a life-long interest in this matter, interviewed a gentleman, whose name he gave, who represented the street bookmakers. This gentleman told him about the money that he paid the look-out man and the general racket that goes on today. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell us that the gentleman he interviewed would prefer to alter the system, but I must ask the House to consider how thoroughly unsatisfactory is this system.
    As, in this age, I am asked to take general responsibility for law and order, I can tell hon. Members that while I delayed the Bill's introduction because of the difficulties I came to the conclusion that I could not leave either the Metropolitan Police or the provincial police in the position that they are. This would bring the law into contempt. The picture given by the right hon. Gentleman shows how contemptuous one can be about the present position, and, therefore, we have to find the alternative.
    In looking for the alternative, it is attractive to think that we should just leave things as they are but legalise them. One or two of my legal friends recommended that course to me, but I think that that shows an underestimate of our real motive. We do not want betting in the streets or public places. We do not want it for moral reasons and we do not want it because we believe that the streets are not the place for that

    1341
    sort of thing. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet mentioned the Street Offences Act, and the trouble that we have had in dealing with the problem of the girls in prostitution. I do not want to put these two matters in the same sentence or paragraph. They have nothing to do with one another at all. The only similarity which they have is that in neither case is the street the right place to carry on activity.
    We have, therefore, taken perhaps a stronger line in objecting to street betting than hon. Members, whose doubts are quite legitimate, realise. It is on the basis of objecting to street betting that I want now to proceed. I want to refer to the recent Royal Commission, having referred to the one of 1932-33. Paragraph 228 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, of 1949–51, reads:
    "If it"—
    that is, the Street Betting Act—
    "were repealed, there would be nothing, apart from the law relating to obstruction, to prevent a bookmaker from plying his trade in a crowded street, before a bus queue, at the entrance to a sports ground, or wherever he might hope to attract customers. The imposition of a licensing system and the provision of penalties for solicitation might do something to reduce inducements to betting, but there would undoubtedly be a great increase in the opportunities for betting in the streets which would hardly be welcome to those who did not wish to take advantage of them. Moreover, control by the police and the prevention of betting by young persons would be very difficult."
    Mr. Mellish: Because the ladies and gentlemen of that Royal Commission said that, it is absolute nonsense to think that, in fact, a bookmaker would get clients, who had never seen him before and were never likely to see him again, by going to bus queues and outside sports grounds. It is nonsense to think that the British people are so dull-witted that they would give money to such people, and the Home Secretary, whose intelligence I rate extremely highly, cannot ask us to accept that argument. I do not know what sort of people they were on this Commission. They sound "barmy" to me.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member has made his speech, and we did not interrupt him. The beauty of interruptions is that they do not enable one to proceed
    1342
    with the argument that one was developing. I feel much indebted to the hon. Member, however, for allowing me to follow up what he said.
    I knew that if I quoted the Royal Commission of 1932-33, which has a very great deal of colour and information attached to it, or the second Royal Commission, I should, be characterised as being associated with some fusty and out-of-date but really academic people and as having no knowledge of how the British people work, bet, live, eat, drink, or do anything else. I have been a Member of Parliament for thirty-one years, and if I do not know how my people behave I want to find someone who does. There may not be so much betting in Saffron Walden as there is in Bermondsey, but we understand other aspects of life better.
    Having disposed of the hon. Member's argument that I am associated with fusty and academic people, I come to the real point of his intervention, which is that this is a rather exaggerated picture. It is. I was about to say so. The hon. Member said it better than I could say it; and if I have a dog to bark, why should I bark myself? As I say, I am grateful to the hon. Member. It is an exaggerated picture. The only way not to make it an exaggerated picture and to stop the bookmaker from going to the steps of St. Paul's or outside any of our sacred edifices is to have a licensing system.
    We examined the question of a licensing system extremely carefully. We considered whether we could place this matter on the shoulders of the justice of the peace. We considered whether there could be a definite defined number of pitches. We considered whether we thought this would work. Nothing that I have heard today has convinced me that a licensing system could be made to work. What my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet said about the difficulty of a licensing system was proved by all our discussions before we brought in the Bill. We discussed the question with the representative interests and with all those of whose information we could have the benefit, and we came to the conclusion that it would not work.
    I want to get back to the main point of what I was saying earlier. Even if we found a licensing system which

    1343
    would work, the objection to betting in the street is, in my opinion, the one by which we should stand. As that is our view, I do not see how we can possibly accept the Amendment.
    The question of juveniles is very difficult. We have done our best, thanks to Government Amendments and certain others now on the Notice Paper, to try to stop the extension of betting to juveniles. We shall not be entirely successful by what we are trying to do, but I believe that it will be easier to control juveniles by the system of offices that we have introduced. What we have done is all set out in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary in Committee at c. 107.
    We have made possible every sort of betting facility to the British people except betting in a public place. That is the effect of the work done by the Committee upstairs. I would not like the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member of that Committee to underestimate what it has done. They have made the law much more realistic. They have improved the position of the factory runner. It is possible to place a bet with the agents of bookmakers if it is not done in a public place and there is a great variety of Amendments, which I have studied in detail, which the Committee carried through. This has made the law much nearer what I wanted it to be than when the Bill went upstairs to Committee.
    One thing, however, to which neither I nor the Government are prepared to agree is that we should encourage betting in the street. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the fact that we cannot accept the Amendment. I hope that hon. Members will also accept that this has been a reasonable debate.
    I am left with only one remark by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He asked whether the Government would reconsider the matter if they were wrong. We have had to take some fairly drastic action in other spheres, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet pointed out, and so far our judgment has been vindicated.
    I come back, however, to what was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields. To legislate for our social habits is a difficult thing. We shall cure some
    1344
    evils by this Measure and I hope that it will work, as something similar to it has worked in the north of England, in Ireland and in parts of Scotland. I believe that it will be better than the existing system.
    I do not know who will be in office at the time we bring the Bill into operation. All I can say is that any Government of the day—I certainly speak for the present Administration—should watch the social laws and be prepared to be elastic in dealing with abuse. If one is elastic in dealing with abuse, all I can say is, god speed to us in the improvements made by the Standing Committee. But I cannot, and will not, preside at the Home Office and encourage further betting in public places.
    Mr. Paget: I found myself in agreement with almost only one point made by the Home Secretary. That was when he said that the existing system was profoundly unsatisfactory. It brings the law into contempt. Therefore, I have always greatly wished to see a Government with the courage to deal with the betting law. I find all the more regret, therefore, that the Government should have done so in a way which is so bad in its present form that I shall have to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. Unsatisfactory as the present position is, for the reasons which I shall give, I believe that after the Bill comes into operation the position will be even more unsatisfactory.
    Both in Committee and in the House, the question has been debated at length. Save for the Government Front Bench, however, the only speech in favour, either in the House or in Committee, was that of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). In effect, he speaks for the big bookmaker. These proposals, of course, are the point of view of the big bookmaker, who is their only friend.
    One matter can be disposed of. In Committee, this issue was very much fogged by the question of the Peppiatt proposals being in the background. Hon. Members opposite, whose main and very proper interest was to secure a subvention to racing, did not wish to interfere with the scheme put forward by the Government for fear that the Peppiatt solution might be prevented from becoming available for the financing of racing. Now, we have had the Peppiatt proposals. We

    1345
    know that they are not coming into the Bill, and we further know that the proposals which we are now bringing forward would in no way obstruct the working of the Peppiatt proposals.
    Another point has been made strongly. Indeed, this was almost the basis of the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. He said that a licensing system was necessary and that we could only have a licensing system if we had betting shops. I find that particularly difficult. The Home Secretary is introducing a licensing system. We are providing that anybody who makes a book without a licence commits an offence, but we are not providing that the holder of a licence must have a shop. The holder of a shop may employ runners. Those runners must not operate in the street, but they can operate in the factory, without any supervision at all, where they are in breach of factory discipline and where, if they are found out, they can be dismissed—I raised this point in Committee —for gross breach of industrial discipline; and for that gross breach, proposed and encouraged by the Government, their unemployment pay will be suspended.
    In that factory, the runners will have unlimited access to juveniles. We are also providing that the bookmaker who has to be licensed, but does not have a shop, can employ canvassers, such as the milkman, who can go round without supervision from house to house collecting bets. This is a system which it is said, is preferable to betting in the streets, where it can be controlled.
    The general principles on which I approach betting are these. I do not regard betting as morally wrong in any way unless it is taken to excess, but what in life does not become morally wrong if it is taken to excess—even virtue? Whilst I regard betting as morally neutral one way or the other, I regard it as a mug's game. I was chided with saying that I was in favour of children betting. I am not in favour of children betting any more than I am in favour of children having measles or chickenpox, but I am in favour of them getting over measles, chickenpox and betting as young and as cheaply as possible.
    Mr. Hale: If a child of six is shown that betting on horses may be a mug's
    1346
    game, he becomes a prosperous stockbroker. Does that do him good or harm?
    Mr. Paget: Probably he is at least educated to the point that he takes the bet to where the odds are in his favour.
    Leaving that aside, however, what I think about betting in the main—this is my greatest objection to the betting shop system being imposed and being free from street competition—is that it is unproductive and sterile, as all gambling occupations are. I disagree somewhat with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in saying that the amount of betting remains constant. That is contrary to all experience. When there is a new vehicle of gambling and when there is a new gambling concession, gambling is always created in the process.
    7.30 p.m.
    I point first to the pools. They are a sufficiently obvious influence in our lives today. The pools are an interest which no Government can ignore. They have become a power in the land because they represent an awful lot of money. They are not—let us face it— very ethical people who run this; they are rather a rough lot. To create an interest of that sort in our community is unhealthy in the body politic.
    Then there is dog racing. Once, in a small way, a hare was wound up and run round by an old car engine. Now more than £100 million of capital is invested in greyhound tracks—more than the Government lost over Blue Streak. That is more than £100 million of sterile, unproductive capital in the greyhound racing racket, which is no more than an animated roulette wheel.
    How people are prepared to have the greyhound form of gambling and yet object to a municipal casino is beyond my belief. Let us look at what happens at greyhound racing tracks. There is the level of luxury in the admirable restaurant and the waiter who comes to the table between each race to take one's bet; there is the comfort and pleasantness of the whole thing.
    These shops will be a new gambling concession. They will not be shops like the weekday Shops of Glasgow or York, but new concessions which will be protected because the street bookmaker, like

    1347
    the prostitute, will be driven off the streets. They will be protected by a licensing system which will build up monopoly values. Before very long, big new capital—sterile and sterilised— will be brought in under this Bill. It will be very big money indeed.
    Added to the power of the pools and of the greyhound tracks, this new big money interest linked with gambling will come into our body politic. That is what I really fear about this Bill. We see how property prices are rocketing. This is a new demand for that sort of industrial property. We shall further force up those prices through the provisions of the Bill, with its utter fatuousness in stating that one may have the blower but not television. That sort of thing will not be maintained. The gambling shop will do what the greyhound track does.
    Under this Bill, it will be legal to book a cinema or a restaurant and to have the blower, or the tape coming through from the dog tracks. They will be able to serve refreshments and to have waiters going round the tables and collecting bets. These waiters will, of course, be agents of the gamblers, and they will stroll next door to the betting shop, where they will hand the bets in over the counter. That is the sort of institution we shall have, perfectly legally, under this Bill, involving great new capital, competing for property in short supply and for power within our community and body politic. That is a dangerous thing to do.
    As that new money comes in, so will it require to build up the amount of gambling. This can be done through advertising. They will be able to build up a market. Advertising is perfectly legal under the Bill, and we are providing something which has never been lawful before—canvassing. Under this Bill, the bookmaker, whether he be a man who also sells milk or matches or other goods, can canvass, can go from house to house or from factory to factory, building up a market to bring the earnings which the new capital coming in will require to attract if it is to be rewarded. This new system of collection will be a creation of the Bill.
    I wish to deal with the four reasons put forward by the Home Secretary as
    1348
    to why he rejects this Amendment. Firstly, he says that the street is not the proper place. For the greater part of England, and of this great City, it has been a proper place for a couple of generations, and what harm is there in handing over a piece of paper with some coins in it? It is really much better for the bookmaker to be at the gate of the factory rather than inside, dodging the foreman and being a nuisance to everyone. He is better in the street than canvassing houses.
    The second point concerned further solicitation. This Bill, for the first time, legalises solicitation. It will create the circumstances through which new capital interests can bring advertising and canvassing, because they will be legal.
    The third point concerned young persons. It is infinitely easier to control these runners in the street than it is in the factory. In this Amendment we would be introducing an entirely new sanction; they would no longer have to be obtrusive. They would be far more unobtrusive and far better behaved because the sanction against them would be so enormously larger.
    What did they care if they paid that periodical visit to the magistrate and produced their couple of quid? They had far more expensive things, including bribery to the police. But if the sanction were an annual appearance before the licensing magistrates and the loss of licence by the principal, if the runner did not behave himself, that would keep order on the streets and would enable the police to see that this was orderly. That is what enables the pitch system to work.
    The runner is authorised. He must be authorised as to a particular place. If he were out of that particular place then he would be outside his authority and committing an offence. Because these chaps would have to behave in a manner which does not annoy the police and does not annoy neighbours and make them complain to the police, because they would have to behave themselves or otherwise imperil their licences, we would have an ideal and self-policing system within this.
    I think that my right hon. Friend's proposals were supported in the speeches,

    1349
    if not in the votes, of every Member of the Committee with the single exception of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, who was putting the big bookmaker's joint of view and not much else. As it stands, the Bill is a tremendous charter for the big bookmaker, and before two or three years have passed there will be only Copes and Hills. In that monopoly situation, they will be able to build up because they will be powerful enough to buy up the other firms, possibly installing the former owner as a manager. This is a very dangerous social experiment, and if we go on with it we shall create a situation even worse than that which we now find.
    Mr. Fletcher: May I trespass on the indulgence of the House for two or three minutes to express my own personal point of view? I do so because it differs from that of my hon. and right hon. Friends and because I, too, listened to a great deal of the debates in Committee.
    I agree with much of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said in his criticisms of the Bill's proposals. I share his doubts about the way that the Bill will work out and I think it may create monopolies and a situation with which the House will have to deal at a subsequent date. My hon. and learned Friend said that he intended to vote against the Third Reading. I intend to vote against the Third Reading, although not for precisely the same reasons.
    I part company from my hon. and learned Friend because, although he has given valid reasons for voting against the Third Reading, he has not given valid reasons in support of the Amendments which we are now discussing and which would have the effect of licensing street betting. I was very impressed with the lucid way in which the Home Secretary marshalled the arguments against street betting. I agree with
    him and I think that we are in real difficulty in dealing with this social problem.
    We must all realise that there is no ideal solution and that there will be defects in whatever solution we ultimately reach. However, I cannot bring myself to believe that a system of licensed street betting will be any improvement on licensed betting offices, much as I understand the objection to licensed betting offices and much as I dislike the thought that people in London and the South of England will be driven to using betting offices and adopting a form of betting which is not characteristic of their habits.
    However, there is a world of difference between preserving the status quo with all its anomalies and licensing street betting as my hon. and learned Friend proposes. With licensed street betting, we do not preserve the status quo, but introduce something quite different. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) pointed out in Committee that one of the reasons why the present system worked was precisely because it was not a legalised system. As the Home Secretary said, it was subject to control. There may be many offences, but the system works.
    If we had legalised street betting, we would not be preserving the status quo, but introducing a different system in which we would get all the disadvantages of solicitation and opportunities for young people to bet, and we would make betting obstrusive. Fundamentally, as the Home Secretary said, the street is not the right place for betting.
    Those are my main reasons for not sharing the views of a great many of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 137.

    Division No. 79.]

    AYES

    [7.44 p.m.

    Baird, John

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P.C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hale, Laslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mulley, Frederick

    Blyton, William

    Hayman, F. H.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

    Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Chetwynd, George

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Cliffe, Michael

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

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

    Deer, George

    King, Dr. Horace

    Wigg, George

    Driberg, Tom

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Ede, Bt. Hon. Chuter

    Marsh, Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Mellish and Mr. Paget.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Allason, James

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Peel, John

    Arbuthnot, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Goodhew, Victor

    Pitman, I. J.

    Batsford, Brian

    Green, Alan

    Pott, Percivall

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Bidgood, John C.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Ramsden, James

    Bishop, F. P.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Bossom, Clive

    Hooking, Philip N.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Box, Donald

    Holland, Philip

    Renton, David

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hornby, R. P.

    Roots, William

    Braine, Bernard

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Brewis, John

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Sharpies, Richard

    Brooman-White, R.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Shaw, M.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

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

    Jackson, John

    Smithers, Peter

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Jennings, J. C.

    Talbot, John E.

    Chataway, Christopher

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Temple, John M.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Collard, Richard

    Kirk, Peter

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Corfield, F. V.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Costain, A. P.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Turner, Colin

    Coulson, J. M.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Critchley, Julian

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Crowder, F. P.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Wall, Patrick

    Curran, Charles

    Maitland, Cdr. J. W.

    Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Marten, Neil

    Watts, James

    Diamond, John

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Mawby, Ray

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Duncan, Sir James

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

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Elliott, R. W.

    Mills, Stratton

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Emery, Peter

    Morgan, William

    Woollam, John

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Neave, Airey

    Worsley, Marcus

    Farr, John

    Noble, Michael

    Fisher, Nigel

    Owen, Will

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Fletcher, Eric

    Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Page, Graham

    Mr. Whitelaw.

    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "the purpose of effecting" and to insert:
    "any purpose connected with the effecting of".
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we also discussed the Amendments to lines 17 and 18, and the two Amendments to line 35.
    Mr. Vosper: I think the Amendment to line 17 and the first Amendment to line 35 ought to go with the Amendment I have moved, but the Amendment to line 18 and the second Amendment to line 35 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland deal with a separate point.
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. So be it.
    Mr. Vosper: These three Amendments deal with a small and simple point. They are almost of a drafting nature.
    1352
    Clause 1 makes it an offence to keep an illegal betting office. It also makes it an offence to resort to an illegal betting office. The Clause, as drafted, makes no reference to any staff who may be employed in the office and not employed in a betting transaction. There could be someone like a chalker-up, or someone of that nature, who is on the staff of a big office but who is not taking part in the betting transaction. It seems right that the offence should extend to a person in that category. That is the purpose of these Amendments.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The Question is—
    Mr. Hale: Before you complete the putting of the Question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that some time between 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon and 2 o'clock this morning I tried to read through 1,280 columns of the

    1353
    Report of the Committee proceedings. I derived much more enjoyment than enlightenment, and I have now had the inestimable privilege of hearing five hon. Members of the Committee repeat much the same speeches in the course of the last two hours. I appreciate therefore that to intervene at all is perhaps a tactless act, but in the course of this point on this Clause the very real question was raised and discussed that here was another addition to our criminal law in which people would have to prove innocence instead of guilt—
    Mr. Vosper: On a point of order. I think the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) is on the wrong point. He is dealing with the next group of Amendments.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is how I understand it myself.
    Mr. Hale: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I shall be very happy to wait until the next group of Amendments is called.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 17, leave out "the purpose" and insert "such a purpose as is".
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out from "was" to "connected" and to insert:
    "on the premises for bona fide purposes which were not".
    Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to deal with the second Amendment to line 35 at the same time.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Renton: The only difference between those two Amendments is that one refers to subsection (4), which relates to England and Wales, and the other to subsection (6), which concerns Scotland.
    Under those two subsections as they are drafted at the moment, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was pointing out, the burden of proof is on the accused when he is found by the police on premises illegally used for betting by people resorting to them, and the burden of proof passes to the accused, the police having proved that he was found on those premises and that illegal betting was going on, to prove that he
    1354
    was not there for any purpose connected with the effecting of a betting transaction. As the hon. Member pointed out, we had a considerable discussion about it in Committee.
    8.0 p.m.
    Since the Committee stage we have considered the two subsections to see whether we can make the burden of proof easier for people to discharge when they happen to be present for an innocent purpose although illegal betting may be going on. These Amendments are the result of our thoughts, and we hope that they are a considerable improvement. As a result of our Amendments a person found on premises illegally used in this way and charged with an offence under subsection (3), which is the substantive subsection, will be able to prove merely that he was there for some bona fide purpose other than betting—
    Mr. Hale: What does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by "merely"? In one case the accused man must go into the witness box and say, "I was not doing this," and in the other case he must say, "I was not doing that." In neither case can he call a witness to support him, because the other people present will probably have been charged with an offence. What difference does it make? How can a person exculpate himself if the evidence is that he was on certain premises, and he has to go into the witness box and say, "I was not there for a particular purpose"— whether it be purpose A or purpose B?
    Mr. Renton: If the hon. Member will give me an opportunity to deploy my argument he will obtain an answer to his question.
    The person who is charged will find, first, that the prosecution must make out its side of the case by proving that he was on the premises and that the premises were being used for illegal betting. If the prosecution succeed in this, the onus is passed to the accused, and he is able to discharge it and turn the burden of proof back to the prosecution—as often happens in our law, in practice— by saying that he was there for a bona fide purpose. How can he do that? Obviously it must depend upon the situation, but there are two examples which spring readily to mind. Let us assume

    1355
    that an electrician was called to the premises to mend a fuse or to carry out some kind of electrical work. The point may not depend only upon his evidence; he will no doubt wish to give evidence, but his employer or, if he is a small man in business, somebody working with him, or his partner, can corroborate his story that he went to these premises for the purpose of carrying out some electrical repairs. He will then have shown that he was there for a bona fide purpose and will have discharged the onus of proof upon him.
    Again, let us assume that betting is going on illegally in a public house, which was the example referred to by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in Committee. Let us further assume that a person has gone into the public house, alone or with friends, in order to have a drink. Having a drink in the public house is a bona fide purpose for being there, and it is a different purpose from illegal betting. He will be able to discharge the onus first put upon him merely by saying that he went into the premises for a drink. If he has friends with him they may be able to support what he says.
    If the defence discharges the onus in that way it returns to the prosecution. The practical effect is that subsection (3), under which the charge will be laid, can be used against people if they are on premises for a bona fide purpose only if they are caught red-handed.
    Mr. Paget Mr. Paget rose—
    Mr. Renton: I am doing my best, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I may be able to reply to any further points that are raised later.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member will have the right of reply.
    Mr. Paget: In those circumstances, I should like to raise a point in connection with the example just given by the hon. and learned Member. If there is illegal betting in a public house and a man is charged with being on the premises, he may go into the witness box and say, "I went there for a drink." That is a legal purpose, and the burden then reverts to the prosecution. The prosecution may ask him, "Were you also having a bet?" The witness may say,
    1356
    "I decline to answer that question, on the ground that the answer may incriminate me. You have no other evidence and I am entitled to be acquitted". Does the hon. and learned Member say that the effect of the Amendment is that the man is then acquitted?
    Mr. Renton: That would be the effect. That is what is intended. In other words, if a person has some other bona fide purpose for being on the premises in which legal betting is taking place, and he proves that he has a bona fide purpose, the prosecution will be able to obtain a conviction only if he is caught red-handed.
    We feel that that is a much less burdensome position for a person to be in when found on premises illegally used for betting than the position he would be in under the Bill as drafted. We regard this as a considerable concession to the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides in Committee, and we feel that the provision is both workable and just.
    Mr. Hale: I confess that I have not done my homework on this Amendment, and I am therefore speaking a little from memory when I say that it was in the year 1865 when this House, on arguments rather similar to those put forward by the Minister, passed a Measure which provided that anyone found in possession of Government property should, on proof being given to that effect before a court, be liable to conviction unless he could convince the court that his possession of that property was innocent. I have no doubt that at that time, when the last war was the Crimean War and most people who went there had died anyhow, possession of Government property could not easily be explained. It was then fairly reasonable to say, if a person was found in possession of Government property, that a convincing argument could be put forward to show that the possession was not lawful.
    But then we moved forty years forward to the Great War, when almost every male had Government property in his possession, it having been issued to him, and then forward still further, to the period when Ministry of Supply sales meant that almost every person was wearing surplus war clothing. We went through that period, and we had to defend highly reputable people on

    1357
    charges of being in possession of Government property merely because, as so often happened with mass sales, the orders to remove the identification marks had never been carried out, and the goods still had the W.D. sign upon them.
    Accused persons then had to go through the misery of the police courts, with cross-examination, and so on, and often had to say, "I just do not know. I bought lots of this stuff from time to time over the years, and I am not sure where this item came from. I could not present to the court a completely convincing explanation how it came into my possession." That is the situation which existed in the years following 1918, as I remember very well. And it made an impression upon me.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State asks us to suppose that there is a raid on some premises upon which betting is not allowed. Suppose the prosecuting authority—presumably the police—sees some evidence that betting has taken place. If there were thirty people present, in the very nature of things perfectly honest police giving perfectly honest evidence might be able to say, "We can identify about four, five or six, but we know there were more and we cannot actually identify just how many." Although these transactions were taking place there might have been other people present who might have been in another part of the room.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman says those people should come to court and say, "I was not a party to the betting. I knew nothing about it." Let us look at the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave. He said that if there happened to be an electrician working on the premises, with his step ladder, he could go into the witness box and say, "I am an electrician. I was there doing a job of wiring."
    Let us take the standard case of the "pub" selling drink after hours. I do not know how many hon. Members have been in a "pub" when drink has been sold after hours. In Oldham we had a healthy rule that so long as one went in before 10 o'clock and locked the door, nobody would inquire into what one did after that, and it worked extremely well —just as street bookmaking has been working extremely well.
    1358
    I do not take the view that this House should associate sin with crime, and had I made any observation on the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) it would have been on the lines of an intervention during the Second Reading debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) when he wondered whether we should prosecute for these things at all. I think this House spends a lot of time in manufacturing unnecessary crime and that we should look rather carefully at this technique and wonder whether we are not using it unnecessarily.
    What is the position? The police raid a licensed house where drink is being sold after 10 o'clock, if that be closing time. The result will be, mutatis mutandis, that the court will assume that all the people there are guilty unless they can go into the witness box and give some evidence of their innocence. The Minister says that if they go into the witness box and say, "We are prepared to give evidence that we were there for some other purpose," that evidence would shift back the onus of proof on to the prosecution. I fail to see how it works in accordance with our normal legal procedure. We have rules of evidence, which means that evidence for the Crown comes first, evidence in defence is given second, and evidence in rebuttal and so on is given within limitations.
    But where does this business of the electrician come in? Is the Undersecretary of State going to say that if the police raid a public house, and if they find thirty people and twenty-five dirty glasses, it is a great concession to say that if one of the five who claims to be a supernumerary can establish—
    Mr. Stephen McAdden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order during the discussion on this Amendment to discuss the question of selling drink after hours? Surely this Amendment deals with the question of having betting transactions in an illegal place.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to be using this illustration to advance his argument. Certainly it would not be proper just to discuss the question of drinking after hours.
    Mr. Hale: I have read the speeches of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) on this subject with a great deal of interest and approval, but I think that his intervention reached less than his usual standard. I think it was apparent to every hon. Member that I was trying to cite what is a perfectly parallel example. Indeed, it may almost certainly be following the raiding of licensed premises that the provisions in this Clause will be applied. So I say let us look at the existing law, if the police raid licensed premises and charge people with drinking under the existing licensing law, and not discuss a betting law which does not yet exist. I must take my example from what exists.
    8.15 p.m.
    Is it suggested that if there are twenty-five dirty glasses on the premises and thirty people, one witness may have the great advantage of going into the witness box and saying, "I was painting the roof. I had a step ladder and some planks and scaffolding there"? He will not have them. All he will have is no empty glass, or he may have been in a lonely part of the room. All that he would have in those circumstances would be the chance of going into the witness box and saying, "I was one of the people who were not drinking." If he does that, his example may be emulated by one or two who were drinking. Here there is no security of any kind.
    In this Clause we are saying that if people are on premises which are raided and where betting transactions are taking place, they are liable to be convicted unless by chance they have some quite exceptional evidence not normally open to any persons found on premises in such circumstances. It may be that they have a little coterie of friends who do not bet but who happen to be present, but it would be no use such a person saying he was a Member of Parliament who went into the premises to see how the betting legislation was working. The court would say, "Nonsense" and "Really?" It would be no use a person saying, "I am the local clergyman and I looked in because I rather resent this type of thing." This provision means introducing a law which says a conviction will follow proof of presence unless a person can give in his defence exceptional evidence which is not likely to exist.
    Mr. McAdden: During the Committee discussions I contested the proposals advanced by the Government on this issue of the onus of proof and I think it only fair that I should say to my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Undersecretary that the onus of proof that he has carried out his obligation to have a look at this matter is, presumably, justified by the form of words he has now found it possible to put forward. I will not pretend that this is entirely satisfactory or meets the points which I raised in Committee, but my hon. and learned Friend has carried the onus of proof that he tried to do his best, and in that sense I thank him for what he has done.
    I think that it has been indicated tonight that if anyone wishes to bet illegally and to get away with it, the best place to do it is in a public house. I hope that anyone who wishes to take part in an illegal betting transaction will take the advice of my hon. and learned Friend and confine his activities to public house premises, where he will be able to prove that he had an acceptable reason for going to the premises.
    Mr. Paget: This Amendment will cause a great deal of trouble. It seems to me that either the subsection means everything, or nothing. No one goes anywhere for a single purpose. We go to any place either to sit down, stand up or to breathe, or to have a drink as well as having a bet, or to take part in gambling. There is always some purpose for going to a place—if we take a wide enough definition of "purpose"—other than betting.
    On the other hand, if we take a narrow definition of "purpose"—and my view, for what it is worth, is that that is how it will be construed by the courts—it would apply only to the sort of example of the electrician, given by the Minister. If there is gambling in a public house, everyone who was doing the usual thing in a public house, having a drink, would be entitled to an acquittal. So, if a man is found at a private gambling party, he can say that he was there to have supper and to have a drink provided by the manager. Thereupon the burden of proof is upon the prosecution and it would be extraordinarily difficult to show that a person was actually gambling. There will always be a secondary and bona fide reason, whether it be a drink, a

    1361
    supper, or any of the other amenities there, that can be proved. On the other hand, if we construe it too narrowly, as I believe that the courts, in practice, will construe it, it means nothing at all.
    Take the case of the electrician, the man who is arrested because there is gambling on the premises and who says, "I am not a gambler. I am a workman. I am employed by a firm of electricians. I am here in my working clothes to mend the electric light." He has performed the burden which is required by subsection (4). He has proved his innocence. If we construe this narrowly, then this sort of bona fide purpose which has to be proved is a purpose which would bring about acquittal under the Clause as it is.
    On the other hand, if we give it its wider form, that the people in the "pub" are also there for a drink and the people at a gambling party axe also there for some supper, the subsection ceases to have a meaning.
    Frankly, I am in favour of subsection (4) in its present form. That is a form which is well understood by the courts and which will not lead to the amount of litigation which this new form of words, which has been dreamed up, will, I think, certainly bring about. I believe in subsection (4) because, generally speaking— and here I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—our criminal law provides much too much formal defence for the accused. The conditions imposed on the police are too hard and to get over those difficulties as to formal matters the police, not occasionally, but continually, as a matter of practice, go into court and tell a pack of lies. All who practise in the courts know that.
    If, in fact, we put the burden of the prosecution on the police in these gambling cases, we would find that they have either seen each person whom they have arrested handling the money, or that these people had made a convenient admission when they got to the police station, and there would be some very indignant people. That is how the police, in practice, get over the difficulty of the unfair burden which is being imposed upon them.
    1362
    I believe that it is far better to impose the burden of proof on the person who knows best, that is, the man who is gambling. He has an explanation that he was there for an innocent purpose. Otherwise, the evidence will be invented. I believe that that is wrong. A great deal of the reason for the complaints we hear about the unreliability of police evidence —motorists come across it all the time— is that the burden of proof upon the police is an unfair one and they correct it by giving evidence as to matters which are not really in dispute and which are very difficult to prove. I should like to see this subsection left as it is.
    Mr. Ede: This subsection has given me a great deal of difficulty. I approach it with the knowledge that I had to deal with similar Clauses when I was Secretary of State. In Committee, I defended the Clause as drafted because of that experience. I now try to read it as I would if I were still a justice of the peace sitting on the bench. The subsection, as amended, will say:
    "For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection proof that any person was on any premises while they were being used as mentioned in that subsection shall be evidence that he resorted to the premises for such a purpose as is so mentioned unless he proves that he was on the premises for bona fide, purposes which were not connected with the effecting of a betting transaction."
    I think that we may very well go astray, if we still talk about this on the analogy of drinking after hours.
    A man is charged with being on betting premises. Betting premises are very different from a room in a public house. They will be so arranged as if one were not going there to bet. Unless a man has some workman's job, such has been supposed, it is difficult to see why he should go there at all. Of course, he may be the husband of the cleaner who is cleaning the premises after they have been closed for the day, but there is hardly likely to be any illegal betting going on at that time.
    On the assumption that there is, does the fact that a person goes there for a bona fide purpose—to collect his wife instead of his winnings, which he might very often regard as being two quite separate things—mean that he then has a bet as well? It seems to me that the exact wording of the subsection might lead to very serious arguments in the

    1363
    magistrates' room when the justices are considering what they are going to decide on the case, if someone suggests, "He had a bona fide purpose for going there and that lets him out".
    I think that it would be much easier to prove betting having been done by the individual, because presumably when a bet is made a record of it, in some form or other, will in most circumstances be made. Therefore, it may be assumed that if a person is being charged with being there unlawfully for the purpose of making a bet, the police will probably be able to prove from the documents they seized in the course of the raid that he had in fact made a bet. If he had not made a bet there would be no record. I imagine that a few seconds after the bet had been made, it would have been registered.
    It appears that if a person has got on to the premises during unpermitted hours for a bona fide purpose not connected with betting he has to produce some evdience to the justices to show that he was there for a bona fide purpose and had not gone there for the purpose of effecting a bet.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Renton: We are discussing a fairly narrow point on this Amendment, not whether or not the onus of proof should be shifted. That has already been written into the Bill in subsections (4) and (6). We are discussing whether, when it is shifted, it should be shifted in the stringent way as put forward in the Bill as drafted, or in the less stringent way as would result from the Amendment I have moved.
    It seems to me that the Amendment should be a lesson to anyone who ever tries to pilot a Bill through the House, because of the danger of trying to please everybody. Although we have reached a compromise I like to think that it is a workable compromise and, in answer to the points which have been raised, I shall try to show why I think it is a workable compromise. When the police raid premises where illegal betting is going on there will be two types of potential offender, those who are caught red-handed and those who are not caught red-handed, but who most probably have been engaging in illegal betting.
    1364
    In regard to those caught red-handed, there is no trouble at all. The police will bring them into court and the onus of proof is against them. There is no need for us to talk about the onus of proof being shifted, for the onus remains on the prosecution throughout and there is no need to have it in any other way.
    The difficulty arises in regard to those not caught red-handed who ought not to get off scot-free. It would be quite wrong for us to legislate in such a way that only those caught red-handed were punished and only those equally guilty but not caught red-handed got off scot-free. In trying to provide that those who were not caught red-handed should be dealt with, we were in a dilemma, because we did not want to place too great a burden on them to discharge, but the proof should be shifted to them because they might have been on the premises illegally.
    We have said that when there is a good reason for being on the premises, and persons can show that there was a good reason for being there, the burden of proof shifts back to the prosecution, who must then try to show, either from circumstantial evidence or such direct evidence as they have in their possession, that although those persons were there for a bona fide purpose nevertheless they engaged in illegal betting as well. I hope that answers the question posed by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he asked: does the fact Chat a person is there for a bona fide purpose, but behaves illegally, entitle him to be acquitted? The answer is, of course it does not, but the burden is passed back to the prosecution to prove that the person had engaged in the illegal transaction.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps gets out of the difficulty by the use of the two words "of course" which assumes that what he is going to say must be right. I want to find what there is in the Clause which says, "If he went there for a bona fide purpose and, also, while there, acted illegally, he should be convicted by the justices before whom he is brought."
    Mr. Renton: As so often happens, it is a question of interpreting the exact words we have used. If the right hon. Gentleman will study subsection (4)

    1365
    having written in, as I have done, the Amendment that I have proposed coupled with the earlier Amendments dealing with another point written in by my right hon. Friend, I think he will agree that the words in the last three lines, as amended, deal with his point. Those words are:
    "unless he proves that he was on the premises for bona fide purposes which were not connected with the effecting of a betting transaction."
    Those words have to be read in the light of what went before. As I understand their effect, it is as I stated—that it is up to him to show that he was there for bona fide purposes not
    "connected with the effecting of a betting transaction."
    But that does not end the matter, because it does not say previously that he shall be either convicted or acquitted on those grounds. It says that it shall be evidence. We are not dealing with the final question of guilt or innocence but with evidence which can go towards proving either guilt or innocence. I hope that that explanation answers the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ede: Would it not be better if after the word "premises" the word "only" were inserted? It would then read
    "on the premises only for bona fide purposes".
    Mr. Renton: I should like to consider that suggestion. There is no Amendment before the House to that effect, but I will consider it, and if we find that a small adjustment is necessary we can make it at a later stage. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    I am grateful to the appreciation expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden). Unfortunately, he has not remained in the Chamber to hear me say that. He raised a point of substance to which I should reply. He said that it would make illegal betting very easy in public houses, but that is not so, and it is right that I should make it clear that my hon. Friend is not correct when he says that it is so. As I have already explained, in nearly every case there will be the people who are caught red-handed. In addition, there will be those people who were nearby when the illegal betting was taking place. They may well be run in and
    1366
    caught unless they can discharge the onus in this way.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made a most interesting speech, which was very similar to that which I made in Committee when trying to justify the original wording of the Clause. I have managed to keep an open mind about this and, having consulted my right hon. Friend and taken advice, I have come to the conclusion that it is right to meet the representations which were made in Committee. In spite of what the hon. and learned Member says, I believe that the corn-promise which we have reached is workable.
    I do not accept for one moment his broad and, I feel obliged to say, not highly responsible statement that the police are in the habit of telling a pack of lies to get a conviction when the onus of proof is too difficult for them to fulfil. I do not accept that for one moment. In any event, no such circumstance can arise here, because whichever view we take of these Amendments, the onus of proof will have been shifted away from the prosecution.
    I am grateful to those hon. Members who have addressed the House on the matter. I hope that the House will now pass the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out "the purpose" and to insert "such a purpose as is".
    This is a consequential Amendment.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. It is appropriate at this point to make a protest about the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "And others."] I am not responsible for the absence of my hon. Friends, although I regret that the House has not a larger attendance on both sides. The Home Secretary has done us the honour of appearing today and giving us the benefit of his views, and in view of the obvious maladministration of the law in Scotland—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going much too far. He has voiced his protest, and that is all he can do on this small Amendment.
    Mr. Wigg: I am obliged for the opportunity of voicing my protest, but I have not yet finished voicing it. I will be very brief. In Committee, on occasion after occasion, the administration of the law in Scotland in connection with betting and gaming was called into question. We have the utmost sympathy with the Joint Under-Secretary of State in the difficult position in which he finds himself, but one would have thought that as the Home Secretary had come along we might at least have had the assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland has read the proceedings in the Standing Committee, or that he would have had the good taste to come along and face the music at some stage of our proceedings. I quite agree that I should be out of order in pursuing the matter, and, having made my protest, I resume my seat.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: Whatever may be thought about the necessity for the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, surely it would not be necessary for him to be present to move this Amendment. In point of fact, I do not think that any occasion has arisen so far when had he been here he would have had occasion to speak. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall inform my right hon. Friend, but I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that the duties which my right hon. Friend has to perform are very many and various. I am quite certain that if possible, he will be present on the next occasion when we debate this matter.
    Mr. Wigg: I quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has many and varied duties—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not in Committee, and that the hon. Member is not allowed to make more than one speech.
    Mr. Wigg: I was not making a speech, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Joint Undersecretary was kind enough to give way, and all I wanted to do was to thank him and say that I was very well aware of the onerous duties which the Secretary of State for Scotland has to fulfil, but that I wanted to point out that the most important duty of all was attendance in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Mellish: I do not necessarily agree with the Minister that this Amendment is so unimportant that the Secretary of State need not be here to move it. This is a matter of degree. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is valid. As he knows, we bitterly complained during the Committee stage about the absence of the Home Secretary. Indeed, we had a whole meeting in which we discussed his absence from the Committee proceedings. We did not talk about the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I admit that it was an omission on our part, because—[An HON. MEMBER: "We did not know where he was."] It is fair to say that on this occasion, on Report, we might have had the Secretary of State for Scotland here.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we are dealing now not with the whole Report stage, but purely with the Amendment before the House. He is going far beyond that.
    Mr. Mellish: I am only following on the point made by the Joint Undersecretary that it did not need the Secretary of State to intervene to move these consequential Amendments that we are now discussing. I hope that I am completely in order in making the point that, in my view, we should have had the Secretary of State for Scotland here for this Amendment, because by this gesture it would show the House, on Report, that the Secretary of State regards the Bill as somewhat important.
    I conclude by saying that one of the things which came out of the Committee stage, and which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will be intrigued to hear, was the fact that in Scotland the most appalling state of affairs was disclosed about illegal betting. Therefore, we thought that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have come along.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have asked the hon. Member to remember that this is quite a narrow Amendment, and that he is not entitled to discuss these general matters on this narrow Amendment.
    Mr. Mellish: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and will not pursue the matter any further. I have backed up the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, and I hope that the

    1369
    Joint Under-Secretary will convey to the Secretary of State for Scotland that, as humble Englishmen, we should like to see him now and again.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 35, leave out from "was" to "connected" in line 36 and insert:
    "on the premises for bona fide purposes which were not".—[Mr. N. Macpherson.]

    Clause 2.—(BOOKMAKER'S PERMITS.)
    8.45 p.m.
    Dr. Donald Johnson: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 44 to 46.
    I intervene in the Bill with a sense of diffidence. I am highly conscious of my own lack of expertise on the majority of subjects under discussion. I have felt very great envy at the depth of knowledge shown by several hon. Gentlemen to whom I have listened this evening, and I have gained very valuable instruction. I only regret that, being a book publisher, I have little need to satisfy my gambling propensities in other directions. Therefore, I shall be very unlikely to benefit from what I have heard.
    I am, however, moved to put forward the Amendment by the sense of injustice which I feel on behalf of a large number of my constituents. Viewing the Bill, as I have done, rather from a distance, it has seemed to me that those hon. Members who have helped to construct it and have discussed it have had a fine old time with the types of gambling and betting which have engaged their interest. I have no objection to that, but I feel that I must raise an objection when I see them specifically excluding a popular way of carrying on betting in my constituency of Carlisle. That is the use of offices, which is in a way rather the equal and opposite of the street runners of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish).
    As we have heard, customs in the North vary from customs in the South. In Carlisle and in other northern towns pools agencies have been established in recent years in which people have laid small pool bets. They have been of great use and service to many people —old-age pensioners and others—who place bets of 2s., 1s. 6d., 1s. or even 6d. The bets have been collected and for-
    1370
    warded to the pools collectively, rather than being sent individually by postal orders.
    These agencies have met a need, if this is considered to be a need. We would not be legislating for it if gambling were not considered to be a basic human need. The agencies have been a convenience to many people and have resulted in a considerable saving to those people who place very small bets. They are relieved of the absurdity of having to buy a twopenny postal order and a threepenny stamp—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) is going further than he is entitled to on the Amendment. As I read it, it is merely to exempt certain people from getting a second permit.
    Dr. Johnson: In view of my lack of expertise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am open to correction, but, as I understood them, these lines forbid the setting up of offices for pool agencies.
    Mr. Vosper: Perhaps I can help the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand the point that my hon. Friend wished to make—and has, in fact, made —but, with respect, you are quite right in saying that it is not relevant to the Amendment, which deals purely with premises for bookmakers or football pool promoters and not in any way with licensed offices.
    Dr. Johnson: If I am out of order, I shall have no alternative but to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. James McInnes: Whilst I recognise that the Pool Betting Act, 1954, does not cover the type of transaction mentioned by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson), I suffer from the same disability. As I explained in Committee—and we had a long debate—the pool coupons shops that exist all over Scotland are somewhat similar to the betting shops. By this Bill we are making betting shops legal, but we are making no effort to legalise the football pool coupons shop. It may be out of order at this juncture to discuss that, but the right hon. Gentleman has had some formidable representations made to him, and I should like to know whether he proposes, either here or in

    1371
    another place, to take the opportunity of rectifying that position—
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps you might like to clear up the curious position that now exists. We have evidence that in Scotland—which is not a surprise—and in Carlisle, a pernicious and horrible practice is carried on in complete defiance of the law. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Mc-Innes) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson) put on the Order Paper an Amendment that has not the faintest thing to do with the practices they seek to legalise. Then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, they prostitute your indulgence by carrying on a discussion that is completely and utterly out of order.
    Dr. Johnson: I must challenge that—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Carlisle would be entitled to rise on a point of order, but he would not be entitled to make a second speech.
    Dr. Johnson: On a point of order, then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I say, quite briefly, that anything that happens in Carlisle is absolutely as nothing compared with what we have heard about Bermondsey this afternoon.
    Mr. Mellish: I do not want to get involved in that. I have not been to Carlisle, but I do know that they have State pubs, and I can imagine no greater iniquity. I believe in nationalisation as a principle, but the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson) can keep his pubs —all I want is to keep my street bookmakers. This Amendment must be in order, otherwise it would not have passed the Table, which is most efficient in these matters.
    The hon. Member for Carlisle, whose knowledge of racing, I understand, is very small, seems to think that one has to be a great bettor to know anything about street bookmakers, but the fact is that if one knows anything about them one does not bet at all. One does not have to gamble to know of them. I hardly ever have a bet at all—
    Mr. Wigg: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that he is out of order.
    Mr. Mellish: I am making some preliminary remarks.
    If I understood the hon. Member for Carlisle correctly, he would like a bookmaker, having been given a permit to operate a betting shop under the Clause, to have it made legal for him to do the sort of pool bets which hitherto have been passed in an illegal way. That is a perfectly proper question to ask. I know the answer, but I think that the representative of the Home Office should say something about it.
    Mr. Vosper: I feel that I should reply briefly to the Amendment on the Order Paper. Perhaps you will allow me to say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. Johnson) succeeded in making his point, that he felt that the collection of football coupons should be allowed in offices where it is at present prohibited not by this Bill but by the Pool Betting Act, 1954.
    As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) said, representations have been made to my hon. Friend and to myself, but they were made only this week, far too late for consideration at this stage. They will, of course, be considered, but I should not like the House to think that I am particularly favourably disposed to them.
    The simple point of the Amendment is that it would, if accepted, require football pool promoters to be registered under this Bill in addition to the 1954 Act. That would be a perfectly pointless operation and would duplicate machinery which is working perfectly well now. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want that. I hope that he will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. McInnes: The right hon. Gentleman confesses to having received these representations which he and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland are considering. Do I take it that if they take a favourable view of the situation, they will take steps in another place to incorporate something appropriate in the Bill?
    Mr. Vosper: I did make clear in an intervention on Second Reading that this practice was illegal. Five months have elapsed for the omission to be discovered.
    Mr. Wigg: First, if Che right hon. Gentleman considers these representations favourably, will he introduce words in another place on that account? On the other hand, if he rejects them, will he assure the House that the law will be vigorously applied in both Scotland and Carlisle?
    Mr. McInnes: And in Dudley.
    Mr. Wigg: It always is in Dudley. That is all right.
    Dr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for saying that he will consider these representations seriously, which, I admit at once, have been very late indeed in coming to him.
    In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3.—(AUTHORISATION AND REGISTRATION OF AGENTS BY BOOKMAKERS AND BOARD.)
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after "writing", to insert "in the prescribed form".
    Perhaps we might take the next Amendment at the same time, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in page 3, line 21.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is convenient to the House.
    Mr. Vosper: The words provided for in the first Amendment are inserted in response to the request of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), as are several other Government Amendments on the Notice Paper tonight. Clause 3 is the new Clause dealing with the registration of agents. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the words on the certificate to be issued by the bookmaker to the agent should be in a prescribed form and that the register to be kept by the bookmaker should be in a prescribed form also.
    The first Amendment achieves his first purpose and enables my right hon. Friend to prescribe the form of words to be used on the certificate. The second Amendment will prescribe the form of register to be kept.
    Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having carried out his pledge. The need for what is now pro-
    1374
    posed was illustrated by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) this afternoon when he spoke about people having hundreds of slips of paper, on the assumption, apparently, that anybody who produced a slip of paper would be able to claim that he was duly authorised.
    I take it that in the regulations the form will be set out. I assume that after that the law stationers and similar people will print the words in that form so that the authenticity of the document can be recognised. I know that that is not the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, but I imagine that that is the way in which he expects the matter to be dealt with.
    There will be a similar prescription in respect of the register in the regulations. Apparently, law stationers follow these matters very carefully. Although no obligation is placed on anyone, I assume that they will publish registers that will enable people to comply with the law.
    Mr. Vosper: In so far as I am responsible for these matters, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in all his assumptions.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 21, at end insert "in the prescribed form ".— [Mr. Vosper.]
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, at the end to insert:
    "or, in the case of offences under subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, on a second or any subsequent conviction under the same subsection, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds".
    It would be possibly for the convenience of the House if we also discussed the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), namely, in page 3, line 37, at the end to insert:
    "on his first conviction, and on a second conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, and on any subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and to be disqualified from holding a bookmaker's permit or a betting agency permit".
    They both cover the same point.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that would be for the convenience of the House, but the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Smethwick

    1375
    has not been selected for a vote. All the points may be discussed on the Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Vosper: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    This Amendment again relates to the Clause dealing with registration of agents. Here we are concerned with penalties. Under the new Clause I introduced in Committee, a person is liable, whether for an offence committed by the principal bookmaker in not issuing a certificate or committed by the agent for not having a certificate, to a penalty of £10 for the first and any subsequent offences. Several of my hon. Friends and hon. and right hon. Members opposite took the view that this was not sufficient, and I think that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) moved an Amendment about the matter.
    I have reconsidered this point, and the result of my reconsideration is the Amendment. I propose that the penalty for the first offence should be a fine of not more than £10 and for the second and subsequent offences a fine not exceeding £50. The right hon. Member for Smethwick wishes to go a little further in one respect and not quite so far in another. For the second offence, he proposes a maximum penalty of £25, but for subsequent offences he considers that a term of imprisonment should be possible. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry; the disqualification of his permit would follow.
    Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend's Amendment proposes for a second offence a fine not exceeding £25 and, on a subsequent conviction, a fine not exceeding £50 and disqualification.
    Mr. Vosper: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for his correction. The difference between us is that my Amendment does not prescribe disqualification for any offence, whereas the right hon. Member's Amendment does.
    In my opinion, this offence does not quite compare with the offences under Clause 8 for which disqualification is provided. I do not think that the failure, possibly unintentional, of a bookmaker to issue a certificate or to bring it up to date should entail the penalty of disqualification. However, as I pointed out in Committee, it would always be
    1376
    possible on application for the renewal of a bookmaker's certificate for the justices, having knowledge of one or more offences of this nature, to refuse to renew a permit. There is therefore the ultimate sanction of refusal to renew, although I would not suggest that it should be included as a penalty. Therefore, I believe that the solution which I have put forward—a maximum of £10 on the first occasion and a maximum of £50 on the second and subsequent occasions—is the right compromise and an advance over the proposal I made in Committee.
    Mr. Ede: I thank the Joint Undersecretary for having introduced a grading. Perpetual fines of £10 would soon reduce the Clause to something of a farce. I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman has now moved straight away from £10 to £50 for the second and any subsequent offence. My right hon. Friends and I were prepared to have an intermediate stage by a grading of £10, £25 and £50 and, accompanying the £50, disqualification.
    While I accept the Amendment and shall not vote against it, we do not want the Clause to be treated with derision by the people who are to be registered or to keep registers under it. When a person offends three times or more, it can hardly be said that he does it by inadvertence. We meet that with the grading of the penalties.
    I hope that when a person comes up for the renewal of his permit after he has had three convictions, the justices who have to administer the law will seriously consider whether he is a sufficiently responsible person to be granted the privilege which the permit is. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for at least having met us a good part of the way.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 4.—(BETTING OFFICE LICENCES AND BETTING AGENCY PERMITS.)
    Mr. Vosper: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, at the end to insert "or through".
    This is purely a technical drafting Amendment. "Through", which relates to pool betting, is more appropriate when dealing with pool betting than the original words in the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 5.—(CONDUCT OF LICENSED BETTING OFFICES.)
    Sir James Duncan: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    (5) If, save in a licensed betting office or in such manner as may be prescribed on premises giving access to such an office, any advertisement is published—

    (a) indicating that any particular premises are a licensed betting office; or

    (b) indicating where any such office may be found; or

    (c) drawing attention to the availability of, or to the facilities afforded to persons resorting to, such offices,

    then, in the case of an advertisement in connection with the office or offices of a particular licensee that licensee, and in every case any person who published the advertisement or caused or permitted it to be published, shall be guilty of an offence:
    Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this subsection to prove—

    (i) that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the advertisement was, and that he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that it was not such an advertisement as aforesaid; or

    (ii) if he is charged by reason only of being a licensee, that the advertisement was published without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the publishing of any such advertisement in connection with his office or offices.

    Those of us who served on the Standing Committee will remember that at its nineteenth sitting we had a long discussion on whether the Bill should contain any provision for the control of advertising for the business of bookmakers. There were two Amendments. One was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who wanted to control the advertising in connection with licensed betting offices. There was another Amendment, which went wider, in the names of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Hobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
    After a long discussion, my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary undertook to consider in what form any kind of prohibition of advertising should be imposed at a later stage of the Bill. I have always been in favour of control of advertising this sort of business, but up to now, in dealing with credit betting, I do not see that any evil effect
    1378
    has arisen as a result of the limited amount of advertising which credit bookmakers do in the sporting papers, by sending calendars, and in other ways.
    Now, however, we are entering a new phase, in which the street bookmaker is becoming legal in the sense that he will now go into an office. He will possibly be opening, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) says, a wide new extension of betting. I do not want to encourage the extension of betting if betting offices are set up. I want to see the least amount of advertising possible in this new system.
    All I should like to see is, on the door of the office or round it, the name of the man, the words "bookmaker" or "turf accountant", the hours of opening, and very little else. That is the purpose of this Amendment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it. The Council of the Churches has sent us a further memorandum since we considered the Bill in Committee. It says:
    "We strongly support the forbidding of advertising betting offices, and consider that a much wider restriction of the advertising of gambling is both practicable and desirable."
    I have not gone quite as far as that, but this Amendment is an attempt to meet the point of those who have a real objection to betting. We should remember them. There are people like that, and they do not want glaring advertisements which will, possibly, attract people into these betting offices more than is necessary.
    In addition, there is something to be said for restricting advertising on the ground that we should not make it easier for young people to be attracted to these betting offices. There is, of course, a prohibition on betting by young people, but we should not encourage them, by glaring advertisements and neon signs, possibly to go into a shop and attempt to have a bet when they are below the legal age.
    For these reasons it would be worth while making this Amendment as the maximum which we could accept. Its wording is somewhat inverted, but I drafted it in that way on advice. I understand that it is intended that, if the law is amended in this way, the amount of advertising allowed in the betting office will be governed by regulation. This has

    1379
    to be put in an inverted way but I believe that it would work, and that it would be enforceable.
    Mr. Paget: This seems to me to be a somewhat irrational and muddled premise. I think that all gambling is a sterile occupation, but it is something which we should not allow to be promoted artificially and I would therefore ban all advertising. The Government are far too frightened of the Press to do that. That would get them wrong with the Press Lords, so we can take that as out.
    9.15 p.m.
    If we are not to ban all advertising, it is somewhat comic to have the situation now proposed. The Press is to be kept out of it. We can advertise as much as we like and as widely as we like, certainly in all the newspapers and possibly on television, that "Duggie never owes"; but what Duggie must not say is where he never owes. "Duggie never owes", but he must not say that he never owes at 15, Balham High Street, or whatever it is. That is absurd.
    Again, the Amendment says:
    "drawing attention to the availability of, or to the facilities afforded to persons resorting to, such offices".
    If one resorts to Douglas Stuart's office, is the fact that "Duggie never owes" a facility afforded at that office? I do not know. Is it banned by the Amendment, or is it not? Are not the statements of the odds, and paying places on one, two and three when there are 16 starters, and on the first four if there are 22 starters, a facility? If it is a facility, does it come within the ban on advertising? It is difficult to see what a bookmaker can advertise if it is not to convey that he will accept bets. Accepting bets is a facility afforded at his office.
    This sort of compromise always results in a muddle. If the Government had the courage to stand up to the Press and to risk its criticism, and were to say that, if not morally wrong, betting is none the less socially sterile and the sort of thing which involves money which could be better used elsewhere, this sort of difficulty would not arise.
    However, by this very Bill, by the betting office system, we are probably
    1380
    promoting a larger and even more sterile investment than Blue Streak. Let us face that. If we are to allow advertising, why ban this sort of thing? It is an illogical muddle. It will get us nowhere.
    Mr. John M. Temple: I am very pleased to see the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) back in his place. I am sure that we were extremely sorry that he was not able to take part in the Committee discussions on this aspect of the Bill. I shall not allow myself to be led away by the wiles of his arguments, because I have been enmeshed by them once before. I shall seek to place before the House cogent reasons, which, I think, will find acceptance with my right hon. Friend, for this limited approach to the control of advertising.
    I have the honour to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) in what he has said about the Amendment. I acknowledge that this is a limited approach, but it became clear from our discussions in Committee that the Committee was not prepared to accept a ban on all advertising, as has been advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.
    I stress the fact that the Council of Churches is in full support of the Amendment. Also, the Amendment follows the Clause which I had the honour to put forward in Committee, and further follows the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden). In moving the new Clause in Committee, I said that the line of this Amendment follows closely the Northern Ireland Betting and Lotteries Act, 1957. Prior to the Committee stage of the Bill I took the opportunity of visiting Ireland and I found that these provisions were working extremely well there.
    I am certain that there is general agreement in this House that there is no wish to encourage betting throughout this country as a result of this legislation. I am reinforced in that statement by the leading article in The Times yesterday entitled "Better Betting?", which said:
    "The farthest the Government has gone is to promise to look into the possibility of prohibiting the advertisement of particular betting shops, a form of advertisement rendered unnecessary anyway by the ordinary observation of the citizen."

    1381
    That is a fair statement that it will not be necessary to advertise these betting shops, because, if I know punters aright, they will have no difficulty in finding where these facilities exist.
    In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State said:
    "… the betting office will not need to advertise …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 22nd March, 1960, c. 971.]
    My right hon. Friend and The Times agree that the advertising of betting offices is unnecessary. The point I should like to make is that we are not taking away from anybody anything that they have hitherto enjoyed. Prior to this legislation betting offices have not been in existence in this country. Therefore, these licensees will not be losing any business to their competitors by reason of not being able to advertise, because they will all be in the same position. Neither is the status quo with regard to advertising to be affected. I do not accept that there is pressure from the Press in this respect. The Press might be in favour of the Amendment not being accepted, but I do not think that it would be seemly to have advertisements for local betting offices in the local papers. Who would gain by that being done? The short answer is, nobody.
    The Times mentioned one other very important feature, high-pressure advertising. It might well be that if betting office chains were introduced into the country those chains might find it extremely profitable to advertise their betting offices because they would have to take only one section of advertising space in a newspaper and advertise a series of offices. Therefore, I believe that unless the Amendment is accepted it will be an encouragement to the betting chains to set up and advertise a series of offices.
    I think that it is perfectly clear that not only will betting on horse racing be effected through the betting offices, but that all kinds of betting will be effected. No one can say what facilities will be offered, or what amount of betting will be encouraged through these offices. Therefore, if we make a general prohibition on advertising of betting in these offices we will cover all possible forms of betting advertisements which may be placed in the newspapers, and any other
    1382
    form of advertisement by the licensees of these betting offices.
    I have asked myself whether this advertising will be of any benefit to the people of our country. My answer is that quite definitely it can be of no positive advantage. For that reason, I advocate this prohibition on the advertisement of facilities in betting offices. I listened to the earlier debate about street bookmakers, when it was generally agreed that punters had no difficulty in finding them. Those bookmakers have never advertised, and there is, therefore, a strong case for the prohibition of advertising of betting offices. I am sure that the ingenious punter will find them whether or not they are advertised, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. William Blyton: This is the first time I have spoken today. I rise only because of the arguments put forward by the hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) certainly put a case against having any betting shops at all. If betting shops are to be made legal, I cannot see any objection to the persons running them advertising that they have no limit, or that they have a limit, or that they give better place betting than others.
    The hon. Member referred to the views of the Council of Churches. If that argument is carried to its logical conclusion, I would point out that that Council is against people having a glass of beer, but every time one goes to a public house one sees outside an advertisement saying, "Drink Newcastle Brown Ale", or an advertisement stating that 5 million glasses of Guinness are drunk every day. If the brewers are entitled to advertise their beer, why should not the bookmaker have the same facility and be entitled to advertise his business, when it is legalised by the Bill?
    What about the so-called freedom of the people? When we were discussing the Television Bill hon. Members opposite said that Independent Television should be able to advertise any article so that the people could buy it. I like to bet, and if I can read in the newspapers that I will get the best odds at a certain place in London I will place my bets there. If betting shops are legalised, I can see nothing wrong with

    1383
    advertising them; a man is entitled to advertise his business if he wants to extend it.
    I would prefer to see the existing situation legalised. Then there would be no anomalies. But, if betting shops are to be legal, I do not see how we can tell the brewers that they are free to advertise their beers but that bookmakers should not advertise the odds they are prepared to give. The argument put forward by hon. Members opposite is sheer humbug.
    Mr. Costain: I attended all the meetings in Committee, and I have attended practically all this debate, but this is the first time I have heard a Member arguing for an increase in gambling, even to prove a political point. The object of the Bill is to legalise gambling, but not to encourage it, and I am rather worried about the wording of paragraph (c) of the Amendment, which refers to
    "drawing attention to the availability of, or to the facilities afforded to persons resorting to, such offices."
    The one thing that attracts people's attention is to suggest that other people have won large prizes, especially on the pools. As the Amendment is drawn, it might be legal for the owner of a betting shop to have a large notice placed on the back wall of his shop, visible through the front window, stating that Mr. Smith of such-and-such a road won a 40–1 double the week before. I wonder whether the Amendment would allow that. That would be an ingenious and effective form of advertising, and it is the kind of advertising that we want to stop.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: May I begin by observing how refreshing it was to hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), who threw a new light upon the problem. He pointed out, with perfect truth, that there was no logic in some of the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, or in this Amendment. I may say to my hon. Friend that if he had been more familiar with the debates which took place during the Committee stage he would have realised that no one has ever pretended that there was any logic in the Bill. Almost throughout the whole of the proceedings on the
    1384
    Bill it has been recognised that logic is the last thing one looks for in it.
    The Bill is full of anomalies and inconsistencies, as has been admitted and there is a complete absence of logic. One after another, hon. Member's have pointed out that by the Bill the Government are trying to do something which, logically, is impossible; but they are trying to make the best of a bad job, realising that there is no ideal solution, and they are trying to avoid as many inconsistencies as possible. As a matter of logic, if the Home Secretary says to the House, "We want to legalise betting shops", one assumes that there is nothing wrong with betting shops and, therefore, one assumes that they should be free to advertise. But, as the Home Secretary made clear during the Second Reading debate, although he wants to legalise betting shops he also wants to make them places which are as unpleasant and as uncomfortable as possible.
    The right hon. Gentleman does not want to see any comfortable chairs in these betting shops, or any facilities provided for watching television. He wants the shops to exist, but to be as plain and drab and inconspicuous as possible. The object of the Bill is to provide facilities for cash betting in a shop, but it has always been recognised that, combined with the desire to provide facilities which experience shows the public will take illegally if they are not provided legally, the other object is to try to prevent any increase in the total volume of betting.
    That is not because betting is sinful or criminal, but because, as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), it is a sterile occupation and not a particularly edifying way in which to spend one's time. Therefore, consistent with providing the minimum facilities we must legislate in such a way as not to stimulate a tremendous increase in the volume of betting.
    For that reason, I support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), although I do not think that it goes far enough. I agree with what he said. In its leading article yesterday The Times drew attention to this. I do not, therefore, think it fair for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton to say that the Government are afraid of the Press not

    1385
    dealing as fully as it might with this important aspect of preventing advertising. The Times drew attention to the fact that the advertising of betting offices was perhaps one of the subjects which the Standing Committee had not examined as fully as it might during its discussions.
    The Times said:
    "It now falls to the House to repair the omission, with an eye to the proportions which belting advertising might assume in the future if left entirely without restriction."
    It draws attention to the danger that, if nothing in the Bill is done to check it, there is a serious danger that the betting habit may be stimulated by high-pressure advertising after the manner of the football pools. That is something we wish to avoid.
    Mr. Paget: This Amendment does not avoid it.
    Mr. Fletcher: I said that I am not sure that this Amendment does avoid it. I think it is designed to achieve part of that object. I hope that the Government will accept it and will also share my view that it does not go far enough. If the original object of the Home Secretary, revealed in his Second Reading speech, is to be fulfilled it will be necessary for the Government to do something further to ensure that the Bill does not, through the medium of advertising, lead to a wholesale increase in the volume of betting.
    Mr. Ray Mawby: I may be completely wrong about this Amendment, because I was not present during the Committee stage of the Bill. I thought that the Bill was designed to bring about some parity between the man who could take up the telephone and bet on credit and the man who wanted to place his bet in some other way.
    By this Amendment there would be nothing to prevent a credit bookmaker, who did not want to obtain a licence, carrying out all the advertising that he does at present—giving all the prices, stating that he is prepared to give one-third of the odds for a place, and so on. Yet his counterpart, running the same sort of business but for a different type of person, would be precluded completely from advertising because there would always be the possibility that he might be caught under the provisions of this Amendment.
    1386
    I believe that if the principle of the Amendment were accepted it would have to apply to all forms of betting. Otherwise, we shall never achieve a position in which men such as I, and probably a number of other hon. Members, who want to put a bet on in cash are in a reasonably equal position with a person who has a credit account with a bookmaker. Even if the Amendment were accepted, the bookmakers would be able to carry on substantial advertising and it would make no difference to the present position.
    Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) touched on a point which I was going to make. I want particularly to address my remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). He complained of the lack of logic in the Bill. It does not make him more logical because he substitutes for a lack of logic a severe injection of humbug, because that is what it is. It all came out in one word.
    My hon. Friend does not happen to regard—and here he is on common ground with hon. Members opposite— the operation of having a bet as edifying. What has that to do with it? I think that writing bad books about philosophy is not very edifying. I think that my hon. Friend would gain a great deal in logic and get rid of some of the humbug if he had a bet, because he would then be brought up against the logic of his own action. What he does is to hive-off any metaphysical arguments and does not even begin to find out what is the situation.
    The hon. Member for Totnes put his finger right on it. The man who has credit, or wants a credit account, can get all the information he needs not only from Sporting Life, but almost every daily paper. But these gentlemen who pride themselves on their high moral standards say that it is wicked to advertise a betting office or where it is likely to be found—and this, presumably, because they are not only superior moral beings but superior logicians. I do not get this at all.
    If the Government are to introduce betting shops and make them legal, why should the public not be made aware of where the betting shop is? If the hon. Member for Islington, East wants to stop—and I am with him here—the

    1387
    growth of the monopoly bookmaker and his use of television, let him put down an Amendment and I will support him, but do not let him have a foot in one camp and a foot in another and then pretend that he is a superior being because he is trying to straddle the universe.
    My hon. Friend is suffering from physical and mental schizophrenia and that does not pay any tribute either to his logic or his morality. He should come down on one side or the other I hope very much, not in the name of logic or morality, but in the name of that very rare quality, common sense, that the Government, without more ado, will reject this Amendment for the sloppy half-baked tendentious humbug that it is.
    Mr. Mellish: The main argument of the Bill has been lost, because the street bookmaker has been wiped out. With all the heaviest penalties which can be devised, he will be punished as the most evil criminal. Instead, we are to have the betting shop. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Now that we have destroyed this little "bloke" in the street, this evil character, and cleaned our streets, we are to allow betting shops to take his place. But what kind of betting shops are they to be?
    I wonder that the Government did not decide that the betting shop should be painted dark grey, so that it would be like a morgue. They have tried to ensure that there shall be no facilities for sound or television broadcasting in them. We know how that will be overcome by the man who can afford it. He will buy the shop next door and use it as a refreshment room where his clients can have a cup of tea and then come from next door to place their bets.
    I believe that nothing is too good for the workers. If we are to have betting shops, let us have the best, let us have the most comfortable chairs, with television and all laid on, and go in for it in a big way, with no more of this humbug. Let us have no more of the idea that if the places are made uncomfortable fewer people will go into them to bet. That is the wrong way to teach the workers that betting is a bad thing. I believe in gaiety about this. I have never believed in churches which are
    1388
    devoid of everything. I like everything to be lively. Let these places be lively. If there is advertising, it cannot be worse than the stupid advertisements we see now. On the matter of the stupid strictures in The Times, what it is mad about is that it does not get any advertisements. That is one reason why it is kicking up a fuss.
    We want good, well-designed, clean buildings, where ordinary folk can go and have a bet. To poke around like this and tell people how to do it makes me sick. I see no party political argument in this. Some people can go to the finest clubs in the West End where they have a ticker-tape going and they can sit with a fat cigar and have their drinks. The best of luck to them; I am only sorry I cannot afford it. That is all legal, but the moment it comes to doing it in a betting shop people go into the horror of it. Let us have good betting shops. I am the rogue elephant on this issue; in my opinion, only the best is good enough for the workers. Let us have the finest betting shops possible.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has reduced this debate to its proper perspective, and, in company with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), has established the undeniable fact about the Bill that it increases the class distinction which was all too evident already in the gambling facilities of this country.
    In my view, in politics and in religion the real difference is between the liberal and the illiberal, and not, as some people think, between the liberal and the conservative. It is important, above all, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should have a liberal outlook on these social questions which have been brought so prominently before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey.
    Now that this subject is being cleared up, I regret that there should still be the distinction between the person whose financial position enables him to bet by credit and the humbler people who in future, if they want to bet, will have to do it through the betting shops. If the person who wants to bet by credit

    1389
    can peruse the advertisements to see the place in which he can do it, why should not the person who wishes to place his bet and does not know quite where the betting shops are, and what their transactions are, have the same facilities?
    A Home Secretary who preceded me was always in favour of things being orderly and tidy. The present Home Secretary thinks that the street is not the right place in which to bet. He says, "Let us have orderly streets. Let us have tidy streets. If a person is so situated that he can neither bet by credit nor get to the betting shop, he ought to be punished for being so poor that he cannot do either."
    Mr. Vosper: I join my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) in welcoming the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) back to our debates. This is the first opportunity I have had of welcoming him. We missed his interventions in the later stages in Committee.
    I should like to welcome to the debate, too, the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and thank him for his refreshing intervention. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). It has been disappointing in debates on Report so far that the only hon. Members to speak have been those who took part in Committee. On this Amendment it was desirable that we should have a further expression of opinion. I wonder whether we have made much progress in the debate.
    The history of this issue is that the first Royal Commission recommended a complete prohibition on all advertising in respect of betting. The most recent Royal Commission took exactly the opposite view and said that there should be no prohibition either in respect of credit betting or in respect of licenced betting offices. When the point was discussed in Committee, the Committee showed itself evenly divided among those who felt that no action should be taken at all, those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), thought that limited action should be taken, and those who felt that we should go the whole way and prohibit advertising. On that occasion, on the instigation of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I promised to con-
    1390
    sult my right hon. Friend and decide whether the Government should take any further action. In view of the undecisive nature of that debate, we decided not to table an Amendment at this stage, but we welcomed the Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus, which we thought would give a further expression of opinion on this evenly balanced subject.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northampton advocated that we should go the whole way, as did the first Royal Commission, and he suggested that the Government were afraid to do this because of the Press. I would point out that one would be banning an existing practice of many years, and it is a little difficult to see how the credit bookmaker is to exist or to expand his business if he is not allowed to advertise. There is a practical difficulty, even if we are not extending the prohibition beyond this Measure to all advertising. I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. The reason for resisting any attempt to go further is that it would then be very difficult for the credit bookmaker to carry on his business successfully.
    One therefore comes back to the more Limited proposal—and it is a very limited proposal—in the Amendment, which seeks to prohibit advertising in respect of licensed betting offices. Those hon. Members who have been to Dublin know that advertising is carried there to an extreme beyond that which would be desirable in this country. I am by no means convinced that the same practice will apply in this country, even if this Amendment is not carried. The Northern Ireland Administration, in their Act, have a provision roughly similar to this, which I understand has been fairly effective.
    The House has quite clearly shown that it is about evenly divided on this issue and by no means in support of the Amendment. I have consulted my right hon. Friend and we should like to consider once again the views expressed in the House and decide whether any action should be taken in another place. I do not think that there has been sufficient support to justify the House in accepting my hon. Friend's Amendment at this stage, but we will consider it further. It is for my hon. Friend to decide what he should do. He will have heard the doubts expressed about it and

    1391
    perhaps he feels disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir J. Duncan: I have the right to reply but I will take only one minute. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has gone. He blew in, and now he has blown out. I intended to read to him the first few words of the Royal Commission's Report:
    "The law … is obscure, illogical and difficult to enforce."
    What we have been trying to do in this Amendment, and throughout the Bill, is to try to make it less obscure, less illogical and enforceable.
    The object of the Amendment was to try to make the law both enforceable and as far as possible logical, bearing in mind what has been said in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) raised a point which had been raised in the Standing Committee. It was raised during the nineteenth Sitting of the Committee, and if he had read the Report, he would have seen that we opposed it at that point. I agree that it was also challenged by the right hon. Gentleman at that point. There are exceptional circumstances, and so I hope that my hon. Friend will have a look at the Report of the nineteenth Sitting of the Committee, because these are all very difficult matters, and there is a good deal to be said for taking some limited steps to control the amount of advertising in connection with betting offices. I am not talking about outside, but in connection with betting offices.
    My right hon. Friend has undertaken to consider whether there should be further action taken in another place. The Times has been quoted, but I deliberately did not quote it, and I hope that will be borne in mind by the Government. I hope that if I withdraw the Amendment my right hon. Friend will consider taking action. I think that, although the circumstances are illogical —I do not pretend that we have worked entirely in the interests of logic in this case—this is the sort of British compromise which I think will work, and if it will work, I think it will be worth while. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6.—(INCREASE OF PENALTIES FOR STREET BETTING.)
    Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out from "day" to "to" in line 33.
    Mr. Speaker: It is my belief that it would be of convenience to the House if we were to discuss this Amendment with the next two Amendments, in page 5, line 34, to leave out "two" and to insert "five", and in line 34, to leave out "or to both".
    Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir. I think that it would be convenient if this and the next two Amendments were considered together. Perhaps I might indicate the intention of this Amendment, which I have no doubt some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will elaborate.
    The House having decided, rightly or wrongly, to continue the prohibition of street betting and to legalise betting offices, the Clause deals with the penalties that should be imposed in future for street betting. I concede that there is some logic in the suggestion of the Royal Commission that, if a serious attempt is to be made to divert all cash betting through the channels of betting offices and to put an end to street betting, one of the ways to give effect to that object would be to increase the penalties for street betting.
    The Royal Commission proposed that the existing penalties should be increased. The Bill accordingly proposes that the penalty on first conviction should be £100 and that in the case of a second or any subsequent conviction the offender should be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £200 or to both.
    Many of my hon. Friends feel that it is both wrong and unnecessary to introduce the sanction of imprisonment and that a sufficiently salutary deterrent would be obtained by an increased fine. For that reason, it is proposed that the permitted maximum should be more than that suggested in the Bill. The real object of the Amendment is to remove from the Bill the liability of an offender to a term of imprisonment.
    Mr. Wigg: It is most regrettable that the Government should rely on the sanction of imprisonment rather than a fine and upon the ultimate sanction which can

    1393
    be expressed by refusing a man or permit if he is trying to establish a business with one foot in either camp. As the House has learned already, it is absolutely clear that in the south of England in particular, though the line is much further north than some people think, the habit of the betting office does not exist. It has to be established.
    Therefore, the Home Secretary must recognise that there will be quite ruthless treatment when the Bill becomes law. Old habits die hard. If the House does not accept the Amendment, many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will find themselves not only paying heavy fines but faced with prison sentences. This is very regrettable. The circumstances in which these men have lived their lives, developed their businesses, and sought to serve their clientele, have been illegal, but the existing situation has been allowed to drift on.
    Whilst I shall be 100 per cent. behind the Home Secretary and the Government when the Bill becomes law, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Proceedings on the Betting and Gaming Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. R. A. Butler.]
    Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Wigg: I should have thought that the Home Secretary, as a gesture of good will here, would have been content with the increase in the monetary penalties for which we ask, and would have forgone what could be the terrible phantom of a term of imprisonment for a mistake, a defiance of the law, that has really become a habit, and does not arise from any particular effort to sabotage the Government's intention—
    Mr. Paget: What happens to the chap who cannot pay £500?
    Mr. Wigg: Fancy my hon. and learned Friend asking me that! I should think that he has at least read the Bill, which says "not exceeding". I should have thought that there were very few bookmakers who had been operating for any
    1394
    length of time, particularly in Bermondsey, who would not be able to pay £500. However, this being the maximum, one would expect that the bench would take the circumstances into account. They will know the circumstances far better. If I were a bookmaker, I would not like to appear before the benches in some areas—composed, for example, of people like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and some hon. Members opposite. They would give one the fine and the imprisonment as well, if they could. They think this is a wicked thing. I do not think that it is wicked—though folly, if abused, yes.
    To hold over a man's head the sanction of imprisonment when all that he has done has been to serve the area in which he lives—and, perhaps to exploit the shortcomings of this House— is wrong. It is quite savage to have a penalty like this and seems to indicate that the Government are not sure of themselves. I have never had the opportunity of reading history under any guidance, but one thing I picked up for myself was that wherever penalties were made savage, wherever they were increased, one could be reasonably sure that the original penalties were not working, and that the situation was getting worse.
    This seems to be a clear indication that it is because the Government are not at all sure of the betting shop taking root and of their being able to get rid of the street bookmaker that they have introduced this savage provision. In this matter, as in many others, I am proud to have followed the lead and the liberal guidance of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). There is not a wider or more radical man in his thinking than he. If I had to choose between his advice and that coming from the other side of the House, I would take his every time. I am sure that his instinct is sound. The House will be wise not to resist my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    Mr. H. P. G. Channon: As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware, I moved an identical Amendment in the Standing Committee, so I wish to add my voice to the voices of hon. Members opposite, apologising to the hon. Member for Islington, East

    1395
    (Mr. E. Fletcher) for missing the first few seconds of his speech.
    I suspect that on this occasion, as on a number of other occasions, my hon. and learned Friend will find some reasons for rejecting the Amendment. When I last tried to advance reasons in support of the idea he said that although my arguments were ingenious he found them unsatisfactory. I suspect that tonight his own ingenious arguments will persuade the House to reject the Amendment.
    I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will base his case on the fact that imprisonment is the only effective sanction against street bookmakers. Therefore, I shall not so much base my argument to him on the grounds I used last time but I shall suggest that there are moral grounds on which it would be grossly unfair for him to try to impose the penalty of imprisonment.
    Mr. Wigg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not put unfortunate thoughts in the mind of his hon. and learned Friend. He has suggested that the hon. and learned Gentleman might base his argument on the sanction of imprisonment. It seems that the hon. Gentleman believes in the policy of his right hon. Friend. I suggest that he should rely not on imprisonment or on the fine, but on the fact that, if these men continue to defy the law, they will be prejudiced if they themselves wish subsequently to have betting shops.
    Mr. Channon: When I say that something is what I suspect my hon. and learned Friend will rely on, that does not at all mean that I necessarily agree with the premises upon which he may base his conclusions.
    Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman must remember that upstairs we never had any reasons from the hon. and learned Gentleman. All we had were excuses. The hon. Member is now giving the hon. and learned Gentfleman some reasons. That is what I do not like.
    Mr. Channon: I am sorry if I have convinced the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) of the soundness of my hon. and learned Friend's case which I am seeking to controvert.
    1396
    Before I come to some of the practical reasons for regarding as a mistake what my hon. and learned Friend has suggested hitherto, I suggest that, on moral grounds, it would be grossly unfair to impose the penalty of imprisonment. What the Government propose affects two sets of illegal bookmakers, the illegal bookmakers working in betting shops north of some line drawn across the centre of England and illegal bookmakers working in the streets south of this imaginary line.
    My hon. and learned Friend's proposal in this instance is that illegal bookmakers working north of that line should be rewarded by being allowed to set up new betting shops. Their livelihoods will at once become legal and, in one sense, they will be rewarded for their past endeavours. Bookmakers south of the line, on the other hand, who also have been carrying on activities in betting equally illegally, are not to be rewarded or even left as they are now; they are to be firmly punished. [Interruption.] I assure my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) that, just as he is worried about the future of his constituents, I am worried about the few people in the Borough of Southend who engage in street bookmaking.
    It seems rather unfair that these two sets of illegal bookmakers who have been functioning until now comparatively unhampered by the police should be treated differently, one set at once being allowed to carry on their business and, indeed, being encouraged to do so, the other set being firmly and more severely punished than in the past. That is the moral argument.
    The other argument, which, I know, will appeal to the hon. Member for Dudley, relates to whether or not what is proposed by the Government would be effective. My hon. and learned Friend will know the past figures of the number of people convicted of offences against the Street Betting Act, 1906, and the number of those sent to prison. The penalty of imprisonment has existed under the Street Betting Act since 1906, yet we have heard over and over again from Government spokesmen about how ineffective it has all been. Street betting has gone on, perhaps even increasing, during the past fifty-four years, under all

    1397
    Governments. The penalty of imprisonment has been there all the time. It cannot, therefore, be argued that imprisonment has been effective. It is not fair to say that it is an effective sanction.
    On both grounds, first, that it is unfair to one section of illegal bookmakers, and secondly, that it has not been an effective deterrent in the past, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, even at this late stage, will reconsider his attitude and base himself more firmly on financial penalties against the bookmaker.
    I agree with the object of a later Amendment which would increase the amount of the fine that could be levied against people who bet in this way and also with the penalties that exist for the withdrawal of the licence from people who try to function in betting shops in future. Those two provisions will be far more effective than imprisonment has been in the past. As the figures show, convictions for street betting are still enormous, but we are told that only a small percentage of persons are convicted. It is monstrously unfair that the bookmaker working in a betting shop in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin should be heavily rewarded and that the bookmaker working in the street in my own constituency should be punished.
    The only person who has given me serious alarm in this matter is my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who, in Committee, painted a very lurid picture of the dangers that would arise should the penalty of imprisonment be withdrawn for street bookmaking. It seems to me that if he considers that these abuses will go on, and that gang warfare will arise, the penalties would not be those provided for offences against the Street Betting Act, 1906, or this Measure when it becomes law, but rather penalties for offences against far more serious legislation. I should have thought that whether there is a penalty of imprisonment for betting in the street is totally irrelevant if gang warfare breaks out.
    There is always hope, but, without much sincere prospect of success, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reconsider this matter.
    Mr. Ede: I support the Amendment. I should like to ask the Joint Undersecretary of State whether he can cite any other Measure under which the alternative to a fine of £200 is as little as three months' imprisonment. Why has this astoundingly low limit been fixed? We know that for certain motoring offences the penalty is fixed at four months. If a penalty of four months is inserted in an Act, a defendant has the right of trial by jury. Why has that not been done here? The answer is that the Government know that nobody regards the street bookmaker as a criminal and that it would be as difficult to get a conviction for street book-making in many cases before a jury of 12 men and women as it is to get a conviction of motor car drivers in respect of some of the most serious offences heard before a jury.
    No one thinks of the street bookmaker as a criminal. In fact, many people who know the risks that he runs regard him as a good sport for taking those risks so that they can put their money on with him. I ask the hon. and learned Member not to brand men who meet what the Government may think is a very perverse demand but a legitimate social need as criminals with terms of imprisonment. I ask him to pay attention to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Southend. West (Mr. Channon).
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Mellish: I hope that when the Joint Under-Secretary of State replies he will say something about the intentions of the Government regarding the time factor involved before this Bill, which is against street bookmakers, comes into being. This is the most savage of Clauses. First, we have taken action against a certain person in our society, for reasons which have been advanced by the Government and which I have tried to say are unfair. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has raised an important point. We have an extraordinary Government in many ways. We have pleaded with the Minister of Transport to increase some of the penalties to deal with the drunken driver, the person in charge of the lethal weapon who is a menace on the road. We would be pleased to do something about it, but the Minister of Transport will not do it.

    1399
    Now, the Government come along with a Clause which is nothing like what we expect from hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not a man who enjoys hurting people, neither is his right hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary who handled the Bill in Committee. Under the Clause, there is to be a fine of £100, followed next time by three months' imprisonment—for what? For taking a little bit of paper in the street with "2s." or "3s." marked on it. I do not believe that these people will find the shops easily. There will be a long period before they are able to settle down to the working of the Bill. Great tolerance will be needed by the Government to help these people out.
    I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) assumed that the constituents whom I represent and who are bookmakers are quite well able to afford £500 for the second offence. Many of the bookmakers in my constituency—I know quite a few of them—are the one-man-business type of person. Many of them have family businesses which have been in the family and passed on from father to son. I know of only one in my constituency who employs three or four runners on the pitches. Some are individual bookmakers in their own right. These are the little men about whom I am concerned. I thought that hon. Members of the party opposite were concerned with the small man, too, but they are not; they are imposing on him a fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment. If the Government cannot accept our Amendment, I hope that they make certain before the Bill becomes law that these people will get some protection.
    Mr. Renton: Having listened carefully to this interesting debate, I am sorry that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. If we did so, we should undoubtedly weaken the sanction against street betting, which earlier tonight, the House has decided should not be allowed, after betting offices have been established. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) reminded the House, one cannot escape the logic of the Royal Commission's recommendation that once facilities for legal cash betting have been given we must be careful to enforce the law against street betting.
    1400
    I do not think that any Member of the House will disagree that in fixing maximum sentences we have to think not of the most typical case that is likely to arise, but of the worst possible case that we ought to foresee. I quite agree that if we were judging the matter in terms of the most typical cases, a great many of the remarks which have been made in the speeches of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, would be fully justified; but that is not what we are doing. We have to consider the worst type of cases. In practice, that is likely to mean the cases of the most persistent offenders.
    Three months' imprisonment has been described by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as savage. I remind him that an even higher sentence could have been awarded under the Street Betting Act, 1906, by prosecuting the offender on indictment, when the sentence could have been six months. We are not, however, repeating the provision for prosecution on indictment and three months' imprisonment on summary conviction will be the maximum.
    The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) drew attention to the fact that there were, as he put it—and I took a note of what he said though he slightly overstated the case—that few big bookmakers could not pay £500. There is no doubt that most of the people who have so far been convicted for street betting—and we have to think of the principal in future—are runners or agents of bookmakers and not bookmakers themselves.
    Nevertheless, the principal bookmaker may be convicted as an accessory. The principal may be a rich man willing to risk, ultimately, having to pay several hundred pounds. Although he is willing to take that risk he is not very likely to be willing to take the risk of even three months' imprisonment. In a glaring case, or one in which the principal bookmaker is a persistent offender, imprisonment, even a short sentence up to three months, may be necessary as the ultimate sanction. It is for that reason—confirmed, I think, by what the hon. Member said—that we say that to replace the sentence of three months' imprisonment by a maximum fine of even £500 would not be appropriate to the situation.

    1401
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) made a most lively and interesting speech on this point, as he did in Committee. He based his argument against the case that I am putting on the assumption that because imprisonment was not an effective sentence in the past it is not likely to be so in the future. I do not think that one can assume that imprisonment has not been an effective sanction in the past. I agree that the sanction of imprisonment has been used in only a very small proportion indeed of the total number of convictions under the Street Betting Act, but we have to bear in mind that there may have been a natural reluctance on the part of magistrates to apply the full rigour of the law under that Act, when there were no legal cash betting facilities at people's disposal.
    Surely we are all agreed on this occasion that this new law which we are making must above all be enforceable. We say that it is not unreasonable to ask the House to sanction a maximum sentence of three months' imprisonment, coupled with a maximum fine, in the worst cases, of £200 if necessary, and that that is neither oppressive nor excessive.
    The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked me to mention any other case where the alternative to a fine of £200 on summary conviction was as low a maximum sentence of imprisonment as three months. Without notice, I cannot give him the precedents, but I tell him candidly that in deciding that these maximum sentences which we have in the Bill were probably the appropriate ones— it is, after all, a question of judgment— we did consider the circumstances likely to arise in the context of probabilities relating to street betting, the alternative cash betting facilities which would be available, and so on.
    I think that, bearing in mind the present value of money, and the effectiveness of the sanction of imprisonment, it is not unreasonable to couple these two things together.
    Mr. Ede: Do I understand that the people whom the hon. and learned Gentleman consulted did not mention the fact that where it might be four months or more a case could go to a jury?
    Mr. Renton: We had in mind the possibility that if we stuck to the old sentence of conviction on indictment, a
    1402
    number of these cases might be tried on indictment, but we felt that in the circumstances summary trial was appropriate and adequate for this type of case and that our courts of assize and quarter sessions were not the sort of place where we would expect to have this kind of case tried and that they were cases which could properly be tried by magistrates.
    For those reasons, and after giving the matter most careful consideration, we felt obliged to advise the House that these penalties, stringent though they may appear to be, are necessary for the worst type of case. It must not be thought that these maximum penalties are the type of penalties which will be awarded for typical cases, even on second and subsequent convictions.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: There is a matter arising out of what my hon. and learned Friend has said which, I hope, he will consider before the Bill leaves another place. He has said that these penalties are needed for the worst type of case and he mentioned, in particular, a bookmaker acting on his own account. When the Bill becomes law, there will be a sanction far heavier than imprisonment. There will be the possibility of taking away the bookmaker's licence, or not granting it when it comes up for renewal at the end of the year. That is a far heavier sanction than anything included in the Clause.
    Under Clause 2, a person who acts as a bookmaker on his own account, without a licence, is committing an offence, and Clause 25 provides that both summarily and in that case also on conviction on indictment, there are heavy penalties, including imprisonment, so there would be the possibility of imprisonment even if these Amendments were made. Apart from the Amendments, there is another penalty which is far heavier even than imprisonment. I agree that there must be heavy sanctions and I am prepared to support my hon. and learned Friend in opposing the Amendment, but I hope that he will consider this aspect of the case before the Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Fletcher: I find the hon. and learned Member's reply most unsatisfactory. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, there is no precedent for

    1403
    a maximum of three months as an equivalent of a fine of £200. The hon. and learned Member made it quite clear why he was not prepared to fix the maximum term of imprisonment at more than three months. It is obvious that the Government are afraid to permit these people to have the benefit of trial by jury. I think that all my hon. Friends found the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply so unsatisfactory that we must take the matter to a Division.
    Mr. Wigg: May I plead with the hon. and learned Gentleman? We do not want to go through the Division Lobby on an issue of this kind. Will he be kind enough to have another look at this matter and to try to meet us, because it revolts us to have to divide on this? I ask the Government most earnestly to save us the embarrassment of dividing against them.
    Mr. Renton: Naturally, we gave very great thought to this matter and, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, we were not guided by precedent in fixing these sentences because we are making a new departure in this branch of the law and there is no precedent which would be completely valid.
    Nevertheless, I have just had my attention drawn to the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, under which a person guilty of various offences may be convicted on summary conviction to exactly these maxima, namely, three months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding £200, or both.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that there was another sanction, namely, taking away the man's licence. That is only a sanction if he has already taken out a licence and is a licensed bookmaker indulging in street betting. If he has dodged the column altogether and is not a licensed bookmaker, that will be no sanction against him.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Then he is caught under Clause 25.
    Mr. Renton: That is quite true, but he is committing a separate offence under that Clause. We should ensure that we have the appropriate punishments for each of the offences in the Bill. That is what we have done.
    Mr. Fletcher: May I take it from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said
    1404
    that he is prepared to look at the matter again in the light of the speeches which have been made?
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Mr. Speaker, I think that I should say that I have had a message from the HANSARD reporters that they will not be able to conclude the OFFICIAL REPORT today, because they will be unable to get the copy through to the printers, unless we conclude our deliberations fairly soon. In the circumstances, I think that we should accept their opinion. I gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) after Questions, and I should not like to go back on that, although I would have liked to have sat until eleven o'clock.
    In the circumstances, I think that we should adjourn our discussion. In a few moments, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will move the necessary Motion that we should do so. As there has been a discussion on the Amendment, what we had better do is this. Whilst I think that there is much validity in the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, I certainly will look at this in the light of the other Statute which has been brought forward. Of course, I would not be able to do anything here. It would have to be looked at before it goes to another place. Then, if we were able to do anything, it would come back here in the normal way later in the summer.
    In the circumstances, I should be obliged if the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) would be kind enough to withdraw his Amendment. Whilst I cannot give any absolute promises, in order not to truncate a matter involving heavy penalties on the citizen I think that we should adjourn discussion on this and leave it for further consideration in another place. Later, I will move that we adjourn consideration of the Bill.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of that assurance by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
    Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

  NOISE ABATEMENT [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provisions in respect of the control of noise with a view to its abatement, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.
  Resolution agreed to.

CATHOLIC SCHOOL, WELLINGTON
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]
10.33 p.m.
Mr. William Yates: I should like, first, to say, on behalf of my constituents, how very grateful they all are to the kindness that you, Mr. Speaker, have extended to me by allowing me the Adjournment tonight, as my previous Adjournment was lost because the Government wished to use the time early in February.
There are today four ways in which a Member of Parliament representing his people can temper and control the Executive. By far the most effective is on a Motion of Adjournment, as I am doing now. I am doing this in the interests of a minority in my constituency—Catholic people. I have no particular interest in their arrangements or their schooling, other than that I represent them as a minority, but naturally I have always been interested in Italy. I spent some time in the University of Perugia, and was, unfortunately, wounded in Italy during the war. Therefore, I am sympathetic with Catholic problems and, in particular, the Catholic difficulties in my constituency.
There is, too, the fundamental principle in the Conservative Party—its philosophy and policy towards education. It is quite a simple one. It is that all parents shall have the right to decide on the education for their children— what sort of education they should enjoy. This is an undeniable right, and one which we have maintained throughout the centuries. In my constituency
1406
there are between 4,000 and 5,000 Catholic parents. In the outlying areas they have to come into the school which, reading the Order Paper for tonight's Adjournment—St. Patrick's Roman Catholic School—one would imagine to be a complete unit. But that is not so. The school is divided in various buildings throughout the town of Wellington. In fact, it is divided into three buildings— North Road, Constitution Hill and Mill Bank.
I must be fair to the Minister. The school at North Road was put up in 1955 to relieve congestion in the other two buildings, but the other two buildings have been condemned for ten years as unsuitable for school premises. It is quite a remarkable situation when one thinks that there are 280 children and those children have to be scattered throughout Wellington in various classes, attending what is supposed to be one school—St. Patrick's Roman Catholic School. In 1949, there were 120 pupils; today, there are 280.
The local authorities have been pressing the Minister to see whether he can allow this school to concentrate itself in one building. That would obviously be wise. They have asked whether they could concentrate the school at North Road and there provide room for seven classes. I do not think it necessary for me to mention the number of times I have raised this problem, both in speeches in the debate on the Address in 1948 and 1949 and during my General Election address, nor the number of times I have pressed the Minister with Questions; indeed, the wad of letters I have from his predecessor shows that I have been pressing this problem ever since 1955.
I would ask the Minister to give special attention to the state of the school buildings at Mill Bank, one of the three classes scattered throughout Wellington. They were erected in 1809. They were constructed first as a church, and then converted. There are 145 children at this school—46 between the ages of 11 and 15 and 69 between the ages of five and seven.
It is only fair to take an independent view about conditions at this school, and to appreciate the state of the buildings in my constituency today. I am not going to give my own opinion. I am going

1407
to turn to the public health report given to the Wellington Urban District Council. It says:
" Mill Bank. … The main defects are as follows: Natural light is deficient in both buildings. Artificial light has to be used for the greater part of the time. Heating. The main form of heating is by gas convector heaters … which discharge the products of combustion into the room."
And children are supposed to be taught in this room. The heating is the type of heating used for landings and halls.
There are three wash basins and one sink in the main building in the infants' block and for all these children there is no hot water. It is disclosed in the report of the sanitary inspector that right back in 1955 the sanitary provisions were in breach of the Public Health Orders of 1951 regarding the provision of toilet accommodation at this school. That is not a very happy state of affairs. There are one or two other deficiencies, but I will not take up the time of the House by discussing them.
The other little school is at Constitution Hill. Here the heating has been so inadequate that during the month of February the school was closed by order of the health and the local education authorities because it was impossible and wrong to teach small children in such conditions. So there we have the children at two classes, housed in condemned buildings and being taught in conditions which are disgraceful and insanitary.
There is, however, one redeeming feature to be found in the report to the Minister of Education, in 1955. His inspector who visited the school in 1955, said that the children were being taught by teachers of long experience and devoted service who, within the limitations there, gave the children in their early education a fair start. The Minister is well aware of the fact, and I am not surprised, that the local council has taken grave exception to such a state of affairs and has asked me to raise the matter tonight.
I think it intolerable that such a situation should exist in our country. The Wellington Urban District Council has gone further and suggested that this matter should be put right. It has approached the county council and asked whether plans to extend the school
1408
at North Road could be put into the programme of the Shropshire County Council for 1960–62.
One can imagine, therefore, the disappointment when I was told that out of all the various submissions made by the Shropshire County Council to the Minister, he had selected a great number of other projects but had decided not to select St. Patrick's School. I have been the Member for the constituency for five years, and my constituents have asked me how long I am prepared to endure such conditions; and I feel that the time has come when the situation should be brought forcibly to the Minister's attention.
People may say, "Why has nobody raised this matter before and why has no protest been made in the House?" I suggest that this is because of the humble and quiet way in which some of our minorities accept their conditions without complaint.
We lost Father O'Reilly, who was the leader of the Catholic Church in the area, during the General Election. He is sadly missed in Wellington. His loss was a bitter blow to every Catholic. The streets are not quite the same when we do not see that old, cheery figure walking along underneath a great big black hat. He had a lovely Irish brogue and always had a kind welcome for everybody. He had been a padre in the First World War—a padre who was esteemed and popular.
I do not want to delay the House. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have had many discussions on this matter. I must be true to Conservative principles and recognise the right of rate-paying Catholics to equitable treatment from the Government. I do not think that their school-building projects should be prejudiced in the interests of an overwhelming majority. Only this morning I received letters from people in Newport pointing out the desirability, too, of maintaining the Church of England schools.
The Parliamentary Secretary realises that in these schools some of the best basic teaching in our land is carried out. I know that he intends to see that these schools are maintained and helped to the best of his ability. In our small voluntary schools is found an unparalleled standard of good teaching and good

1409
education. These are heritages which it is my duty as Member of Parliament to sustain and to uphold and to bring to the attention of the House.
I only ask the Minister one thing. Over the last five years it has never been possible to get from any Minister of Education the date on which he imagined the programme of building this school, or of combining these classes at North Road, would foe possible. Ministers have always said "Some time ". I do hope that my hon. Friend will tonight be able to give a definite date.
This is probably a unique Adjournment debate, because tomorrow there is to be a very great national occasion. Perhaps on behalf of my constituents, and of back bench Members, I might be allowed to extend to the two distinguished and great people our humble and heartfelt good wishes. I particularly thank Mr. Antony Armstrong-Jones for his help to me during the General Election. Of one thing I am convinced, and it is this: tomorrow, Her Royal Highness marries a Christian and a gentleman. On behalf of back benchers and of my constituents. I would extend to both our best wishes
10.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am sure that the House will endorse the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates). I am glad to be able to say a few words about the school and the general problem of Wellington schools that it represents. My hon. Friend's constituents certainly have no cause for complaint that they have not had their case brought to the attention of the Minister and the Department with great regularity, great frequency and great force.
That my hon. Friend has been able to raise the matter on this Adjournment will, I hope, draw their attention to the fact that not only has he done his duty as a Member but, in doing so, he has made quite sure, if assurance were needed, that in the Ministry, both at official level and by Ministers, the case of this school has been very well and thoroughly studied on a number of occasions.
1410
I should also like to congratulate the Wellington authority, the Shropshire Education Authority and the managers of the school on the way in which they have, with patience but with diligence, kept the case of a new school before the Department and, while doing so, have continued to do their best in conditions that we know are anything but good. Indeed, I endorse what my hon. Friend said in description of conditions at this school. In no way has he exaggerated or drawn a longer bow than he had to. The conditions are not good. We are aware of the fact, and that school must, when we can manage it, be replaced.
However, I hope that he will not conclude from that, and that nor will those on whose behalf he speaks con-dude from that, that there is any easy way in which the Ministry can solve this problem. There are many other problems of a similar kind which beset local education authorities up and down the country.
A great deal has been done since the war to bring schools of this kind up to a better standard, but, of course, our besetting problem from the end of the war has been to provide new places in additional schools for the vast additional numbers of children. We have had to cope with the "bulge". That has meant that it has been in new towns and new estates around towns in the growing industrial areas of the Midlands and the Home Counties and similar areas that we have had to concentrate our school building effort. That is Where the great bulk of our resources has had to go.
We have now reached the stage where the problems of the "bulge" have been pretty well provided for. We can say that, at the end of the 1960–62 programme, they will have been taken care of. While we were compelled to devote our resources to that purpose, we have had to tolerate the kind of conditions in this school to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention. But having solved the problem of the "bulge" of providing roofs over the heads of the children, we now have to pass to the next stage of the problem, which is to look after the needs of those same children as they move from the primary schools into the secondary schools. My hon. Friend will recall the White Paper published in 1958, which set out the next priorities

1411
to which we have to have regard in our building programme. At the present time the 1960…62 programme—the programme which is going on now, and which my hon. Friend says we should fit in this particular job—is taking care in the main of the last of the provision of accommodation for the children of the "bulge". It is designed to begin the job of bringing all our secondary schools up to a decent standard, a job to be completed within the five years, to complete the reorganisation of all-age schools, of which this school is one, and then to be able to do something for the replacement of bad and unsatisfactory buildings.
We face, however, the simple fact that all these things cannot be done at once. We must get our priorities right and, having done that, as, I think, we have, we must then stick to them and carry out our programme step by step logically in a way designed to give the greatest return fairly distributed, not only between one place and another, but between the different parts of the education system, of which primary and secondary schools are only two parts. We have a vast technical college programme under way and a vast teacher-training programme and, now, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is engaged in vast university expansion. All this cannot be done at once or overnight.
I should, however, like my hon. Friend and his constituents to be assured that even in spite of all the difficulty of getting the priorities right, the affairs of this school have not been either ignored or overlooked. First, as my hon. Friend reminded the House, an instalment of the new school was built in 1955 and was occupied and provided some relief, continuing from that time, for the school. There is also being provided in Wellington a Roman Catholic secondary school in the current building programme. When completed, this school will take away from St. Patrick's 86 of the senior children, providing that much relief for the existing overcrowded conditions in the school. That still leaves us, however, with the residuary problem of unsatisfactory buildings broken into sections in different parts of the town and a generally unsatisfactory state of affairs.
1412
My hon. Friend wants to know, and rightly, when some relief can be hoped for. We must still obey our priorities. We have asked the local authorities all over the country to send us details of their projects for the 1962–63 building year. We will be given details of a large number of projects, the cost of which would amount to a lot more than the amount of money that the Treasury will allow us to devote to the building of schools. Therefore, even before we begin to put our priorities right, we must do some paring of the global total to keep it within the amount that we are allowed to dispose of.
Our next step is to take account of the local authorities' ideas of what the priorities should be within that amount. If the right priority is given to us by the local authority for St. Patrick's, I have no doubt that we ought to be able to find a place for it in the 1962–63 programme.
Mr. Yates: I do not think that is quite fair. I would say that the county council submits to the Minister about ten or fifteen things which in its mind are urgent. It is the responsibility of the Minister to choose from those projects the ones which he thinks are urgent. He ought not to put the responsibility on to the county council to decide which are urgent, but to decide himself.
Mr. Thompson: I do not want to run away from the responsibility; I think we want to let it be known that the Minister in making up his mind does not ignore the estimates provided by the county councils. He takes that into account, and it would be wrong not to do so. After all, St. Patrick's is not the only school in the Shropshire Education Authority's empire which needs urgent attention.
Mr. Yates: But it is in my constituency.
Mr. Thompson: That may be so, but not only does my hon. Friend have a responsibility limited territorially, but Shropshire Education Authority has limited territorial responsibility and the Minister has to look at this global problem objectively.
When we get all this programme in, I promise my hon. Friend that we shall go into it with the greatest possible care

1413
and, all things being equal, we ought to find a place for the school in the 1962–63 programme if it fits in with the other items in the total available resources. I very much hope that with that assurance my hon. Friend can feel that he has discharged his duty as an hon. Member and that my right hon. Friend has been willing to turn a very sympathetic ear to
1414
what we know to be a very deserving case.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock, till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

KENYA
  Employment (Survey)
  Employment (Survey)
NIGERIA
  Constitutional Conference (Dr. Azikiwe)
  Constitutional Conference (Dr. Azikiwe)
TRINIDAD
  People's National Movement (Memorial)
  People's National Movement (Memorial)
  Chaguaramas Base
  Chaguaramas Base
FIJI
  Disturbances (Report)
  Disturbances (Report)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pig Producers and Curers (Contracts)
  Pig Producers and Curers (Contracts)
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
  Forestry Commission (Land)
  Forestry Commission (Land)
  Farm, Corscombe
  Farm, Corscombe
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Peppiatt Committee (Recommendations)
  Peppiatt Committee (Recommendations)
  Mental Defectives (Prison Committal)
  Mental Defectives (Prison Committal)
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Dartmoor Prison
  Dartmoor Prison
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Cardiff Prison (Boy)
  Cardiff Prison (Boy)
  Remand Centres
  Remand Centres
  Prisoners (Winter Clothing)
  Prisoners (Winter Clothing)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Council of Nutrition
  Council of Nutrition
UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA
  Detained British Subjects
  Detained British Subjects
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  National Democratic Party (Delegation)
  National Democratic Party (Delegation)
  Discussions
  Discussions
EDUCATION
  School Dental Service
  School Dental Service
  National Anthem
  National Anthem
  Training Colleges, Durham
  Training Colleges, Durham
  Classes (Size)
  Classes (Size)
  Education Costs
  Education Costs
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Electrical Appliances and Fittings (Report)
  Electrical Appliances and Fittings (Report)
  Tomatoes (Import Duties)
  Tomatoes (Import Duties)
  Corduroy Fabrics
  Corduroy Fabrics
EMPLOYMENT
  Electrical Trade Union
  Electrical Trade Union
ROADS
  Accidents, Lincolnshire
  Accidents, Lincolnshire
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Miss Moira Burchell (Death)
  Miss Moira Burchell (Death)
ROYAL NAVY
  Admiralty Works, Dunbartonshire
  Admiralty Works, Dunbartonshire

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Viscount Simonds

MERGER OF KRUPP ENTERPRISES
2.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Herr Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach has formally combined his steel and coal-mining enterprises into one company in which he is the sole shareholder; and, if so, which are the provisions of the 1953 Mehlem Deconcentration Agreement operating under Allied High Commission Law No. 27 which rendered this merger permissible prior to the disposal of approximately 74 per cent, of his steel, iron and coal-producing assets under the aforesaid Agreement.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the question is Yes. But the shares, which have always been held by disposition trustees on behalf of Krupp, remain held by them and are still subject to the obligation to sell.
As to the second part of the Question, I am advised that there is no provision in the Mehlem Deconcentration Agreement of 1953 which prohibits the reorganisation referred to by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. But does that mean that any of the Krupp concerns can now outwit Law 27 in regard to the formal combine?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think that I can add anything to what I have already said. There is nothing in the Mehlem Deconcentration Agreement which appears to prohibit the reorganisation which is taking place. But I think the important thing is that the obligation to sell is in no way altered.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess. May I ask my noble friend whether he is, incidentally, in process of receiving the Report of the Mixed Tribunal on the Decentralisation Agreement?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sorry that I have nothing further to add to the reply which I gave to the noble Viscount on the last occasion.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Answers which he has given on this matter are very disquieting indeed? I spent some considerable time as Minister of Supply immediately after the war in carrying out the instruction, which was supported by all Parties in Parliament, which was to dismantle the German war potential. A most important part of this was the break-up of the concentrated holdings of the great armament firms like Krupp. It would seem, unless I am wrong in my understanding of the Answers which have been given, that all the trouble and work which was put into framing those rules has been brought to nothing because, with impunity, they are ignored.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wonder whether there is not perhaps some confusion here. We are not really concerned with armaments in this matter.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: But surely the whole origin and purpose of these regulations was to prevent the concentration of armament potential in the hands of people who used it to assist Hitler to make war in 1939.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that there will be a statement by my noble friend, Lord Perth, shortly after half-past-three on the Sierra Leone Constitutional Conference.

GAME LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.34 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Armed trespassers
"For the purpose of section thirty of the Game Act, 1831, it is to be presumed that a person armed with any firearm, pistol or gun who is shown to have trespassed on land, is in search or pursuit of game, or woodcocks, snipes or conies:
Provided that in any proceedings under the said section thirty, the presumption which arises by virtue of this section may be rebutted on proof of the fact that the accused person or persons were not in search or pursuit of game, or woodcocks, snipes or conies."
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Netherthorpe and I strongly support this Bill which, in our view, will remove a number of deficiencies in the present Game Laws. Our purpose in moving this new clause is to strengthen the law regarding armed trespass, which appears to be on the increase and is causing concern, and indeed alarm, to farmers and landowners in a good many parts of the country. Section 30 of the Game Act, 1831 relates to trespassing, the search for or pursuit of game in the daytime, but that particular section of the 1831 Act does not mention the carrying of guns.
If an offence is to be proved under this particular section of the Game Act it is necessary to show that the accused person was searching for or pursuing game; and the courts have decided that if magistrates have any doubt that such was the defendant's intention the case must be dismissed. Thus a very onerous burden of proof is laid on the prosecution, and consequently there are many clear instances of poaching which never reach the courts because of the difficulty of producing clear and indisputable evidence that an armed trespasser was in
416
fact seeking for game. When suspected poachers are prosecuted justice may often be evaded through insufficient evidence—not insufficient evidence of the fact that the man was trespassing on someone else's land and that he was carrying a gun, but insufficient actual evidence of intention to pursue game.
I certainly do not wish to see any major encroachment on the important principle of English law that a man must be presumed innocent of a criminal offence unless he is proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but in certain cases arising under Section 30, it would not, in my view, be unfair to transfer some of the weighty burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. I would remind your Lordships that the proposed new clause deals only with armed trespass, and I suggest that where a person armed with any type of gun can be proved to have been trespassing on private land it should be presumed, for the purposes of prosecution arising under Section 30 of the Game Act, 1831, that he was searching for or pursuing game, unless of course—and this the new clause provides for—the accused can rebut that presumption by proving that such in fact was not the case.
I also appreciate the principle, and its importance, that a person should not be found guilty of performing a criminal act unless it can be shown that his actions were prompted by a wrongful intent. But, again, it seems to me a reasonable assumption that a person carrying a gun who goes on to another man's land without any authority or lawful excuse, does so with an unlawful purpose—he does, in fact, go on that land for the purpose of pursuing game. Therefore, the onus should be on him, if he is innocent, to prove that he is not in fact searching for or out to shoot game. In my view, this Amendment would not create any precedent, because there is a similar position with regard to the evidence of loitering with intent for burglary or housebreaking. I cannot see any essential difference in a man walking on the street outside your house with a jemmy or some instrument in his pocket for breaking into your property, and a fellow who comes on to your property armed with a gun. Therefore I cannot see that there is any hardship at all in asking for the change which this Amendment seeks to bring about.
There are other aspects which will be covered by this Amendment, if it is accepted, which I understand are not covered under the existing Acts, or, indeed, under this Bill, and which are purely concerned with shooting birds other than game birds. For example, I received a letter yesterday morning from a Member of your Lordships' House who unfortunately cannot be here to-day. This is what he says:
"I like your Amendment to the Game Laws (Amendment) Bill very much indeed, and the following story indicates one of the points which I have in mind. A young fellow came into my woods and shot a mallard in the breeding season, with the result that her brood of duckling; all died. We prosecuted under the Game Laws in order to ensure that his gun was confiscated—the one thing that really mattered to him. Fortunately, I was able to give evidence that there were pheasants in that wood, but everyone will agree that a bird in the breeding season deserves just as much protection as a game bird, and this Amendment will give that protection. A sporting young chap in good employment is willing enough to risk a fine, but the loss of his own gun will really hit him and, what is more, prevent him from repeating the offence. The defendant in the case I have mentioned looked quite happy when the bench announced his fine, but when the confiscation of the gun was announced his face fell a yard. If we had prosecuted him simply for shooting the mallard we could not have had the gun confiscated."
We have to recognise that we are no longer dealing with the old type of poacher who went with a gun on to somebody else's ground for pleasure, or for profit because he got a living in that way. We are dealing with a new type of marauder who does not even begin to observe the kind of rules which at one time were observed by people who committed armed trespass on someone's land. It may be thought that the Amendment I am seeking to make—this shift of the burden of proof—goes somewhat beyond the province of the Game Laws. In my view it is not only relevant that it should be in the Bill, but, frankly, I should warmly welcome any legislative proposal aimed at the current problem of armed trespass which is causing serious concern to the farming community. It is not purely a game aspect or a poaching aspect but a matter that is becoming of increasing concern everywhere.
As your Lordships will probably be aware, at the last annual general meeting of the National Farmers' Union in January last a considerable debate took
418
place on this subject, and great concern was shown. The debate became very heated, and many delegates spoke to a resolution asking for an amendment of the law so as to make unauthorised entry on to private land with a gun a criminal offence. Alarming cases of armed trespass on farm land were reported. For example, instances were quoted from Monmouthshire of expeditions into the countryside by young hooligans from urban areas, usually in gangs, who had caused a great deal of wanton damage to farm stock and other property, and who had even threatened farmers with violence. It is not funny when a single unarmed farmer comes across a gang of youths of that kind, armed with guns, with only the protection of his own authority, his own words and presence, and no Act whereby he can summon a constable and say: "These people are on my land for a certain purpose which is criminal." This Amendment would enable him to say that, and it would then be up to the trespassers to prove that the facts were otherwise, and that they were not on his land committing armed trespass in search of or in pursuit of game. In fact, the conference of the National Farmers' Union was so concerned at the number and nature of the examples of damage and threats of this kind by armed hooligans that a resolution concerning this was carried unanimously.
This new clause, if accepted, would provide further much-needed strengthening of the Game Laws and at the same time, alleviate, in some degree at least, the problem of armed hooliganism in the countryside. I readily concede—as noble Lords will no doubt point out—that many of the cases have in mind are already covered by other sections of the criminal law; but in dealing with a problem of this kind the main difficulties are to apprehend the offender and prove the offence. In other words, we cannot really do that unless we catch him absolutely red-handed. Acceptance of this clause, in my view and in the view of members of the National Farmers' Union, would ease these difficulties and, coupled with the additional powers conferred upon the police by Clause 2 of the Bill, which we welcome, would provide a useful and necessary addition to the Bill and to the criminal law aspect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD DERWENT: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the kind words he has said about the Bill in general. I have great sympathy with the case underlying this Amendment. I have little doubt in my own mind that it will be found necessary in the very near future to have some legislation which will control the use of firearms in the countryside; but that is not quite such a simple problem as perhaps the noble Lord has indicated. It involves all kinds of things—air guns and so on. Is this the type of Bill in which to make considerable alterations in the law, particularly in something which is not covered by the existing Game Acts?
This is a perfectly modest and simple Private Member's Bill dealing with no new principle of law but amending the existing Game Laws in two main respects only. One is that it gives additional power to a police constable when dealing with poachers. The other is that it increases the penalties for poaching offences. This Bill, as it stands, does nothing more than that. The basic principle of all Game Laws, at any rate since 1828, is that to obtain a conviction for poaching one has to prove trespass in pursuit of game. At first sight, this Amendment is somewhat startling because what it says, in effect, is: "We have not the evidence to prove trespass in pursuit of game, so we will find other evidence of something quite different from trespass in pursuit of game and will say to the court that this evidence (which is actually the carrying of a gun) is sufficient to show, if there is no other evidence, that the man must have been trespassing in pursuit of game, unless he can prove otherwise". In certain circumstances I see considerable difficulty over a man's proving that he was not in pursuit of game even when, in fact, he was not.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? He said that there would not be evidence that the man was trespassing in pursuit of game, but there would be the evidence of trespass; otherwise the case would not be brought. The point at issue is whether the trespass was for the pursuit of game.
LORD DERWENT: I believe that that is more or less what I said—that the man is committing armed trespass, which at the moment is not an offence. At the present time, provided one has a licence, it is no offence to carry a firearm anywhere and at any time one likes. Speaking rather broadly, I believe that that is the case. The noble Lord is saying that this man should be found guilty of an offence under the Game Laws, by saying that if he is doing something else which is not in itself an offence at all, then we can find him guilty of the offence of which he is being charged. I say that I find that a somewhat startling proposition. But I think it is startling only until one realises the purpose behind this Amendment, and that has been very well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. He virtually said, "My Amendment has nothing to do with poaching at all; it is trying to stop people coming on to your land when they are armed". That may well be true, and one ought to try to stop it. But it is not quite as easy as all that.
I myself before now have been coming off a moor, for instance, and taking a short cut down to a road rather than walk an extra four or five miles, without asking permission of the farmer. Having been brought up properly I unload my gun and go down to the road where my car is. But unless I can prove—and I do not know how I can do it—that I was not poaching, someone may see me drive away, take the number of the car, and I am run in for trespassing in pursuit of game. I think that for a Bill of this nature—this is what I am saying—this Amendment really goes very much too far. I hope, therefore, in view of what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press it. I equally hope that he or some other noble Lord will rapidly introduce a Bill to get some control into the very real problem of the carrying of arms. But I think—I am not using the phrase offensively—that this is an attempt to do something by a back-door method, which I feel in a Bill of this kind should not be done. So I hope that the noble Lord will not press it, because should he press it I should find myself compelled to advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
LORD WISE: I just want to detain the Committee for one or two moments to deal with another point which was almost touched on by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and that is the point of the man who is not actually trespassing on land in pursuit of game. In looking at the Bill as it stands, it seems to me that if a police constable finds anybody on land with a gun he can apprehend him. My position is this. In many cases—
LORD DERWENT: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I think he is wrong. He can challenge him.
LORD WISE: But in Clause 1 the words are "apprehend him". My position is that I often give permission to agricultural workers who are in the area to go into my woods to shoot pigeons or rabbits or anything else of that sort. If a police constable finds them in my woods with a gun and they are shooting they can be apprehended by him under this clause. That is how I read it.
LORD DERWENT: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He is misreading the clause. What in fact it says is that he may challenge him and order him
"to quit the land and give his name and address and, if he fails to do so, may apprehend him."
With a man trespassing in pursuit of game, he may ask for his name and address and, if he refuses to give them, may apprehend him, but not otherwise. He cannot just go up to a man and say, "I apprehend you".
LORD WISE: I have read it the other way and I want to safeguard the men to whom I have given permission to shoot from being taken to court. Whether or not they get anything else besides what they are intended to get, I do not know. I do not shoot myself, and for that reason I give permission to other people to shoot; and I do not want the police constable coming along and asking for their names and all the rest of it.
LORD DERWENT: May I again intervene? It may save time. The man the noble Lord is talking about is fully protected under the Act of 1831, which is not altered in that respect by this Bill.
LORD WISE: If that is so, it is satisfactory to me.
LORD TEVIOT: I am a little puzzled about this, because I am putting myself in the position of one who lives in a county where there are too many pigeons, too many small owls, too many grey squirrels and too many rabbits and rats. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, has touched lightly on the subject of these pests. I have seen many farmers' notices—or have had the information from farmers—stating that they would be glad if somebody would shoot some of these pests; and I am not sure that this Amendment would not make rather a difficulty. For that reason I am afraid that I cannot support it.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, if one invited someone to go on to one's land and shoot owls, rats, pigeons or rabbits he would not be trespassing, and therefore would be in no danger under my Amendment.
LORD TEVIOT: But I gather from the Amendment that when I am waiting behind hedges and trees to get some of these pests I am almost liable for trespass under this Amendment. I am not in favour of that at all.
LORD STONHAM: I am quite sure that that is not the case. In any case, the noble Lord will always be able to give anybody ten yards start in a hundred and catch him.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill tell us this? Has Section 31 of the Game Act, 1831, always operated quite satisfactorily? Have there been a number of apprehensions under it without any difficulty?
LORD DERWENT: A number of what?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The section cited in Clause 1 of the Bill is Section 31 of the Game Act, 1831, which is operative. Has that always worked satisfactorily, and have there been a number of apprehensions under it?
LORD DERWENT: It has operated as satisfactorily as I imagine any Act of Parliament can work. There have been amendments and now there are amendments under the present Bill.
2.58 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: I think it would be fair to the Committee if I were to cover some of the ground which has already been gone over by the Committee about this Amendment, to make quite clear the view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the effect of his Amendment would be that if proceedings are taken against a person who has been trespassing on land, whether in search of pests, as my noble friend Lord Teviot said, or as a poacher, which I think is the more likely, and that person is in possession of a firearm, pistol or gun, he will be presumed to be in pursuit of game and therefore will be liable to the increased penalties which are the main purpose of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Derwent.
This Bill is concerned with protection of game and protection of gaming rights, and the violation of these is, of course, a criminal offence. Trespassing is a civil offence. The noble Lord opposite and his friends would wish to make it a criminal offence to trespass on land for any purpose when armed; and I know well what are his reasons, and his friends' reasons, for that view. Indeed, he and others of your Lordships have explained them. His Amendment is aimed not so much against the type of trespasser, if I may so call him, as my noble friend Lord Derwent, who is apparently in the habit of crossing other people's land with an unloaded gun or a loaded gun. Incidentally, I know people who might take a very different view of such a habit. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and his friends are out to get those armed bands of truculent hooligans who roam across the countryside with the purpose of shooting anything that moves, whether bird or animals, game, pest or any other sort of animal—even, I believe, farm animals.
Nevertheless, just because an accused person is trespassing, and is armed, as my noble friend Lord Derwent has said, it cannot be necessarily proved in law that he is in pursuit of game. This Amendment could not possibly stand up in law, I am informed, and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Law Lords, of whom there are not very many present this afternoon, would support me in saying that. Especially there is the objection that the burden of proof of
424
innocence is put upon the accused. There are exceptions—for instance, in connection with the possession of housebreaking instruments—but Parliament is, quite properly, very careful of the rights of an accused person; and I cannot advise your Lordships that these rights should be curtailed by an Amendment to what my noble friend has, after all, described as a modest Private Member's Bill, this Game Laws (Amendment) Bill.
I am most sympathetic towards the purpose of this Amendment, which the noble Lord opposite and his friends have put down, but this Bill is not the vehicle to deal with the mischief they have in mind. However, my right honourable friend is prepared to examine this point most carefully, in the light of what has been said to-day in your Lordships' House, and he will consider whether anything can be done other than in the context of this Bill. Your Lordships could perhaps assist my right honourable friend in his examination of these problems by sending him any information or evidence which you may have which is relevant to this nuisance: and I may add that my right honourable friend has already seen the memorandum from the National Farmers' Union, which they were kind enough to send to him. I cannot, of course, commit Her Majesty's Government, but from what I have said I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and others of your Lordships, will see that I hope to satisfy the noble Lord, and that due weight will be given to the arguments that have been put forward to-day.
EARL WINTERTON: I am sure that many of your Lordships will be very glad, as I am, to hear what the noble Earl has just said. There is no doubt that these roving bands of people whom he described are becoming a menance to the countryside. I hope that when the Home Secretary examines the matter he will examine the question of boys with air pistols who shoot at anything they see, sometimes wounding them and leaving them to die; and that he will go into the whole matter, which is becoming a menace in many parts of the country.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for what he has said, and for the felicitous way in which he has said it. As I

425
understood him, his right honourable friend the Home Secretary says that this Amendment of mine will not stand up in law; that it does not belong to this Bill; but that nevertheless he agrees with it.
EARL BATHURST: He agrees with the object of it, if I may put that quite straight to the noble Lord opposite. He agrees with the idea behind it, shall I say.
LORD STONHAM: I am sorry if my paraphrase was not quite clear, but that was the impression that I got. In any case, the Home Secretary is most sympathetic to the objective we have in mind—and I concede that what I had in mind has been achieved by securing the most valuable assurance, although without any commitment, given by the noble Earl, I am quite sure that noble Lords will accept the invitation, as will the National Farmers' Union, to send information of this kind. It may well be that, if the Government cannot find time to take the necessary steps, we may be able to assist in that direction; and in that event I hope that we shall have the agreement of all noble Lords in this House. In that hope, I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Power of police to enter on land]:
3.4 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "This section shall not apply" and to insert
"The power of entry conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercisable in relation".
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name upon the Order Paper. Clause 1 gives the police a power of arrest in the circumstances prescribed in that clause, and Clause 2 gives the police a power of entry on to land. These two clauses apply to all private land and, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, to the Crown lands. Now, for the purpose of security, subsection (3) of Clause 2 withdraws the right of entry of police on to security land which is held by the Service Departments. It could therefore be held that the police do not have the power, conferred on them by Clause 1, to arrest a poacher when he is on security land for the purposes dealt with in this
426
Bill. This is not the intention. The Amendment therefore allows the police to make an arrest on security land, but they must be invited on to the land by the authority concerned. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the local police concerned from having a standing invitation to that effect from the particular authority. This is little more than a drafting Amendment, but it makes the position quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("This section shall not apply") and insert the said new words.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD DERWENT: May I thank Her Majesty's Government for putting right by this Amendment a small matter, but one which ought to be put right? I am glad that, to a large extent, it meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who I regret is not here to-day, on Second Reading. I am very willing to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendment of Poaching Prevention Act, 1862]:
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved to add to the clause:
"(5) In this section the word 'game' has the same meaning as in the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862."
The noble Earl said: This and the other Amendments which stand in my name deal with the definition of "rabbit" for the purpose of this Bill, and can cause considerable misunderstanding. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships (and, with your permission, I should like to do so) for me first of all to speak on Amendment No. 8—because that is the key Amendment to this series of Amendments—and then to come back to Amendment No. 3. Then your Lordships may possibly wish to pass the whole lot en bloc.
Subsection (5) of Clause 4 defines "game" for the purposes of the seizure and forfeiture from poachers under Clause 4. As the Bill stands, the rabbit has crept into this definition. One of the first books that probably any of your Lordships read was, Peter Rabbit, and probably one of our first hates was Mr. McGregor. I have been lent a copy of that delightful book, Peter Rabbit, by a young friend, and, with great apology,

427
I must compare my noble friend who is responsible for the Ministry of Agriculture with Mr. McGregor. You will remember that Peter Rabbit, gorged with vegetables, went off to look for some parsley when suddenly—and I quote:
"round the edge of a cucumber frame whom should he meet but Mr. McGregor! Mr. McGregor was very angry and he jumped up and ran after Peter, waving a rake and calling out 'stop thief'! He chased Peter around the garden and almost caught him in a sieve"—
and possibly your Lordships will remember the relief when it was only "'almost caught him in a sieve". My noble friend was very angry to find that Peter Rabbit had been included in the definition of "game" in my noble friend's Bill. In fact, he said that in this Bill the rabbit acquires too high a status. Peter Rabbit's status may be very high among some people, and among your Lordships, but the status was not very high for my noble friend Lord Sot-hers when this was discussed on Second Reading.
To meet the point of my noble friend, therefore, by an Amendment at page 3, line 27 (that is, Amendment No. 8) we propose to remove the rabbit from the definition of "game" in this clause. Nevertheless—and now I work backwards through the Amendments—to achieve the aims of the Bill we must add "or rabbits" (the wording of my other Amendments) in order that a poacher caught with a rabbit may suffer the penalties prescribed under Clause 4. Then, again working backwards, for the same reason we want the poacher caught with a rabbit to suffer the penalties that are prescribed in Clause 3. Therefore, this Amendment, which I shall move to your Lordships in a moment—Amendment No. 3, which is on page 2, line 43, at the end—defines "game" in Clause 3 by quoting the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862, in the definition of which the rabbit is included. I am afraid it is somewhat like Alice Through the Looking Glass, but that is the underlying reason for these Amendments. They are really drafting Amendments in order to put right a complaint by my noble friend. If it is your Lordships' wish, I could move them all en bloc.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to debate
428
all these Amendments together, but I can put them only one at a time.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD DERWENT: The most important thing in this series of Amendments is that they will enable my noble cousin to sleep peacefully at night. They do no harm to the Bill. I agree with the noble Earl that we cannot call rabbits game; they are pests. These Amendments have the effect of making rabbits game when you want them to be game and pests when you want them to be pests.
LORD STONHAM: These Amendments will not deprive me of any sleep, nor will they have that effect on any poacher. But they seem to me to make a contradiction of the Bill. The noble Earl wishes to see that the word "game" has the same meaning as in the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862. The appropriate section on the first page of that Act says:
"The Word 'Game' in this Act shall for the Purposes of this Act be deemed to include any One or more Hares. Pheasants, Partridges … Woodcocks, Snipes, Rabbits, Grouse, Black or Moor Game,…"
In other words, rabbits are included in "game". In Clause 4 (5) of this Bill, we are now asked to take out rabbits to make perfectly clear that "game" does not include rabbits. That may give joy to the Minister—and he is entitled to all the joy he can get nowadays—but it does not make for clarity. I really cannot understand how one can say in one subsection of a clause that the word "game" includes rabbits and in a later subsection of the same clause that it does not. It seems like nonsense to me.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I wonder if I may say a word about Amendment No. 8, as I feel that "game" ought nowadays to include capercailzie? I fully realise that the Bill applies only to England, where there are no capercailzie, but since being reintroduced into Scotland, they have spread swiftly, and with the growth of Forestry Commission plantations in Northumberland it is only a matter of time before the capercailzie establishes itself in England. The reason why it is not in this Bill is,

429
I believe, because the definition of "game" was copied from the Act of 1862; and, of course, at that time there were no capercailzie either in England or in Scotland. They had died out and were reintroduced into Scotland only thirty or forty years ago. I wonder whether the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill would consider including capercailzie, so that in ten years' time, when they have established themselves in England, he will not have to ask for another Game Laws (Amendment) Bill to include them. And if we had a Bill for Scotland on the same lines, it would make it neat and tidy if the definitions of "game" were the same.
LORD DERWENT: This is a Bill to amend two matters in the Game Laws and we do not want to alter any other part of them. We do not want to add things or take them away, except in the two respects I have mentioned. Capercailzie were not mentioned in the earlier Acts and I should regret including them now. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, wants me to answer his question, but I think I had better leave it to the noble Earl to whom it was addressed.
EARL BATHURST: As I mentioned, there is something of Alice Through The Looking Glass in this. In Clause 3 we want rabbits, and the definition in the 1862 Act is required, but we do not want rabbits included in the definition of "game" in Clause 4, and therefore we propose to exclude them from the definition in that clause and to add the words "or rabbits" where appropriate. I hope that I have explained myself to the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: Would it be fair to say that if a poacher is charged under the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862, you want rabbits to be included as game, and if a poacher is charged under the Night Poaching Act, 1828, you do not want rabbits to be included as game? Is that the only difference?
EARL BATHURST: Clauses 3 and 4 raise different principles; that is the reason.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Further provisions as to seizure and forfeiture]:
EARL BATHURST: With your Lordships' permission, I beg to move the rest of my Amendments en bloc.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, after ("game") insert ("or rabbits").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, after ("game") insert ("or rabbits").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, after ("game") insert ("or rabbit").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, after ("game") insert ("rabbit").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("rabbits").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

BROMLEY COLLEGE AND OTHER CHARITIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CHIPPING SODBURY TOWN TRUST BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
UNITED CHARITIES OF NATHANIEL WATERHOUSE AND OTHER CHARITIES (HALIFAX) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

CLEAN RIVERS (ESTUARIES AND TIDAL WATERS) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think it is my duty to explain to your Lordships, first, the purpose of the Bill; secondly, what the Bill does, and thirdly how it does it; and to reply to some points of comment and criticism that have been made. The Bill is a step forward towards purer waters, which is an objective common to all Parties in your Lordships' House and, I think, to the vast majority of citizens. On December 3 of last year your Lordships debated at some length the horrible conditions that exist in our rivers at the present time. It is clear from that debate that there is no easy, quick or cheap way of solving this problem of polluted waters, but that the Government, local authorities, ratepayers and taxpayers have all to play their part. There is no need this afternoon for me to repeat the details of the disgusting state of many of our rivers, such as the Tyne, the Tees, the Humber and the Ribble, all of which were quoted specifically and at length during our debate last December. I trust that your Lordships will accept the general proposition of that disgusting state without further elaboration, and refer in your minds to the facts exposed in the debate in December.
In the best circumstances, the cleaning of rivers and estuaries is going to be a long and expensive job. This Bill is a contribution towards the accepted ultimate objective. The purpose of the Bill is to see that the situation in regard to pollution does not further deteriorate. It is really a standstill Bill, for its purpose is to stop new sources of pollution and to prevent aggravation of existing sources of pollution by not allowing these latter to worsen. This standstill Bill will enable river boards to control
432
new outlets and new discharges of effluent throughout the entire length of a river from source to mouth. Hitherto, river boards in general possessed powers confined to non-tidal waters. Now, under this Bill, the river boards will have control over tidal estuary waters, referred to in the Bill as "controlled waters". Though angling is a truly democratic sport and occupation enjoyed by 2 million of our fellow citizens, and is important, not only from the point of view of relaxation but from the economic point of view of the wellbeing of the country, as, indeed, was cited by Mr. Bevan when he moved the 1951 Bill in another place, this is not an anglers' charter. This is what I would call a public health preservation Bill. The Bill has been through the other place, and I understand it has the blessing of Her Majesty's Government.
I now come to what the Bill does. The machinery of the Bill extends to river boards the same control over tidal waters as they at present possess in respect of non-tidal waters under Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, Section 7 of that Act imposes restrictions on new outlets and altered outlets for discharge of trade and sewage effluent. The river board's consent has to be obtained for any new discharge. The Bill the Second Reading of which I am now moving extends this Section 7 control over non-tidal waters to tidal waters. But I would remind your Lordships that all the safeguards against harsh and unreasonable conduct by the river boards are contained in this Bill, which, indeed, has some additional safeguards to which I will refer in a moment.
The first safeguard against unreasonable conduct lies in the constitution of the river boards themselves. Local authorities in the areas concerned where river boards operate have between three-fifths and two-thirds representation on those boards. The second safeguard in the 1951 Act says that a river board may not unreasonably withhold consent to a new discharge, and the Minister has the final say as to what is or is not reasonable or unreasonable. The third safeguard in that Act is that the Minister may direct river boards to vary or revoke any condition imposed by them. The fourth safeguard in the Act is that any local authority who has received loan sanction from the Ministry for sewerage

433
works is excluded from conditions of outlet control imposed by a river board. The sixth safeguard is that there shall be no prosecution by a river board of an offender without ministerial consent, and even then no prosecution can succeed if the local authority can show that it was not practical for that authority to dispose of its effluent in any other way.
I come now to how the Bill fulfils its purpose. In Clause 1 the Bill extends Section 7 of the main Act of 1951 to tidal waters, but, as I say, it also includes those six safeguards which I have just enumerated. In addition, the Bill adds a seventh safeguard—namely, a safeguard to local authorities and to industrial enterprises, by Clause 1 (3), which was introduced in another place to meet the wishes of industry to be assured that river boards take the peculiar conditions of tidal waters into consideration and do not, as it were, judge a position by their experience and knowledge of tidal waters.
It is necessary for a moment to explain Clause 1 (5) of the Bill and to refer to Section 6 of the 1951 Act, because that section enabled river boards to apply for their powers to extend to tidal waters. Some of your Lordships may ask why the Bill is necessary at all if river boards under the 1951 Act could in certain conditions apply for what we are trying to legislate for in this Bill. The answer is the Section 6 procedure. Under that procedure the preliminaries are so costly, so lengthy and cumbersome and involve so many consultations and ministerial and public inquiries that it just does not work; and, in fact, since 1951 only four such orders have been made.
The next question some noble Lord may ask is: Why did the original Act not give powers to cover these tidal waters except by this clumsy procedure? The reply to that is twofold. The river boards were constituted only in 1948, and they were something of an experiment. Secondly, at that time there were heavy restrictions on capital expenditure, and it was not thought right by the Government of the day to encourage embarkation on large capital projects. Since that time the river boards have proved their worth. Their work is widely acknowledged and their power and influence has not been exercised by the legal sanctions which they possess, but rather
434
by goodwill and co-operation with local authorities and industry. Also, the position—until, at any rate, about a week ago—as regards capital expenditure was a much more healthy one (and I trust it is still broadly so) than it was in 1948.
Clause 2 of the Bill is the Short Title. The Schedule in the Bill defines the estuary areas. It is a fascinating piece of work which the experts have done, because they have defined 95 points round our coast to an accuracy, I am informed, of within ten metres. It was considered better to specify the specific areas to which this Bill would apply than to try to get a definition of what is an "estuary". In Committee there may be some Amendments to the Schedule on points such as the fact that a bandstand or a bathing pool has been built in a particular place since the Schedules were prepared. I have already put in the Library complete maps of our coast which cover the 95 areas, and they are available for your Lordships to examine.
Finally, I must reply to some points which may be raised. First, the Bill does not apply to Scotland. The reason for that is that in another place certain local authorities and certain industrial interests took objection to the Bill's provisions. Also, the situation in Scotland is different from that in England. There are no river boards as such, but in Scotland, under the 1951 Act, There are nine river purification boards set up by the Secretary of State. Their functions are broadly similar to those of our river boards, but they omit land drainage and fishing. Industry is in fact represented on those purification boards. Some noble Lords may wish the Bill to apply to Scotland, and others may not. My personal regret is that it does not apply to Scotland, and I hope that at some future date a short Bill with parallel provisions to these may be prepared and introduced, and may get an unopposed passage through both Houses of Parliament.
My next point is that the Federation of British Industries had some misgivings on the extension of river boards' powers to tidal waters. My reply is that there is a wide measure of support for the proposals in this Bill, and that the river boards will use their powers in future reasonably, as they have done in the

435
past. If they did not do so, the safeguards I have deployed to your Lordships against oppressive conduct remain in the Bill. The next point is with regard to the dock and harbour authorities, who want the river boards to require their consent before issuing a decision. That is a reasonable view, based on the understandable plea that the dock and harbour boards have functions in tidal waters in the interests of navigation, which include the control of new outlets. They feel that river boards may thwart the interests of navigation. They also want the Minister of Housing to be compelled to consult the Minister of Transport on any appeal. My reply to that is that they are misplaced fears, because there is nothing in this Bill that touches existing powers of harbour authorities to refuse consent, to impose conditions or grant consents for new discharges. They remain as free as they are now to prevent or control anything likely to be a danger or a nuisance to navigation.
The Bill means, in fact, that two consents would be necessary for any new effluent discharge, which is indeed the same position as exists under the present town planning legislation. The harbour authorities' rights remain unaffected. Obviously, the Minister of Housing would consult the Minister of Transport on any appeal, and there is no need to put that in the Bill. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing has written to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who raised this point, to give an assurance that he would make those consultations in any such eventuality.
The next point is the sea fishery committees' misgivings. Those are also misplaced, because anyone getting a river board consent for a new discharge in tidal waters must still comply with the by-laws of the sea fishery committees in waters where those by-laws operate. The next point is that the Bill has no effect at all on the present position of Section 5 of the 1951 Act, which deals with regulation of sanitary appliances in ships in non-tidal waters. The Bill has nothing to do with that. At present, the river boards have power to control the discharge of sanitary appliances in non-tidal waters. If they want to extend it to tidal waters it has nothing to do with this Bill, and they will have to go through the procedure of Section 6 of
436
the 1951 Act. My last point is with regard to the River Thames. The Port of London Authority, in respect of the tidal water of the Thames, have power already and are the pollution authorities themselves. I hope I have described the reasons for this Bill, its provisions and its working, and I trust I have laid any misgivings which any of your Lordships may have with regard to the drafting and working of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)

SIERRA LEONE CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
3.27 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, I think it has already been announced that I was going to make a statement on the Sierra Leone Constitutional Conference. Constitutional talks have been held with an all-party delegation from Sierra Leone. They ended yesterday. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary agreed that Sierra Leone would become independent on April 27, 1961.
Before independence certain interim changes will be introduced. Most of these will be made within the next few weeks. Among the most important of them are that the Governor will hand over the Presidency of the Executive Council to the Premier who will become Prime Minister. Executive Public and Judicial Commissions will be set up and Ministers will be associated with the handling of defence, police and external affairs. Among other matters, the Conference agreed to the inclusion of provisions to safeguard fundamental human rights in the Constitution which comes into effect on independence and to the procedure for amending the Constitution and entrenching the basic constitutional provisions.
While the Conference was on, we held talks about defence and finance. It was agreed that the two Governments will negotiate an Agreement for mutual defence co-operation, to be signed after independence. On finance, Her Majesty's Government recognised that the initial burdens of independence, including defence and compensation for

437
overseas officers, would present some difficulty at a time when normal colonial-type assistance would cease. Her Majesty's Government therefore offered assistance totalling £7½ million, of which £3½ million will be Commonwealth Assistance Loans and the remainder grants and technical assistance. The compensation scheme will be designed to encourage officers to stay.
I am happy to say that the Conference was marked by great cordiality and good-will. At the end of our discussions the Conference reaffirmed the long tradition of friendship between Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom, and the representatives of both made it clear that it was their intention that their co-operation and friendship should continue. The Report of the Conference will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible.
3.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are greatly obliged to the noble Earl for giving us the statement which is being made by the Secretary of State in another place and which I think your Lordships will agree Seems to be not only comprehensive but very satisfactory. We are glad of the particular heads which are noted in the statement and which have been agreed to by both sides, as to human rights, defence co-operation and the like. I hope that this will be the beginning of a real development in progress for the population of that territory, and without any interference with the growth of the commercial connections that this country has had, besides imperial connections, in the past. I hope that the growth of commercial connections there will continue, to the benefit of both sides.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to re-echo the words of the noble Viscount who has just spoken and say how pleased we all are that this matter has gone so well and how particularly pleasant it is to see that the Conference was marked throughout by great cordiality and goodwill. All that is left is to wish for a fair wind and that all will go prosperously and happily.

CLEAN RIVERS (ESTUARIES AND TIDAL WATERS) BILL
3.43 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, to go back to the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Bill, it is a Private Member's Bill and has the support of the Government, and it is my pleasant task to commend it to your Lordships on behalf of the Government. Its general objective has already been explained very lucidly by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to what he has said about it, but I ought perhaps to explain that the Bill owes its present form to Amendments that were suggested by my right honourable friend and by the Parliamentary draftsmen, and that its slightly eccentric form of being a very short Bill with a very long Schedule must not be laid at the door of the promoters of the Bill.
As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, the necessity for this recasting was due to the impossibility of producing any definition, tight enough for statutory use, of a tidal estuary. The only feasible alternative seemed to be to make a list of all the rivers that have tidal waters in them and then define their seaward limits, and this the Schedule now does. Some of the rivers listed are rather minor ones with very small estuaries, but the list is a comprehensive one, and it would not otherwise have answered the purposes of the Bill.
There have been—and it is only right that I should bring them to the attention of your Lordships—criticisms in some quarters of this Schedule. There have been complaints that it was drawn up without consulting people who ought to have been consulted; also that the defined limits (because they are laid down in detail in the Schedule) may in time be affected by natural processes and need alteration for which there is no provision in the Bill.
I believe that the first criticism is based on a misunderstanding, for all the Schedule does is to provide a geographical definition of the limits of a list of estuaries. It is an exercise in cartography, and the only consultations that

439
could have been relevant would have been consultations with persons skilled in these matters. In fact there are such people skilled in these matters, and they are in my right honourable friend's Department, and they have been closely associated with the Schedule's preparation. But to suggest, for example, that local authorities should have been approached because they might have reasons for preferring a different defining limit for a particular estuary is, as I have said, something of a misconception. The individual definitions are matters of fact, not convenience or policy, and we do not think that there is anything in these definitions for general discussion.
Coming to the second criticism, I would remark that there is a theoretical possibility, of course, that the definitions may grow out of date: for example, that a map reference that now marks a headland may be eroded away until it becomes a nameless spot in the sea, so that what was once (verbally) a defined enclosed area ceases to be so. I am advised that this is at least highly improbable. These definitions have been very carefully drawn. Each one has been lengthily and exhaustively considered; in fact there are still a few on which I understand corrections will be submitted at the Committee stage. We have rejected everything but the strongest and stablest landmarks. I do not claim that they will last for ever; nothing does—certainly nothing we do in Parliament. But I claim that they will last long enough to relieve us of the need for providing in this Bill for their amendment. It would require, in my right honourable friend's opinion, some very plain evidence of need to outweigh the obvious administrative inconvenience of a provision which might at any time be invoked by anyone who had an interest in getting one of these definitions changed, because once the Minister takes power to alter the Schedule he must surely be open to approaches by anybody else who thinks the Schedule should be altered. The motives behind the approach may be good or bad, genuine or bogus, but in either case they will need investigation. If my right honourable friend and I are right, that investigation will be essentially a waste of time, because the Schedule, with every allowance for human imperfections, will be strong
440
enough to dispense with any of this retrospective provision for its amendment.
There has been a feeling in some quarters that this change from the existing procedure under which these powers are extended to particular estuaries by ministerial orders has keen too abrupt. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has explained why the present procedure is unduly restrictive to-day. I do not think it can be disputed that however suited it was to the conditions of 1951, there have been changes since then which make it right to think again. The river boards, as the noble Lord said, were "new boys" then—they were only founded in 1948—with a great deal of urgent work to do in non-tidal waters without concerning themselves with what are, on the whole, the less vulnerable tidal stretches of their rivers. Now, with ten years' work and experience behind them, the river boards feel ready to extend their responsibilities, and the Government are satisfied that they can and should do so. I do not think there can be any reason for discouraging them unless it could be shown that the present procedure by order was a necessary safeguard against an abuse of power. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, gave details of six or seven safeguards that exist and will exist in this Bill.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I just ask at this point (I think it is desirable on matters of this great importance) why, if that was the view of the Government after ten years, this has had to be left to private legislation? Why did not the Government bring in this very important and necessary amendment?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, not being in charge of this Bill, I am afraid that I cannot give a direct answer to that question. I will consult my right honourable friend, but I do not know the answer to that question off-hand. The Bill was brought forward by a Member in another place and found to be acceptable to the Government, a procedure which surely the noble Viscount will admit is a very common one.
To continue on this point of safeguards, the essential safeguard here against the unreasonable river board (if there be any) has been, and will still be, the right of appeal to the Minister

441
against the refusal of consent to a new outlet or discharge or against any conditions attached to that consent which the applicant thinks unreasonable. That right is preserved. I do not think the boards will use their new powers unreasonably (the number of appeals from non-tidal waters can have been only a tiny fraction of the decisions given). But if they do, the remedy is at hand: an appeal lies to the Minister, Who will, if necessary, hold an inquiry and, if he thinks right, reverse the refusal or cancel the conditions.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I ask a question? If the control of the Minister provides a safeguard for the efficient use of the powers of the river board, what is the necessity for subsection (3) of Section 1, which requires the consent of, or at any rate some form of communication with, the dock and harbour boards?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am coming to the point of the dock and harbour boards in a moment. It may be that this provision, which was introduced I think in another place on Amendment, was not perhaps entirely necessary; but it certainly can do no harm, and we see no reason why, if the other House wanted to put it in, it should come out. The rights of these inquiries are preserved and I do not think that other interests should feel any apprehensions.
I know that in some areas river boards will be coming into waters where a harbour authority already exercises powers over new outlets and discharges—this is the point I was coming to when the noble Viscount made his interjection. But they exercise such powers for a rather different reason. As has been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, they exercise those powers to prevent anything which might be a danger or a nuisance to navigation. These powers are contained in Local Acts. I know that some of the harbour authorities have felt apprehensive—perhaps not very strongly—lest the powers now to be conferred on river boards might adversely affect their own. Perhaps it is not unnatural to have suspicions when a foreign body comes into one's own area of jurisdiction. But in this case the suspicions are wholly groundless.
What is feared, I understand, is that a river board's consent to a new outlet
442
or discharge may allow something to be done which the harbour authority wish to refuse, or at least to allow with more stringent conditions than the board require. In fact the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has sent my right honourable friend a draft clause which would allow the harbour authority, in these circumstances, to put what amounts to a veto on the river board's decision and if necessary to refer the disagreement to the Minister—who would be required to consult the Minister of Transport. We believe that there is not the smallest necessity for putting anything on these lines into the Bill. The powers of harbour authorities will be wholly unchanged by this Bill. If they refuse their consent to a new outlet or discharge, then it cannot be allowed, however willing the river board may be that it should go forward. They have no need of my right honourable friend's protection, or that of the Minister of Transport (who would, of course, in any case be most certainly consulted on any matter affecting the harbour authorities—and without any statutory compulsion). Everyone will agree that an unnecessary veto written into a Bill is a bad thing: that it is wrong to do anything in a Statute that will create administrative complications unless it is demonstrably indispensable. What the harbour authorities are seeking—I do not know how strongly—cannot be justified on these grounds.
Unquestionably the river boards and the harbour authorities should act together; it is to their advantage and the public's that they should do so. But this is not some abnormally difficult feat that can be achieved only under compulsion. It is something that should happen normally and naturally, because the two bodies have similar though not identical objectives. When they do disagree there is certainly no need to protect the harbour authority against a superior power. I hope I have said enough to show your Lordships that any amendment of this sort is unnecessary, and that, being unnecessary, it is also objectionable.
The special position of London may be referred to—the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, mentioned it in his speech. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, may argue that London gets on very well with a port authority and no river board at

443
all. To that I would only say what I think that anyone can say, that London is different. There are historical reasons why London is different. It has always been like this, and it is not for a small Bill like this to change this great historical fact. For the rest of the country Parliament has created river boards by the River Boards Act, 1948. This present Bill extends those powers in a manner wholly consistent with the spirit of existing legislation.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having had to speak for so long on this Bill. I am also sorry if I have given the impression that I have been paying too much attention to criticism. I believe that, if I have given that impression, I may have distorted the picture and not given enough prominence to the wide public support that there undoubtedly is for this little Bill. It is a small Bill, but it has an important purpose. It will enable the statutory bodies charged with the duty of preventing river pollution to control new outlets and discharges throughout the entire length of their rivers, from source to mouth. This is an objective to which I suggest everyone must agree in principle. In that belief, I commend this measure to your Lordships as a sound and reasonable one. It is a measure which will further a cause which has wide public support and is of national concern.
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think that in every quarter of the House there will be wholehearted approval for the objectives of this little Bill, although, as the noble Lord who introduced it explained, they are somewhat limited. I am afraid that when I come to consider the methods by which it is proposed to achieve those aims, I do not feel the same enthusiasm for the Bill that is felt by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, or by the noble Earl on the Government Benches.
The noble Lord presented, as he always does, a most engaging case, and I do not like to argue against it, because it may appear that I am doubting the good faith of his argument. He started with the Act of 1951, but I should like to take your Lordships back a little further. He suggested to your Lordships that the 1951 Act limited the powers of the river
444
boards to non-tidal waters, because the river boards were then in their infancy and nobody had had time to ascertain whether they were competent to discharge the wider duties. But the Act of 1951 arose from the Report of the Committee on the Prevention of River Pollution, commonly known as the Hobday Committee, which reported in 1949. If your Lordships will refer to that Report, you will find that that Committee, in turn, referred to two earlier Committees which had considered this same problem.
In the Third Report of the Joint Advisory Committee on River Pollution in July, 1931, before river boards were ever invented, the conclusion was reached that they did not recommend that the powers of the river authorities—they would be the river authorities of the time—should normally extend to tidal waters. The Committee said that
"Such a procedure without regard to local circumstances"—
and I emphasise that point—
"was not warranted on the evidence".
They proposed that the Minister, who I think at that time was the Minister of Health, should make orders where it was deemed to be necessary and in order to protect navigation interests, after consultation with the Minister exercising functions over navigation—that would now, of course, be the Minister of Transport. Here, rather belatedly, I should declare my interest as vice-president of the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association, although, as the noble Lord has explained, the particular port with which I am intimately concerned—the Port of London—is not at all affected by this Bill.
I have spoken of the Joint Advisory Committee on River Pollution of 1931. The Consultative Water Committee (the Milne Committee) in 1943 reached the same conclusion. Then, in 1949, the Hobday Committee, after describing the difficulties in applying the law as it then stood to tidal waters, went on to say:
"These very real difficulties make it impracticable to suggest automatic extension to tidal waters",
and they recommended that the Minister should be empowered by a public order, after public local inquiry, to extend the law of the time to tidal waters. That is the law as it stands at the present time, because the Act of 1951 gave effect to the recommendations, or at any rate

445
to that recommendation, of the Hobday Committee; and it was provided, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has mentioned, that river boards could apply to have the terms of the 1951 Act applied to tidal waters and the Minister could then approve the order, subject to a public inquiry. That was nearly nine years ago and, as the noble Lord has said, there have been only four applications (my figure is five, but I will accept that which he has given) under that section. All those applications have been granted. There is one other at present under consideration on which a decision has not yet been given.
It occurs to me to ask: why is it that greater use has not been made of these powers? The noble Lord suggested that the procedure was cumbersome, but is this not a "cumber" (if that is the right word) that ought to be applied to a public body exercising powers—that they should ascertain by all possible means whether the way in which they choose to exercise their powers is satisfactory to other interested parties? A great deal is made of the burden of a public inquiry, but I have little doubt that, if a river board take steps in advance to ascertain the views of others interested, in nearly every case they will be able to reconcile those views and reach an agreed procedure; and a public inquiry at which there is no objection does not cost much money or involve anyone in a great deal of work.
I myself feel, and I would recommend to your Lordships, that we should not throw away in this manner the only opportunity which other interested parties have of expressing their views, even though, as the noble Earl rightly said, there is a longstop in the shape of the Minister. May I call your Lordships' attention to what was said by the honourable gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government during the Second Reading debate in another place? The Bill then before that place was, of course, different from that which we see to-day, for it was later substantially amended. The Parliamentary Secretary said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 614 (No. 27), col. 773]:
"My right honourable Friend would not disagree that the time may be ripe for such a step forward as the Bill represents, but the Bill must be right. It must seek to satisfy all interests concerned."
446
He emphasised particularly what had been said by two other honourable members and went on to say (col. 774):
"Joint efforts and maximum goodwill are the essential core of a successful attack on the problem of pollution. No authority by itself can solve the problem. There has to be co-operation."
A little later on, when talking on the same Bill—that is, the original Bill—the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"The Bill is drawn in far too wide terms. It would draw within the control of the river board stretches of coast that, as one honourable Member said, are not affected by any river. No one has mentioned what is also true, that it would also draw in harbours and ports which have their own problems."
I cannot see how the Parliamentary Secretary could have made those remarks unless he thought it would be better if the Bill did not draw in harbour and port authorities, yet the Amendments made in another place do not alter that position at all. So now we have before us a Bill to alter substantially the position which was established after three expert inquiries; and it is proposed to throw over the recommendation of those expert Committees and to provide in this Bill that the river boards may exercise their powers in tidal waters without any other limiting control except an appeal to the Minister.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Viscount, he is not quite right there. Under this Bill, river boards will not be able to exercise their powers unrestricted. If someone wished to make a new discharge into tidal water, two consents would be necessary, and either might fail: first, consent from the river board, and, secondly, consent from the dock and harbour authorities; and I would stress that the position and powers of dock and harbour authorities are not altered one bit or reduced one iota by this Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I believe he is perfectly correct in so far as dock and harbour authorities concerned have powers to control pollution. But I believe there are many dock and harbour authorities which have no such powers; and they rely upon the fact that nothing can be done without a public inquiry at which they can express their views. I believe it is these authorities who will lose the advantage and protection they now have.

447
The proposed change in the law in abolishing the right of interested parties to be heard is, to my mind, so considerable that I confess I seriously considered whether I ought to invite your Lordships to reject the Second Reading of this Bill. But though I have been only a short time in the House I have been here long enough to realise that we do not refuse a Second Reading to a Bill coming from another place except on very strong grounds; and obviously those would not be appropriate here. I do hope, however, that between now and the Committee stage the sponsors of the Bill will agree to consider an Amendment which will restore, in some form, the right of interested parties to be heard before action is taken. I hope that Her Majesty's Government also may be prepared to support such an Amendment.
I do not want to detain your Lordships but I should like to call your attention to the remarkable anomaly which will arise if this Bill is passed in its present form. It is already provided under the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act, 1937, that a trade effluent may not be discharged into a public sewer without permission; and Section 2 (4) of that Act provides that if that sewer discharges, either directly or through a sewage disposal works, into a harbour or tidal water, the permission of the harbour authority must be obtained before the local authority can give permission for the effluent to be discharged into their sewer. So that in that case, where the effluent is discharged via a sewer, the port authority have a veto. That veto, of course, like all good vetoes, is subject to an appeal to the Minister; but they have that power. If the Bill is passed in its present form, then, if the same effluent is discharged direct into tidal waters or harbours, the authorities concerned will have no say at all in the matter.
I cannot help feeling that an anomaly of the kind which brings the law of this country into—perhaps it would be too strong to say contempt, but at any rate under criticism, ought to be avoided: the more so because I am advised that the best water engineering practice requires that industrial and trade effluent should, wherever possible, be discharged into a sewer, so that noxious constituents will, to some extent, be broken down in
448
the sewage disposal works before being discharged into a river. The effect of this anomalous position will be that it will become much easier to discharge direct into a river than through a sewer, because there will be one less hurdle to cross—which seems to me quite wrong. So although, clearly, this House would not dream of refusing a Second Reading to this Bill, I hope that on Committee stage we may be able to propose some Amendments that will restore some protection to the other interests concerned.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I certainly felt a good deal of timidity about addressing your Lordships on this subject, because you know so much more about it than I do. I also have to face a very formidable antagonist in the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I am very glad that it was not his father, but he has a good deal of the traces of his father. I should not have liked to take on his father in debate, although we were very good friends. But what I am going to do is take one case in point, and on that I feel perfectly secure.
I live on the River Blackwater, a beautiful estuary in Essex, running from the old Borough of Maldon right down to the sea. I have a letter from the Essex River Board touching this Bill. They are concerned in the first place not only in resisting an Amendment such as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has suggested but in objecting to subsection (3) of Clause 1 (I believe it is), which calls upon the river board before they can do their job to have special regard to—I will read the words—
"factors arising from the tidal nature of the waters and, in particular, to additional dilution due to dispersal of the effluents by tidal action, and the varying direction of flow and salinity and any other special properties of those waters."
That will require a certain amount of interpretation, but what I have to say is directly concerned with it.
I have sailed on the River Blackwater for 60 years. It was a very rural and remote place when I first went there, but a great change has taken place. The railway, seven miles away, has ceased really to be much of a means of communication; but the roads, especially the new road made all the way to the new atomic power station at Bradwell,

449
are so big and powerful that thousands of cars come along them all the time, and especially at week-ends; and the motorists want access to the river.
Moreover, there is the other problem, which is that, wherever there is a piece of beach, someone wants to establish a caravan site. Access to the river and enjoyment of it is a thing no one would deny them, but it does mean that certain precautions must be taken. When we get this immense pressure on the coast, which did not exist in the old days, and this immense increase in the number of people living in tents or caravans, we get a sewage problem of a very considerable kind. The river boards are the guardians of the purity of the rivers and they are well aware that the tide takes the sewage out and sometimes brings it back, and they do not require any assistance in that regard. But what they do not want is to find that they have to consult great and powerful interests who, in their particular case, have no real concern. By Act of Parliament they have to be consulted and it means delay in dealing with a problem, which, believe me, my Lords, is becoming very serious. The discharge of sewage into our river, not only from the towns but from the new buildings, is quite a serious problem, and the only authority that has its eye on that particular problem—and that is in the public interest—is the Essex River Board itself. So from this case in point I would venture to say that subsection (3) of Clause 1 is not necessary and that any Amendment which may be moved along the lines proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, should be resisted.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, might I suggest that the Essex River Board have had nine years' interval in which they could have applied for an Order to control the pollution in the River Blackwater?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I understand that they have powers to do that. Their powers are now being extended to the tidal area. Whether it is the same for non-tidal areas I am not sure.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the noble Viscount is slightly misinformed. Under the existing Act they have the
450
power under Section 6 and the fourteenth subsection of Section 7 to apply for these provisions to be applied to the tidal waters.
4.16 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, before I try to deal with my own views on this particular Bill I should like to convey the apologies of my noble friend Lord Latham, who, owing to a previous important engagement, was unable to stay to take part in this debate. He has asked me to say on his behalf that, while in general he approves of this particular Bill, he nevertheless reserves to himself the right on the Committee stage to put forward an Amendment if he feels so inclined, because his view is that the protection of sea fisheries in the Bill is not sufficiently strong. He would therefore like an opportunity of moving an Amendment in that connection when the Committee stage is reached.
So far as my own views are concerned, I should like first of all, if I may, to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, on the very balanced view he gave of the purposes of the Bill. Also, I think it would be in keeping with the tradition of your Lordships' House if we expressed our appreciation of the skill and tenacity with which the Private Member, Mr. Ramsden, was able to pilot the Bill through another place. I think he is entitled to that compliment. My own view of the Bill is not a positive pro or con. My first inclination was to take the view that, at no matter what cost, clean water, whether in river or in reservoir, is essential. Whether that water Abe for the purposes of industry or of drinking, the fact remains that we must do everything we can in order to protect the supplies of water we have. We must remember not only that water is becoming an increasingly scarce commodity because of the social changes which are taking place, by which more and more is used, but that the state of the rivers and streams, tidal or non-tidal, is becoming shockingly worse, one may say because of the careless attitude the public are increasingly adopting towards keeping rivers clean.
When, however, I began to ask myself what one should do about this matter, I realised on reflection that Mr. Ramsden, the originator of this Bill, had begun with his ideals, which were well stated and, if I may say so, not

451
even exaggerated, but had perforce to see the realities of the situation and bow to the wishes of the Minister in order to combine, so far as is possible, the requirements of industry with the requirements of the general public.
Although I am not prepared to express an opinion on the Bill, this Second Reading gives me the opportunity of requesting—demanding, if you like—from the Minister of State for Scotland, whom I am very glad to see present to-day, an undertaking that he will, without delay, introduce for Scotland a Bill similar in its purposes to the Bill that we now have before us. If he should answer that he intends to enforce the Act of 1951 with greater energy than that with which it has been enforced hitherto, then, while I am prepared to accept that that is an admission of failure to operate powers already in his possession, I do not think it goes far enough. I say that because I think that modern tendencies are such as to make it more important than ever that our tidal rivers, and even our estuaries, should be kept in as pure a form as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, knows very well that rivers such as the Clyde, the Forth and the Tay are rivers with long stretches of tidal waters which pass through areas of high industrial concentration, and that their conditions are becoming worse and worse year by year. I understand that since 1951 only one kind of inquiry has taken place, and I do not know how successful the outcome of that inquiry was. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said about the complicated machinery—the unnecessarily complicated machinery, one feels—which one must go through in order to obtain the remedies that he seeks. Time and money are wasted; and, meantime, such authorities as are indifferent to the pollution of our water carry on their nefarious work without fear of the power which can be exercised if the Secretary of State will only exert himself. For that reason I say to him, without going into too great a detail, because I do not think it helps an argument to repeat what has already been said—and, in any event, one would like to see a Bill for Scotland come forward
452
on which one could concentrate one's attention—that I hope he will give us an assurance that a Bill will be submitted at an early date, either to your Lordships' House or to another place, which will have an objective similar to that of the Bill now under consideration.
I do not intend at this moment to make up my mind about the possibility of submitting Amendments to this Bill during the Committee stage. I want to consult with some of my friends, and to see what they think desirable. I do not need to remind the noble Lord that Amendments were in fact drawn up and put on the Order Paper in another place, but for technical reasons were not proceeded with. I therefore ask him to consider this, not under threat, but under the realisation that there is a large body of public opinion very much concerned about the state of our tidal rivers and estuaries, and that unless something is done fairly soon it may give rise to a good deal of public discontent which I feel sure that be, for one, will wish to avoid.
4.23 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I crave your indulgence for a moment to intervene in this discussion, first of all because I am a member of the Essex River Board, to which reference has been made, but also because I am a member of the Board of the Port of London Authority. I may say that I am in a little difficulty here because, for the first time, I find myself at variance with the views of our very able and distinguished chairman, Lord Simon. I can hardly believe that this is the Lord Simon of the Port of London Authority, because he spends so much of his time these days combating pollution of our River Thames, and doing everything he can to get it cleaned up.
All the river boards want is to have the same power and the same authority to clean up our estuaries and tidal waters, not only at the mouth of the Thames, but in all the other estuaries up and down the country, as are possessed by the Port of London Authority and as are possessed by the river boards over inland rivers. My noble friend Lord Simon questioned whether there was any demand for this Bill. I read the whole of the debates

453
in another place on the Second and Third Readings; and if your Lordships refer to copies of Hansard you will find that the Member of Parliament for every area which included an estuary or tidal water throughout the whole of Great Britain and Wales got up and, despite opposition from harbour boards and such bodies, pressed the House Ito give the river boards this authority so that they could clean up their own tidal waters.
To-day, my Lords, the pollution of our rivers and waterways in England and Wales is nothing short of a national disgrace. A great deal of work is being done by river boards up and down the country, and by bodies like the Port of London Authority, to try to put this matter right. But as I think my noble friend Lord Greenhill said, part of our trouble is that we have so many restrictions, so many safeguards and so many frustrations on our work that we cannot get on and have the rivers cleaned up as we should like to. Now, to my astonishment, my noble friend Lord Simon says that before a board deals with a case of pollution there should be a public inquiry. That, in my opinion, is perfect nonsense. It would stop this work altogether. We at the Port of London Authority do not have to have a public inquiry before we try to clean up some case of foul discharge into the River Thames: nor do a river board where non-tidal waters are concerned. I beg the House to pass this Bill, and to be assured that, on the river boards we have men of reason, experience and ability who are giving their time to try to clean up our rivers and estuaries. I beg of you not to put further frustration in the way of their work.
4.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has again shown his practical interest in this important subject by taking charge of a Bill to put into effect the very measures which he himself advocated in the debate which we remember took place last December, and which was initiated by the noble Lord himself. I am sure that from all sides of the House we wish this Bill luck, and thank him for introducing it. Like him, however, I must record my profound disappointment that Scotlard has been excluded from this Bill. We now know
454
why. We know that opposition from the Federation of British Industries to the Bill in another place would have been so strong against any Amendment to bring Scotland into line that the whole Bill would have been in danger of being lost. Indeed, I understand that Amendments which had been put down to this effect were withdrawn for that very reason.
Together, I am sure, with many other Scottish Members of your Lordships' House, I have myself received a memo, from the Federation of British Industries urging that there should be separate legislation for Scotland. They base their case largely, I gather, on the different codes of proceedings in the purification laws which exist in. England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other. But I find it very difficult to understand the point of view that if Scotland were brought into the ambit of this present Bill, and the purification boards were thereby given control over existing and new discharges, it would have the effect that grave problems would arise. How can we hope to clean our tidal waters, except by control? And I feel this, my Lords: that if amenity must always play second fiddle to industry, then it is almost unbearable to think of the future of our country. But I am with the Federation in thinking that the question of applying this Bill to Scotland should, in the first instance, have been referred to the Purification Advisory Committee—a body which has been set up in Scotland but which does not exist in England. I do not know whether this has been done; and, if it was done, I do not know what kind of answer was given. I have given the noble Lord notice of that question, and perhaps he would be good enough to advise us on that point when he speaks. I should like to know what that Committee's recommendation is, because it seems to me that this body was appointed for just such a purpose as this, to advise the Secretary of State.
The fact remains, as the noble Lord Lord Greenhill, has pointed out, that many of our Scottish estuaries and rivers are polluted just as heavily as many in England and Wales. From personal experience I know that the Forth is just as dirty as the Tees or Tyne, which are held up as examples of the worst pollution in

455
England. As my noble friend Lord Craigton knows perfectly well, something must be done soon, as industry and population are built up at Grangemouth and in other towns on the tidal banks of the Forth. I am not proposing that Amendments to include Scotland should be put down to this Bill. I think it is probably far too late to do that. But I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, that the Government should take some action in the near future to give Scottish tidal waters the protection they deserve.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak on this subject. The point I want to make is one which was brought to my attention by the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales. I considered it a point which could probably be best made on Committee stage, but in view of the reference which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye made to the Association and in view of the need for the Association to have its voice heard in this debate—because its cause is slightly different from that of the docks and harbours boards—I think that it might be helpful, particularly to my noble friend in charge of the Bill, if I indicated to your Lordships the view of the Association.
I believe that your Lordships' House stand in some slight peril in this matter. It has been made abundantly clear that the object of the Bill is to extend the river boards into river tidal estuary boards. Powers are to be given to river boards over tidal waters, over which at present the sea fisheries committees and their Association have certain rights and duties which have been given to them by Parliament. The powers conferred on the Association were contained primarily in the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, and among these powers, which they have continued from then until now to exercise in full, is the power to make by-laws. Clause 2 (1) (e) of the Act gives them power to make by-laws
"for prohibiting or regulating the depositing or discharge of any solid or liquid substance detrimental to sea fish or sea fishing."
456
As your Lordships see, the Association have certain limited powers with regard to stopping pollution in waters into which my noble friend's river boards propose to come. The river boards will also have certain limited powers, because they, and my noble friend, have no interest in the welfare of oysters, shell-fish, lobsters or crab. If they have, I am sure it is gastronomic rather than technical. Therefore, I think that it would a gross overlapping of powers if river boards were to undertake the protection of the cleanliness of these waters from the point of view of pollution interfering with the welfare of fish. In moving the Second Reading my noble friend said that any applicant who wanted to create a new discharge would have to comply with sea fishery requirements as well as with river board requirements. Our requirements are all laid down in our by-laws and they are very simple. They say, in effect, if I may paraphrase the quotation which I have just made from the Act, that no one may introduce any substance which may be detrimental to the welfare of fish. If that is done, the Association proceeds to court and prosecutes with a view to obtaining conviction.
We should get to the point where some perfectly well-meaning and genuine applicant for a discharge goes to the river board, which for this purpose is a law unto itself. While it consults the dock and harbour board, there is no requirement to consult with the sea fishery committee. So we get the ridiculous position, I submit with all courtesy to my noble friend, of one statutory body prosecuting someone for doing something he has permission to do from another statutory body. That would be a perilous position in which to place a body to whom Parliament has given responsibility.
I submit the matter to your Lordships now in order that it may be considered before Committee stage. I do not think it is a matter on which I should wish to divide the House. I was certainly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said about the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Latham. Unless we have a satisfactory reply in due course (I do not mean at the moment), I shall look forward to seeing what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, can do to assist us in this matter.
4.39 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to support this Bill. The only matter which may be open to criticism is that it does not go far enough. Like other noble Lords, I have received representations from organisations and individuals in Scotland asking that the provisions should be applied to that country as they are in England. I sincerely hope that a means will be found of doing so. Scotland has some very long stretches of tidal water, which at present are in a deplorable and filthy condition and need to be cleaned up as rapidly as possible.
I think that in one other respect the Bill is probably not strong enough. Probably it will tend to prevent additional pollution rather than to abolish the pollution which already exists. I was quite unable to understand the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in asking that various interests should be consulted. I do not know whether he meant interests which are concerned with adding further pollutions to the estuaries and tidal waters, or to what kind of interests he was referring. It is abundantly clear that there is need for speed with regard to this matter, and it was only right that, instead of relying upon the very slow machinery of the 1951 Act, which so far has resulted in little extension of the powers of river boards, there should be a general extension of those powers to control all estuaries and tidal waters.
The degree of pollution in many cases is extremely great, not, of course, in all cases arising in the estuaries themselves, but often arising at an earlier point. May I illustrate this by one single example? I understand that at the present moment there has been put into the River Lea, which provides one of the sources of drinking water for London, an amount of discharge from sewage works which constitutes at the point of intake into the London water supplies 20 per cent. of the flow of the river. That, I think, is a rather alarming fact. There are, of course, many other cases, although not nearly of such an extreme nature, in which pollution by sewage effluent is considerable and which require more drastic control than prevails at the present time. I welcome this Bill as, at any rate, a step forward
458
in trying to remedy these evils, and I sincerely hope that it will pass into law.
4.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I should like to reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and the noble Earl, Lord Haddington. There seem to be two separate Scottish questions here: whether this Bill should be amended by your Lordships to include Scotland; and, if not, whether the Government themselves should immediately present a Scottish Bill. I would, first of all, put on record the present position.
On December 3 last in this House, in a debate on the pollution of rivers and estuaries, I said that the Government saw no objection in principle to the application of this Bill to Scotland if suitable Amendments were made in another place. Moves were made in another place, and considerable discussions followed. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, Amendments were in fact put clown: they were not technically withdrawn, but were not moved. The reason for that was, as the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, said, the attitude of the Federation of British Industries. My action then was to see the representatives of the F.B.I., with whom I had full and friendly discussions. I hope that I then made almost as good a speech as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, made in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. But for one reason or another (and I will deal with this later on), the F.B.I. maintained their opposition to the Bill. I am advised that if an Amendment is put down there is a danger of losing the whole Bill for England and Wales. So that we have to weigh that danger against the benefits to Scotland.
LORD GREENHILL: Could the noble Lord specify the danger?
LORD CRAIGTON: Could I specify the danger of losing the Bill?
LORD GREENHILL: Yes.
LORD CRAIGTON: The Lords Amendments are taken first on a Friday, and if they give rise to discussion or voting there is the possibility that they could be talked out, and not only would this Bill be lost but many other Private Members' Bills might be in danger.

459
This Bill, in the view of the Government, and as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, is a step forward. The question is whether, because of special Scottish conditions, and by all concerned taking energetic action, we can achieve the same object without this Bill and without taking this grave risk. Let me, first of all, deal with the special Scottish conditions, which the noble Lord in introducing the Bill dealt with rather shortly. As he said, our river purification boards have no statutory function with regard to fishing. But a more important point is that the two major estuaries, the Forth and the Clyde, must be dealt with under the 1951 Act, as they are scheduled to be so dealt with in that Act, and there is no comparable English provision. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, will be glad to know that my right honourable friend has received the Report of the Forth Inquiry and hopes to issue his findings quite shortly. I would tell your Lordships that the industrialists whom I saw were very pleased to have had the opportunity of making full representations at that inquiry. It is now our job to turn our consideration to the Clyde.
Secondly, we have the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee under the 1951 Act, to which there is no parallel in England and Wales. My right honourable friend is therefore in closer day-to-day contact with the day-to-day problems and he has independent advice on the dangers and the possibilities. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, asked me whether the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee had been consulted. This came upon us rather quickly and at a time when their term of office had come to an end there was no Chairman, and my right honourable friend was actually in the process of appointing a new Committee and finding a new Chairman. So that at the precise moment when we wanted them, we were between two stages. Your Lordships will be glad to know that General Sir Philip Christison has agreed to act as Chairman of that important Committee.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but could he give me some assurance that this Committee will be consulted by the Secretary of State in regard to any future legislation for Scotland?
LORD CRAIGTON: I was coming to that assurance at the end of what I have to say.
The next point is that in Scotland industrialists have a statutory right to be represented on Scottish river purification boards and on the Advisory Committee, which is not the case in England and Wales. So perhaps it is understandable that Scottish industrialists may feel more strongly than the English and Welsh industrialists would that the 1951 Act is their Act; that they have an active say in its operation; and that they have full protection under it. What I had to ask myself was: could we meet that point of view and still achieve the intentions behind the Bill? The F.B.I. point of view is one in which I think your Lordships will be interested. It is a fact that the advantage of the 1951 Act procedure over this Bill is that it allows the board to review the whole position, including existing discharges, which, unless they are altered materially, are not caught up with under the procedure of this Bill. As your Lordships will know, to control existing discharges in England and Wales the board must still apply for an Order under the 1951 Act.
Again, in comparing the 1951 Act procedure and the procedure under this Bill, there is a difference about which the F.B.I. feels strongly, and about which there is room for personal opinion, as was shown by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Under the 1951 Act, before an Order is made, a full public local inquiry must be held if it is required, at which everyone can have his say. Under this Bill this Order procedure is, as it were, by-passed in relation to new and altered discharges, and only a person affected by the conditions imposed over the discharges concerned has a right of objection. True, disputes can be referred to the Secretary of State who, in a particular case can, but is not bound to, instruct a local inquiry. That is the view of the F.B.I. My right honourable friend and I feel that the safeguards in the 1951 Act are truly sufficient, but I thought I should state that point of view.
We must ask ourselves: is the position in Scotland sufficiently tidy, sufficiently protected and sufficiently on the move to tip the delicate balance

461
against being included in this Bill? The 1951 Act requires an order to be made in respect of tidal waters of the Forth and the Clyde, and we cannot deal piecemeal with either of these great rivers. We must have, I feel, the full panoply of a full inquiry with rivers which are so important to Scotland. These inquiries are not inquiries as to whether there should be an Order—the 1951 Act gave the Forth and the Clyde Orders: they are only inquiries into modifications to the Orders or the date of their enforcement. So far as other tidal waters are concerned, the other Scottish boards can apply for Orders—Banff, Moray and Nairn, and the Tweed. Here the F.B.I. have promised full co-operation at this stage if such an Order is applied for. In the case of the Solway, the F.B.I. are already co-operating fully with the Solway Board. They have gone a long way towards being ready to apply for an Order.
Finally, I can assure your Lordships, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, that, acting on the advice of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee, my right honourable friend will encourage any other boards to apply for Orders. It has been said that the 1951 Act is rather cumbersome. But now that we have the Forth inquiry behind us—and that was difficult indeed—we know the form, and there should be no undue delays in the making of these Orders. The job once done will cover all existing polluting and noxious discharges, as well as new and altered discharges. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, the objective is clean rivers and clean tidal waters, and that must be achieved. My feeling is that it can be best achieved with the full co-operation of industry. At present in Scotland we have that co-operation; we have the special advice of the Advisory Committee, and we have the powers which I have assured your Lordships we shall endeavour to ensure are used speedily and to the full. The danger that this Bill will never become an Act is, I am advised, great, if attempts are made to include Scotland in it. But if all concerned in Scotland play their full part, there is no danger in Scotland's being left out of this Bill. If we fail, all will know, and there will be many, both here and in another place, ready to introduce another Bill for Scotland.
462
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, faced me up to hard reality. He demanded an undertaking that the Government should present at an early date a Clean Rivers Bill for Scotland. As the noble Lord knows, one is never in a position at this Box to make such a promise, but the promise I can give is that my right honourable friend will immediately seek the advice of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee, and, if it proves necessary, the Government will give serious consideration to promoting a Bill at the earliest opportunity.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, may I ask one further question? The noble Lord has just said that we have the Forth inquiry behind us. Earlier in his speech he said we are awaiting the report. Which is it?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, both are true. The report is now in the hands of my right honourable friend, who hopes to promulgate the decision any moment now.
4.56 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to -thank noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate, some of whom have advised that the Bill should not be weakened in any way, and one or two who have said that they think the Bill goes too far. I should like to comment briefly upon the speeches made. The first comment I would make is upon what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of HILLSBOROUGH, said. He asked, "Why no Government Bill?" It is not for me to reply; it is for the Government to reply to that question; but I suggest that perhaps a Member in another place, drawing a fortunate place in the ballot, put down a useful Bill. It may be that we are seeing a happy combination of saving Government time in a close timetable, with the Private Member making full use of the opportunity presented to him under our Parliamentary procedure.
I should like to say something on the speech of my noble friend Lord Simon. He agreed with the objective of the Bill, but he questioned the method. He went on to build up a case which, if I may say so, was an admirable case, but was one based upon false premises. My noble friend built up his case on the 1949

463
Hobday Report, but in fact that Report spoke about Orders for a whole area, applying a general prohibition on pollution discharges. The present Bill is something quite different. This Bill will merely ensure each proposal being considered on its merits. It gives no ready-made decision in advance but what I call the piecemeal approach—that in each single case there is an opportunity of an inquiry and, in certain cases, an appeal, should one be desired. My noble friend Lord Simon thought that what I call the clumsy procedure under the 1951 Act, which makes it possible to carry out the provisions of this Bill if a river board is willing to go through this clumsy procedure, was adequate. It really is not. If he will read and consider the difficulties and stipulations which are set out in Section 6 of the 1951 Act—a month here and a month there, publication in the London Gazette, public inquiries of two sorts—he will see that it really is not a satisfactory procedure for dealing with something which is an urgent problem, about which I believe industry would not want to be kept waiting and would wish to know what its position was in the building of plants and machinery and the laying of plans.
My noble friend Lord Simon dealt with the question of harbours and docks, and said that some dock authorities may not have power to control outlets. He made that point in reply to my interjection, when I suggested that this did nothing to remove or denigrate the existing powers of harbour authorities. His reply was that some may not have power to control outlets. I admit that. But if that is so, how is that an argument against this Bill? If there are dock authorities who have no power to control what is admittedly a discharge which affects navigation, surely it is to their advantage if those powers are created for the river board, because I have no doubt that those river boards will represent those dock authorities. Those poor boards will now have an opportunity of being consulted which they have not had before. They ought to be happy and cheering this Bill, and not depreciating it as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is doing.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? The point I
464
was trying to make is that under the existing procedure they may have no powers but they have the right to be heard at a public inquiry, and that right is being taken away. They do not doubt that the river boards are composed of excellent people, but they have a right, quite irrespective of the personalities of the river boards, and that right is being taken away.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: This is essentially a Committee point which we will discuss later. I think the noble Viscount has not got it quite right. I do not think he really made out his case, as other noble Lords on the other side agree.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we should like to know whether the power to be represented at a public inquiry is taken away or not.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No, no power is taken away, either from dock authorities that have powers to control effluents or dock authorities that have the power to go to the Minister to appeal. Such power continues. No power is taken away from any dock authority which at present they possess.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I intervene once again for a moment? I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I agree that no powers are taken away, but there are many dock authorities that have not got powers. They have the right to be heard at a public inquiry and that right is taken away. The noble Lord says that they have the power to demand the public inquiry. I do not think they have under this Bill. The only person who has the right to demand that the Minister should inquire is the person who has applied for additional outlets.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not think we should argue it now. This is essentially a Committee point which will be debated, no doubt, in full in Committee. But no powers are taken away from dock authorities which- they at present possess.
I was particularly grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate; one does not always get his support for everything we initiate on this side of the House, so I was all the

465
more grateful this afternoon. I would point out to him, in respect to Clause 1, subsection (3), that the river boards would need to have "special regard"; those are the words used. I think the noble Viscount spoke about "compulsory consultation". That does not occur; it is "special regard".
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Lord made such an admirable exposition of this Bill and I so much agree with it that I do object to this bit of woolly stuff. I wonder what Lord Simon's father would have thought of a description of something you cannot hold.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: This was an Amendment inserted at the request of industry, and the noble Viscount and I have been in Parliament some years and can evaluate the concrete and specific weight of any particular Amendment. Life is a series of compromises, and if in order to achieve 99 per cent. of the purpose of this Bill we endanger 1 per cent., I do not think he or I will take great exception to that. What I would object to—and I am sure the noble Viscount will be with me—would be if there was any provision for compulsory consultation. There is no such suggestion. It may be woolly, but perhaps wool does not hurt sometimes.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for his speech intimating that Lord Latham reserved his position on Amendments, rather the same type of Amendment as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who has had to leave, the Chamber, on the sea fishery committees. Obviously the views expressed today and which have already been expressed in another place, and will be expressed no doubt by Lord Latham in your Lordships' House later on, must be taken into consideration. I would only say that I think that there is no conflict of interest between the sea fishery committees and river boards, because pollution is one of the great dangers to sea fishing interests to-day. Sea fishery committees have the power to prosecute in cases of pollution affecting the interests of sea fishing and such right to prosecute would not in any way be affected if the consent had been given by the river board. The sea fishery committee by-laws and their rights of prosecution remain absolute.
466
The question of Scotland has been dealt with. Let me only say that I shall read carefully in Hansard all the contributions, whether I agree with them or not, made by noble Lords. But I repeat that I think that the main critic, Lord Simon, has not really made out the case for the dock and harbour board intervention. We want only to help the dock and harbour boards and not hinder them in their work. I do not believe that this Bill will in any way hinder them, and I hope that your Lordships will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TIBET
5.6 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD LORD BIRDWOOD rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the question of Tibet; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be wondered why rather late on a May afternoon we are concerned with the affairs of Tibet, a country separated from us by some 6,000 miles in distance and increasingly becoming separated from us in time, so far as the tragic events of last year are concerned. My reply would be that it is just because of that remoteness in time that perhaps now is the right moment to take a look back, objectively and without passion, and consider our own participation in the whole affair and perhaps learn a lesson for the future.
I have no idea whether the item of Tibet will again figure on the United Nations agenda this year, but if it does I should hope that our debate this afternoon might help Her Majesty's Government in determining their approach; and if it does not I would suggest that there is another service that we can perform, and that is to clear our thoughts on that most confusing of all international issues—namely, the degree to which in a modern world we are entitled to take note of what happens on somebody else's soil. "When is a domestic affair not a domestic affair?" one might term it. I fully realise that here we are on very delicate ground, and that it might be said that it would be best to leave well alone. Personally I prefer to believe that your Lordships' House is the one Parliamentary forum which can be trusted to discuss these matters and to be both discreet and

467
constructive. It is in that belief that I am hoping that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, so far from resenting anything that may be said, will finally be grateful for our discussion this afternoon.
I want immediately to meet a possible charge. It is the charge that says that to discuss Tibet's affairs perhaps does more harm than good to the interests of the Tibetans. My Lords, I submit that nothing could be worse for the Tibetans than their present condition, and that China, in her present mood, is unlikely to step up or play down her persecutions having regard to anything that may be said in your Lordships' House. But what does matter is that we ourselves should have second thoughts on some of the points which I shall hope to present to your Lordships. You will recall that at the United Nations we voted for the inscription of the item and then abstained on the resolution. There were, I think, valid reasons for a course which normally would be regarded as rather curious. If I indicate my own doubts as to the wisdom of that course it is certainly in no spirit of hostility or fierce criticism. I fully appreciate the difficulties and I am quite prepared to hear from the noble Marquess at the end that he has merely taken note of these views and that they will be carefully looked at on any future occasion. But that much I feel justified in asking, because I feel that we are justified in believing that Her Majesty's Government's doubts about Tibet to-day could be their convictions of to-morrow.
If I am to demonstrate what I believe to be the mistake of that particular approach of the United Nations, I have to remind your Lordships for a moment of past history, and admittedly give my own interpretation. From 1720, when the Manchu Dynasty first conquered China, and thereby enabled the Chinese to label Tibet as Chinese territory, right up until 1911, when the Manchu Dynasty fell, their hold on Tibet was purely nominal—a matter merely of satisfying Chinese imperial pride. In fact, no treaty was signed between Tibet and China for a period of 700 years, from the year 1247 up to 1908. During that period Tibet signed at least two treaties within her own right with the world outside. It is true that with a Chinese Resident in Lhasa, the British Government,
468
attempted to deal with Tibet through Peking; but the fact is that those efforts failed; and it was Chinese inability to see that our trade agreements with Tibet were implemented that led to the Young-husband Military Mission in 1904, in search of a Tibetan authority with whom to be able to deal.
The subsequent concessions were given by a Tibetan Government, and it is significant that at no time did the Chinese Government of the day protest at action which to-day would undoubtedly be presented as an invasion of Chinese territory. Nor had they anything to say on the subsequent signing of the 1904 Convention, to which they were not a party, and indeed which could be quoted as confirming China as a foreign Power. In 1911, some of your Lordships will remember, there was the Chinese revolution in which the Manchu Dynasty fell, and with that fall all vestige of Chinese authority in Tibet disappeared. By August, 1912, the last Chinese troops had been expelled by the Tibetans by way of India; thus a relationship which had always been something quite outside Western experience—a link between an Emperor and his strong guide, the Dalai Lama, was ended. Tibet then became, in fact and in law, independent.
Remembering that Czarist Russia was the traditional potential enemy in those days, and remembering also that the policy was to create buffer States around the perimeter of India, and noting that there was a certain amount of confusion and doubt on the frontier conditions along that great long Himalayan barrier, the British Government sent out separate invitations to the Chinese Government and to the Tibetans for a Conference in Simla in 1913, and the subsequent treaty was signed by Sir Henry McMahon and the Tibetan representative. The Chinese representative initialled the treaty, but it was neither signed nor ratified by his Government.
Article 2 of that Treaty is important because it introduces those evasive terms "autonomy" and "suzerainty". The Governments of Great Britain and China were to recognise Tibetan autonomy within Chinese suzerainty. Whatever our interpretations may be of those two terms, there was one most important qualification—I am quoting now from

469
the Report of the International Commission of Jurists at Geneva:
"So long as the Government of China withholds its signature of the aforesaid Convention, she will be debarred from the enjoyment of all the privileges accruing therefrom."
The privileges which would accrue to China were those which anyone could read into the term "suzerainty". In fact, in the treaty the only privilege mentioned was the right to keep a representative up in Lhasa with an escort of 300 men. Far more was said in the Treaty about what the Chinese could not do than about what they could do. For instance, they could not interfere in the internal affairs of Tibet; they could not turn Tibet into a Chinese province. So much then for Chinese suzerainty. But China did not even sign or ratify this Treaty; and by her refusal to do so she placed herself in a position of a foreign Power outside the Treaty. So that any subsequent entry of troops into the country, such as, for instance, that in 1950, was a common act of aggression, both in fact and in law.
For us the most important point to note is surely this: that through the non-participation of China in this Treaty it became a simple Agreement—a bilateral Agreement—between the British Government and the Tibetan Government. We have to admit that, in spite of this fact, the British Government of the day continued to play with the concept of autonomy within suzerainty. I have spoken to officers of the Indian political service at that time, and their explanation is that the British Government were all the time trying to help the Chinese to save face in some way. That general position was confirmed years later, in 1943, by a British Note to the Chinese Government which said this:
"This is the principle"—
of autonomy within suzerainty—
"which has since guided the attitude of the British Government towards Tibet. They have always been prepared to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous.'
My interpretation of that statement is that China, having refused the 1914 Treaty, did not regard Tibet as autonomous but claimed Tibet as a part of China; and for that very reason we did not, and could not in law, recognise Chinese suzerainty.
I think that position was confirmed seven years later when Mr. Ernest Davies, speaking in another place in November, 1950, having referred to the transfer of power to India and the inheritance by India of our obligations and rights in regard to Tibet, said this:
"… we expressed our intention of continuing to take a friendly interest in the maintenance of Tibet's autonomy. That is still our attitude. We have over a long period recognised China's suzerainty over Tibet, but only on the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous. For many years this suzerainty has been no more than nominal, and indeed since 1911 Tibet has enjoyed de facto independence."
That was followed up by Mr. Kenneth Younger in the following year, 1951, in very much the same terms. After referring to the summoning by the Chinese of a Tibetan delegation against their will to Peking and the signing of a fresh Treaty as between Tibet and China, he said:
"This agreement purports to guarantee Tibetan autonomy and safeguard her religious freedom; but the arrangements for the entry of the Chinese Army, the setting up of a Chinese military administration headquarters in Tibet … throw considerable doubt on the value of these guarantees."
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Would the noble Lord say which Mr. Younger that was?
LORD BIRDWOOD: Mr. Kenneth Younger.
LORD DALTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; he was the Minister of State at the Foreign Office.
LORD BIRDWOOD: Looking at all these statements, and summing them all up side by side, surely a fair assessment is that as late as 1951 we still held that Chinese suzerainty was regarded as valid only if China had signed the 1914 Agreement, which thereby would have committed us to accept full Tibetan autonomy. It would have been simpler and, in my view, far more honest, if the British Government of the day had said that as China had not signed the 1914 Agreement, and until she did so, so far as we were concerned Tibet was independent. But the war had intervened, China was an Ally, and it may have been a case of "never troubling trouble until trouble comes along". Nevertheless, that was the position. Tibet was independent until 1951 and we all knew it.

471
On May 23, 1951, a new Treaty was signed in Peking between Tibet and China under conditions of terrible duress. I believe that only two clauses in that Treaty could be regarded as calling for a reassessment of Tibet's international status, and I would quote Clause 1 which says:
"The Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the Motherland—the Peoples' Republic of China"—
a privilege which they could hardly forgo in view of the fact that by then Chinese troops were all over their country; and Clause 14 which said that the Peoples' Government of China:
"shall have concentrated handling of all external affairs."
That was followed by the usual blurb about peaceful co-existence with one's neighbours. In those two paper commitments, as I see it, with all the crude confidence of massive Chinese power politics in the background, is the concentration of our hesitations subsequently as to whether or not Tibet was a domestic affair of China.
Now we have arrived at the United Nations Resolution of October 22 of last year. In that Resolution the term "fundamental human rights" appears no fewer than four times, and answering a Question on November 11, 1959, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of State said, first, that we abstained because of our doubts concerning Article 2, subsection 7 of the United Nations Charter—which is, of course, that which deals with interference in the domestic affairs of another State—and, secondly, that we abstained because it was:
"our view that it was not right for the General Assembly to pass Resolutions about human rights in individual States or Territories."
In regard to human rights, in my view our reservations were perfectly logical. In these days human rights can be loosely and arbitrarily interpreted as embracing anything from the complete suppression and oppression of a whole people down to a South African policeman treading, inadvertently or otherwise, on the toe of an individual. But where Article 2, subsection 7, is concerned, I hope I have shown that there was no doubt whatsoever on that until 1951; and if there was doubt subsequently surely the benefit of the doubt could have been given to support a Tibet which was independent
472
rather than a Tibet which was part of China. Surely the accumulated weight of the evidence of centuries previous to 1951 could have figured as a factor in deciding the future of Tibet after 1951.
Here I think it is only intelligent to pause for a moment and look at Article 2, subsection 7, as the great question mark. I am giving away no secrets but merely making deductions that any man can make for himself. That subsection is in these terms:
"Nothing in the Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State."
I am informed that if that Article had not been there, we should certainly have had no Charter, and it is obvious that if we were to play loose with this principle we could never expect this protection when others sought to evade it at our expense. Yet, as time progresses and as the world shrinks, surely it is rational to suppose that we have to move into more liberal interpretations of this principle.
It could be argued that the answer is not to play about with interpretations but to revise the Charter, and meanwhile, at all cost, support and protect it. We all know that review of the Charter is impossible so long as Soviet Russia is determined to frustrate that, so surely the only wise and rational course to take is to treat every case on its merits as it arises. In judging the merits of the Tibetan case we had grave doubts, and Sir Pierson Dixon's observation was:
"There must be some doubt as to whether Article 2 (7) applied in this instance."
And he added:
"We did not take up a final or definite position in the matter."
Frankly, I am hoping that Her Majesty's Government may have second thoughts, so that if Tibet comes up again at the United Nations our final position may next time be something a little more positive. What puzzled some people was the impression that there was a desire to discover that Article 2 (7) applied rather than to discover that it did not apply. To that extent, also, it seemed that we were looking for precise points of law and welcoming them for the shelter they afforded us.
International law tells us that a Treaty is not invalid because one side

473
breaks it, and that a Treaty signed under duress is nevertheless binding. Surely, if we were really to allow such considerations to govern policy we should become the prisoners of the law; and I would submit that, paradoxically, to become the passive prisoner of the law is to become the active agent of injustice. Suppose that the great Powers, noting that China forces the Dalai Lama to sign a Treaty against his will and that China subsequently breaks the clauses of that Treaty which are inconvenient to her and finally invades Tibetan territory, somewhat complacently say that they can find no legal sanction to support a resolution of condemnation: in effect, as I see it, the green light is given all over the world to common aggression.
Legally a man, hearing the screams of a child in a house next door and suspecting that it is being beaten up by its parents, has no authority to break into the house to see what is happening. Yet he would be a most extraordinary man who did not do so. If, therefore, the individual can take a mild legal risk, surely the great Powers, in handling international affairs, sometimes have to take the mild legal risk. Perhaps even their ability to do so is a measure of their greatness.
Finally, one word about the Indian position. India signed her separate Treaty with China in April, 1954, and the preamble to that referred to Tibet as a "Region of China". In fact, the Treaty deals almost entirely with trade and pilgrim traffic, but India having recognised Tibet as a Chinese region, we could hardly have expected any other attitude from her than that of abstention at the United Nations. In the first blush of independence—and I am speaking perfectly objectively—obviously the Government which took power in 1947 under Mr. Nehru probably did not have very much interest in the Tibet and China policies that we left behind. But whatever may have been Indian views then, there is absolutely no doubt about them to-day.
In their Note to China of February 12 of this year the Government of India made it crystal clear that they now accept the 1914 Simla Treaty in the identical terms in which I have tried to interpret it this afternoon, as an Agreement (and I quote from paragraph 32):
474
"between the authorised representatives of the two parties (Tibet and British India) reached after full discussion and approved of by the Government of Tibet."
In any case, there is ample evidence around to-day of Indian public opinion on this matter. We need have no fears in future that any positive position we choose to take up is going to be out of step with Indian views.
If I may sound a personal note, I would remark that year after year Englishmen would look up from the heat of the plains at that great Himalayan valley and would come to regard it as something of a mystical shield. And they, more than others, perhaps, can appreciate what it means to a sovereign and independent India to-day when they see, for the first time, a challenge emerging across that valley from Peking. While in no way wishing to interfere, or seeming to interfere, in what is entirely an affair of India and the Indian people, I am sure that Indians would only wish to know that the moral and political support of this country—and, indeed, more than that if ever the need arose—is behind them in their search for stability and peace with honour on their frontiers.
I admit that there was never any physical action which we could have taken to help Tibet. But when people pass on from that assumption to throw doubt on the value of discussing this matter, I would say that there is in the world to-day a new force, and we might call it organised international opinion. My only motive has been to indicate the lines on which, perhaps, Her Majesty's Government could, and should, play their part in organising international opinion, in relation not only to Tibet but to the many other occasions of a similar nature which may arise in the distant future. I beg to move for Papers.
5.32 p.m.
LORD SPENS: My Lords, a discussion on the recent happenings in and concerned with Tibet is undoubtedly at the present moment, in many ways, a very delicate matter. None the less, I think we owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Birdwood in that some of us who are deeply interested in that part of the world have an opportunity of expressing some views on these recent happenings, and I hope with a maximum of discretion. I have never actually

475
been in Tibet; nor have I had any direct bearings with Tibetan affairs. But I did, not so many long years ago, attempt to get up the Sutlej Valley, from Simla right up to the frontier, and only bad weather and a broken patch of a very dangerous road prevented us from getting there. But, of course, that part of the world was one in which none of us who served in India during the war times could fail to have a very deep interest.
May I just say a word, and not a very long word, as a lawyer, about the juridical position of Tibet? It is admitted, I think, by everyone that from the beginning right up to 1911 all Powers, including ourselves, in India recognised that China had a form of suzerainty over Tibet. It was a curious situation. There was a Chinese official sometimes, not always, at Lhasa. The Chinese claimed some right to take part in the election of a succeeding Dalai Lama. But, once appointed, throughout all those years the Dalai Lama administered the country completely independently, and it was only on very exceptional occasions that China ever attempted to intervene in any way by force. It so happened that just before the fall of the Manchu Dynasty in 1911 they did, in fact, send an armed expedition into Tibet, and with the fall of the Emperor the forces in Tibet had to surrender and were, as my noble friend Lord Birdwood said, evacuated through India.
Those events in 1911 were followed by the important Conferences at Simla, in 1913 and 1914, out of which came, as I understand it, two Agreements. The first one was the Agreement negotiated between His Majesty's Government (as it then was) on behalf of India, Tibet, as an independent autonomous sovereign Power, and China. That Agreement provided mainly, and with some importance, for a division of Tibet as it then was into Outer and Inner Tibet. The part of Tibet adjoining China went under China. The Outer Tibet was assured of complete independence, still under a form of suzerainty. China, however, refused to ratify that Agreement, not because she challenged the right of Tibet to negotiate the matter at all, and as she would have been justified in doing if she claimed sovereignty over Tibet, but merely because she did not agree with the boundary line between Outer and
476
Inner Tibet. She never questioned the right of Tibet to negotiate for herself, and she never at that time, or for years, questioned the other boundary, the boundary between Outer Tibet and India. She accepted that. I should add that when China refused to sign the Tripartite Agreement, a second Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and Tibet was drawn up on very much the same lines, but leaving out some of the provisions affecting China in particular.
I think there are certain important deductions to be drawn from those negotiations. In the first place, His Majesty's Government at that time recognised Tibet throughout as an independent sovereign State with which we could negotiate. Secondly, China throughout never claimed anything except a very limited suzerainty, subject to very strict conditions, over Outer Tibet; and she never claimed sovereignty at all over any part of Tibet. Further, she never challenged the right of Tibet to sit at the same table and to negotiate. She never, as I said, challenged the boundary which was agreed at the Tripartite Conference and subsequently embodied in the Agreement between His Majesty's Government and Tibet herself.
From 1911 till 1950 Tibet was in fact completely independent, ruled by the Dalai Lama, who administered the country and who was recognised by us and by everybody else as the ruler of an independent and autonomous State. What happened then? The Communist revolution came along and immediately the Communists invaded Tibet with arms. It is suggested by the Dalai Lama, in a long statement made after he got to India, that it was a rallying cry which the Communists would all unite in carrying into effect, and Chinese troops started to pour into Tibet. In 1951 Tibet was driven to make the Agreement to which my noble friend Lord Birdwood referred, under which she acknowledged that she was really under the sovereignty of China; and China then proceeded to overrun the whole of Tibet with troops.
It was, I think, a very great misfortune that in 1956 the countries of the West were all engaged with Suez. The year 1956 was the 2,500th anniversary of the death of Buddha, and the whole of the Buddhist part of the East was celebrating that anniversary. In Tibet itself

477
the Tibetans, who were being ground down by the Chinese, attempted a very strong, religious revival. The result was that, in addition to troops, tanks arrived in Tibet. A revolt followed: a revolt which went on in different parts of the country right up till 1958, when the Dalai Lama fled over the boundary into India.
My Lords, I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the effect which the flight of the Dalai Lama from Lhasa into India, and the details that began to come out of the way in which the Dalai Lama and his followers had been treated in Tibet by China, had on India and the Buddhist East. After all, Buddha was born in India: he was a citizen of India; he preached in India; and the Prime Minister of India, in one of his more recent speeches, used this very sentence:
"We may be Hindus, but Lord Buddha is the greatest Indian that ever lived, and we in India are still under the umbrella of this feeling for the Buddha."
As we know, there are not so many Buddhists in India to-day as there are in Ceylon, Burma and elsewhere throughout the East, but the Hindus of India have the greatest and deepest respect for Buddha and Buddhists. The shock to them of this attitude taken by China to this small, religious, peaceful State cannot be exaggerated: and when, on top of that, there came the use of the troops that had been poured into Tibet to threaten the frontiers of India, it is not surprising that the reaction in India was as great as it was.
The meeting of the United Nations did not take place until 1959, and by that time, Tibet was completely under the forceful domination of China. Like Lord Birdwood, I regret very much that the delegation from this country was unable to support the resolution against China. But, of course, facts are facts; and by that time China had established its sovereignty, by force, over Tibet. What I am much more concerned with is the result of the treatment which China has given to Tibet, and the treatment that may be feared by any Power or any country which falls under the envy or ambition of Communist China.
It is perfectly true that the present dispute is on the frontiers of Tibet and India, and is primarily, if not entirely, India's affair. But it is a Commonwealth frontier; and within the ambit of China we have great possessions and great
478
interests. When we look back on the history of the period since the last war, and on China's record, ending up with the events in Tibet, surely we must realise that, as a matter of policy, Communist China, so far from objecting to forceful measures, has used them continuously since the end of the last war. We have seen their methods in Korea; we have seen their methods in Indo-China; we have seen their methods in Malaya; and we have now seen this ruthless attack and the establishment of their domination in Tibet. My Lords, that seems to me a matter which we in this country—and, if I may say so with great respect, the West as a whole—have not taken with that seriousness or that knowledge which all peoples who are opposed to Communism ought to have.
My Lords, when I came back from India in 1948 I was invited to a dinner of members of my Party. I had been in India during the first twelve months after the Russian delegations appeared in India. I said then that my belief was that, while the Communists would threaten in Europe, the task of infiltrating and of establishing themselves in Europe was one of vast difficulties, and I believed that they would threaten in Europe but that they would steadily penetrate and establish their dominion in Asia. I believe that Communist China has every intention of establishing Communism throughout every part of Asia which she can reach—and we have possessions which are all too clearly within her sphere. For these reasons I should like to record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Birdwood for giving us in this House an opportunity to consider the events in Tibet—and, much more, if I may venture to say so to your Lordships, the dangers that may lie ahead for many of our fellow subjects of the Commonwealth in that part of the world.
5.48 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, on the occasion of the debate on the humble Address last autumn I took the opportunity of devoting most of the speech which I then made to your Lordships to this problem of Tibet. I am very glad, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has raised it again this afternoon, so that we may have an opportunity of looking at it again and others of your Lordships can give us the

479
advantage of your advice on these problems. On the occasion to which I have just referred, I made an attempt to put this problem into historical perspective—not very much welcomed by the noble Marquess who replied for the Government, who made no attempt to deal with the historical points which I put before the House, and whose answer to me bordered on abuse, if I may say so. But that is in the way of politics, and I took it in good part. I have therefore been very interested in the speeches which have been made this afternoon, in that we have at any rate a little bit of historical perspective into the discussion.
We have now got back at any rate as far as the Simla Conference, to which I devoted a good deal of my speech, and even to the famous battle in 1720 (which of course was just one episode in the much longer history of this Tibeto-Chinese problem) in which the Chinese decisively defeated, not the Tibetans so much as the Mongolians. A struggle between the Mongolians and the Chinese had been going on for the previous 100 or 150 years, and this was an episode in a much longer history than we have so far discussed, either in the debate this afternoon or on the previous occasion to which I have referred.
I should like to say a few words about that, but before doing so I would refer briefly to the problem of the frontiers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, referred, and which at that time I urged should be brought before the International Court, if possible, or at any rate dealt with by some method of arbitration. I do not want to go into this problem this evening because I think that everyone would agree that in respect of large sections of this frontier agreement has now been reached. It is true that in Ladakh and elsewhere there is still a large area under dispute, but I think that we all welcome the reasonable attitude which both sides have displayed over a long section of this frontier, and we are glad that they have reached agreement over it. That point has not been properly noticed. There is so much hostility—venomous hostility—towards the Peoples' Government of China at present that I feel that these facts ought to be noted and welcomed.
The earliest historical facts which we have about this problem show that
480
already in the Ninth Century, as the result of a war between the Tang State of China and the local Tibetan State an agreement was reached in 822, which, interestingly enough, was published in a bilingual edict which still exists. This was published in this country by the famous author on Chinese Tibetan problems, Bushell, in 1880. It is the first source we have of the Tibetan language, and it indicates clearly that so long ago as 822 the Chinese Government, at that time in Siang (Peking had not yet been heard of) claimed political control—exactly how far it went is not very clear—and from that day onwards political control has undoubtedly been claimed by successive Chinese Governments.
Kublai Khan, the successor of Genghis Khan, was the first of the Chinese conquerors to establish a really effective political control over Tibet. He conquered the country effectively, and for a period after that it was administered, under local leaders it is true, under the pretty effective suzerainty of the Chinese Government. This suzerainty continued under the Ming Dynasty after the Mongols had been defeated. Under the Manchus there was an attempt by the Central Asian Mongolian State to deprive the Chinese of their political control of Tibet, and throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries this battle went on, until, as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, indicated, it was finally settled in 1720, after which the Chinese Government, now established at Peking, maintained what we might call Residents in Lhasa right down until the beginning of the First World War, and even after. The amount of power those Residents were able to display, of course, depended a great deal on the power that existed at Peking. It had its ups and downs, and at the time of the abortive Simla Treaty in 1912, the power at Peking was at a very low ebb.
The noble Lord, Lord Spens, has indicated that the Chinese went a long way towards admitting automony in the Western Area of Tibet, but I would point out that it was a very weak Chinese Government which did that. It was, I do not say legally abandoning, but certainly abandoning de facto, a considerable amount of the suzerainty which had not only been claimed, but had been effectively exercised during the previous two centuries. There is no question about

481
this. It is perfectly clearly set out in all the history books. An interesting illustration of it is that throughout much of the last century Tibet was an important source of gold. Many people say that Tibet is one of the most auriferous countries in the world, and that as soon as it is opened up to metallurgical exploitation it will rival South Africa. Those placer gold mines, which were worked a good deal throughout the nineteenth century, were in the hands of the Chinese and Chinese guards used to escort the caravans which took the gold to Peking. It may be that the enormous potential mineral wealth of Tibet is not without significance in the recent entry of Chinese Government Forces into Tibet.
Thus we have a long and interesting history and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, who I think was supported a little by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, is wrong when he says that as from the time of the abortive Simla Conference Tibet had, both in law and in fact, complete sovereign independence. That was never accepted by the Chinese Government, at any rate, and Chiang Kai-shek gave the British Foreign Office a smart rap over the knuckles about this.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, of course it was not accepted by the Chinese Government, who were claiming Tibet as part of China. I have been speaking only of our own view and of Tibet's view of the situation.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if the Chinese Government had a legal suzerainty which was never abandoned, this country certainly could not deprive China of it by unilateral statement, even if it had attempted to do so. As I was saying, when Chiang Kai-shek took a strong stand in a friendly way, the British Government did not deny the position which he then took up, and have never, I believe, denied Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.
I think that we now have a similar situation to that which we had in the case of the Soviet Union. When they had established themselves as a strong, political Power, they revived the historic claims which earlier Russian Governments made. That was evidenced in the attitude of the Soviet Government in the Far East, and is now being evi-
482
denced in Tibet by the present People's Government in Peking. Face and prestige are of enormous importance throughout Asia, and undoubtedly this is a case of the Peking Government's attempting to re-establish an old prestige by reasserting their historic position in Tibet. I have no doubt that one element which drove them to do that was the recognition by the United States of the Formosan Government, the Taiwan Government, to which the Peking Government are naturally opposed. I am sure that the reaction towards Tibet is to a considerable extent due to what happened in Taiwan, and in Washington. We should get rid of this stupid attitude on the part of Washington and of certain other Governments towards the present Government in Peking, which, whether we approve of its ideological outlook or not, is obviously at the least a perfectly well-established de facto Government and ought to have the recognition not only of this country, as we recognise it to-day, but of all other sovereign States, to be accorded its seat on the Security Council.
All that side of the matter is the political aspect of this problem, and it seems to me that it shows perfectly clearly and beyond any doubt whatever that the Chinese claims to Tibet are very old and very well based. It would undoubtedly establish the right on the part of China not to have its domestic problems interfered with from outside. I have never taken the view that internal conditions and internal politics are so completely sacrosanct that they should not be subjected to reasoned and objective criticism from outside. I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, himself quite properly said, that the world is now too small for this sort of attitude to be any longer completely justified. But I feel that that sort of criticism ought to be objective and well-informed; and it does not seem to me that we have had objective and well-informed criticism of the situation in Tibet, because we have little authentic information as to what is going on there. We have ex parte statements by the Dalai Lama, who, after all, is in the position of the Bourbon Government expelled from France after the Revolution, which issued all sorts of statements, very few of which bore much relation to the actual facts. The Dalai Lama is fighting his own hand, and one respect the courageous

483
way in which he is doing so; but I think it is impossible to suggest with any real claim to belief that the statements which are issued from his court, so to speak, are completely objective or well-authenticated.
It is an interesting historical fact that in 1911 the Dalai Lama left and took refuge in Delhi, in very much the same way that he did a few years ago; and that was the situation which eventually led to the Simla Conference which has been so much referred to. What we really want is some well-authenticated and well established facts as to what is happening in Tibet itself. What is happening in Tibet is that a social revolution is going on. What seems to me so unrealistic about discussions of this sort is that in the West nobody seems to give any credence to the fact that a social revolution is going on in Tibet.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord whether he is referring to an indigenous revolution of the Tibetan people, on whether he is referring to a revolution which is being imposed on them from outside?
LORD CHORLEY: I am referring to an indigenous revolution which is going on on the part of some of the inhabitants of Tibet and in respect of which they undoubtedly received a great deal of political support from Pekin. Tibet was the most out-of-date country in the world. The exceptional position of Tibet was dependent on two factors. One was religious, which everybody knows about, in that one man out of every three in Tibet within very recent times was a monk, and a so-called celibate monk, and that something like one in every ten or twelve women was a nun. The great religious houses had established a sort of grip over the country which is very reminiscent of the grip which the Roman Church had established over this country in the later Middle Ages and which led to the Reformation in this country and the reaction on the part of the Tudor monarchy in a successful attempt to smash it up. That is one of the elements which is so significant in regard to Tibet and which has been almost completely overlooked as a result of the one-sided propaganda against Communism which goes on in the West.
484
If you look at the article in the Encyclopœdia Britannica, written in the 1911 edition, which was before Communism came on the scene and before these ideological enthusiasts intruded into these discussions, you will find it stated quite clearly that the whole of the agricultural and commercial development of Tibet had been held up and impeded by a shortage of manpower due to this overriding religious organisation of the community, which resulted in one-third of the population being celibate and in all the more fertile parts of the country there being a great shortage of labourers and peasants. One could elaborate this side of the matter at length, but I do not propose to do so. However, it is undoubtedy a factor of basic importance in the situation.
Parallel with that, we have a similar social situation arising from the contrast between the land-owning nobility, which corresponded closely with the ancien régime in France and Germany in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the nobility had established a complete throttle grip, and the peasantry. This is all in the Encyclopœdia Britannica and in Chambers' Encyclopœdia: it is not Communist propaganda. The peasant was tied to the land, although he was not exactly a slave. There were a substantial number of slaves in Tibet until very recently, certainly well into the present century, but the great mass of the population was a peasant population like the medieval serfs in this country who were tied to the land—ascripti glebae was the technical expression in English law at that time. No peasant could leave the estate to which he was bound without the formal consent of the landlord; he had to use a special vocabulary in addressing the superior noble who was his master; and in all sorts of other ways he was in the position of a serf or villein in this country and in France in the later Middle Ages.
But we are now in the twentieth century, and that is not the sort of situation which can continue to go on in Tibet or anywhere else in the world. That is the social revolution which I believe had the support of a large part of the population, who may have been influenced by traders from outside who had brought in news of what was going on in the world outside. Everybody knows of the attempts of the Lhasan Government to

485
keep out people from outside in order that these wretched peasants should be isolated from the rest of the world.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I want now to ask him a question. I will quite briefly deal with his point when I come to reply. If these conditions are true, is he suggesting that the Chinese invasion by their troops of Tibet was justified because of a Chinese ability to do something about these social conditions? In other words, is he suggesting that that validates the invasion of Tibet?
LORD CHORLEY: Yes, I do. A substantial element in Tibet, probably the majority of the ordinary common folk of the land, who are attempting to throw off this ecclesiastical and feudal yoke, asked for assistance. I have suggested that in the conditions of the twentieth century they are entitled to that assistance, and we, who have had the privilege and great good fortune to be able to establish our own free system as a result of wars of this kind in which from time to time foreign elements were not above giving us help, should not adopt this "dog-in-the-mangerish" attitude and suggest that these people have no right to any sort of assistance from outside.
These seem to me to be the basic and fundamental elements of this situation: the social revolution which is going on and which every attempt has been made to hide from people in Western Europe and America in order that this ideological war on Communism may be better carried out. In a sense, Communism comes into this, but it is a much finer, more open, political struggle on which these people are engaged, and I, for one, cannot blame them if they choose to have assistance from the Communists in carrying on this struggle in order to obtain economic and political freedom. Until we recognise these facts we shall go on hiding our heads in the sand like a set of ostriches, and not understanding the situation in Tibet.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in the general tenor of his remarks. I should, however, like to say that in one respect my information is at variance with his. I believe that at one
486
point in his speech to your Lordships he said that one inhabitant in every three was a monk, and a celibate monk. I hope the noble Lord is not confusing the Gelugpa, or Yellow Hat Order of monks, with the Red Hat Order of monks who were permitted to marry, and who in fact do marry and are largely married.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I quite accept that, and I am well aware of it. Very close observers such as the author of the chapter in the Encyclopœdia Britannica, which is a well-known authority on this subject, make it perfectly clear that the amount of celibacy which existed in Tibet had a devastating effect on the manpower of the country and on the general economic development of it.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: I will not attempt to follow my noble friends Lord Birdwood and Lord Spens in the interpretation of the controversial Article of the United Nations Charter. I am sure they are much more qualified to do that than I am. As regards the debate in the United Nations General Assembly, I should like to pay one small tribute to the attitude taken throughout the proceedings by the Government of E1 Salvador. I myself had the honour and pleasure of visiting this delightful country in Central America several years ago, when consideration was being given to the formation of an inter-Parliamentary group within the Legislative Assembly.
It was E1 Salvador who first raised the matter of Tibet in the General Assembly of the United Nations ten years ago, in 1950. At that time, the General Committee of the United Nations General Assembly accepted the view of Her Majesty's Government, vigorously supported by India, not to include on its agenda an item proposed by San Salvador entitled "Invasion of Tibet by Foreign Forces". Your Lordships are fully aware why that was not proceeded with at the time. It was because a peaceful settlement was thought possible. Now, ten years later, in 1960, Her Majesty's Government, as my noble friend Lord Birdwood said, supported a resolution in the General Committee to recommend to the General Assembly that the "Question of Tibet" should be considered by that body in plenary session. I may be allowed to say that I was proud to see that this

487
resolution was sponsored by two countries with very close ties to our own—the Federation of Malaya and the Republic of Ireland. It is interesting that the only country to oppose the resolution was Indonesia, although six countries abstained and two countries, Czechoslovakia and the U.S.S.R., were recorded as, "Present but not voting".
On this occasion, a very moderate draft resolution was tabled and was passed without amendment by a substantial majority, even including abstentions, and the only countries who voted against the resolution were members of the Soviet bloc. I would submit, however, that it is impossible to understand the problem of Tibet without some understanding of Tibetan Buddhism and the unique position of the Dalai Lama. The history of Tibetan Buddhism is fascinating, but any exposé of it that I could make would be tedious and probably inaccurate. It is important to your Lordships' consideration of the problem to know that the spiritual authority of the Dalai Lama was paramount in Tibet even before the recognition by the Manchu Empire of the assumption of temporal power by the Dalai Lama of the day in the 17th century. It was this Dalai Lama, known to Tibetan history as "the Great Fifth", who expounded the final truth concerning the incarnation of Chenrezig. It has never been questioned by any Tibetan that the Dalai Lama governs by (to use a Western phrase) Divine Right, as he is the vehicle of the Divine compassion operating in human affairs, and in particular in the affairs of Tibet. According to the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism, Chenrezig is the guardian Deity of Tibet, and the Dalai Lama is his incarnation.
I think it is important to understand that the word "incarnation" is used advisedly, and not "reincarnation". The Tibetans believe that a "presence" or aspect of Chenrezig descends to earth and enters the body of a child and thereby defers his own return to Nirvana, the Buddhist Heaven, until all living beings have attained the right to Nirvana. When a Dalai Lama dies, or, as the Tibetans say, when he departs the honourable field, this "presence" (or kundun in Tibetan) returns to earth and enters into the body of an
488
infant who will in due course and by various processes be discovered as the next Dalai Lama. The reason for not using the word "reincarnation" is that it would imply the reincarnation of a human person or personality, whereas, as I said before, the Tibetans view the incarnation of a Dalai Lama as really a "presence" of Chenrezig. It is this "presence" which makes it impossible to look at the problem of Tibet or at the Dalai Lama in a disestablishmentarianistic sense. No Tibetan can accept any temporal sovereign other than the Dalai Lama—a title, incidentally, never used by Tibetans for their ruler except in dealings with foreigners. The Dalai Lama, as I mentioned before, is the ruling abbot of the Gelugpa, or Yellow Hat Order of monks.
I apologise for wearying your Lordships for so long with sidelights of Buddhist theology, but I feel that some comprehension of the beliefs of Tibetans is necessary to any balanced picture of the problem of Tibet. I should, however, like to put one short question to Her Majesty's Government: can the noble Marquess who is to reply say whether any financial contribution has yet been made, or will be made, or might be made, to assist the extensive work being done by the Government of India on behalf of the many refugees? I understand that Her Majesty's Government in Australia has made a most princely contribution, amounting to a six-figure sum in Australian sterling. Interests in the United States have contributed in their usual and customary generous fashion, and I hope that we in this country shall not be far behind. In conclusion, I should like to say that, on the main political points raised, I heartily echo and support the arguments presented so ably by my noble friends Lord Birdwood and Lord Spens.
6.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in this debate to-day because I was going to leave all that might be said from this side of the House to my noble friend Lord Faringdon, who has himself had a good deal of personal knowledge of Tibetan history and, by his visits to the country, of its more modern situation. I am not

489
saying at all that my noble friend Lord Faringdon would have agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has laid before your Lordships. I had not intended to speak. However, having listened to the debate and the historical records of treaties, legal aspects, events between treaties and the like from the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, with whom I had very close relationships in India during the transitory period in 1946, when we were trying to lay down a foundation for the advancement and original liberty of the Indian people, I should like to say a few words upon the situation.
I do not quarrel in any way with the inferences drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, from the actual treaties which have been in existence from time to time, both those that were signed and the particular one with which he made great play which was only initialled. I will not go into that at all. But I must say that, whatever the Chinese, as represented by Mr. Chou En-lai, said recently in negotiations with Mr. Nehru, the world at large must, if it approves of the idea of the United Nations Organisation, be very greatly shocked by the manner in which the native people of Tibet have been treated. It is not, to my mind, a question of whether there is some right of conquest in the past or whether there is a treaty in the past. To enforce upon the pre-1958 régime in Tibet the kind of military dictatorial domination which has arisen is altogether foreign to the ideas that my Party, at any rate, have in view in their programme and outlook upon what is to be done to secure general human advance. That is not the way to do it. We very strongly object to it.
On the other hand, there are certain dangers in the future to be taken into account. I should not like to go as far as what might be derived from what the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said about the boundary of the Commonwealth being in danger in that respect. After all, the particular boundary Lord Spens was referring to is part of the great and independent nation of India, and of Nepal as well, and in the immediate examination of these matters the first thing is for it to be dealt with by the Government of India. That is essential. Never
490
theless, I am sure of this in my own mind: that the British people at large would be behind the Indian Government in taking a firm stand against the kind of submissions and arguments which have been made in the recent discussions, where India has objected to certain violations, in their view, of the boundaries of India.
It is a matter of great concern to those of us who right through the period of the post-war Labour Governments have taken the line that the United Nations Organisation can never be wholly comprehensive in what they do together in these matters unless such a great nation as China, at present clearly dominated by the Communist Government in China, with some 600 million people, is represented in that Organisation. You will never really get down to what I call the "brass tacks" of the international situation unless you get these people before you in the United Nations Organisation, hear their cases stated and cross-examine them in the international councils of the world. Therefore, Mr. Nehru must have been facing a very difficult situation in his endeavours to deal with the matters which have arisen since the violation of India's territorial boundaries by the incursion of the Chinese.
It may be that what my noble friend Lord Chorley says about the changed situation in Tibet being governed partly by the revolutionary ideas of some of the indigent Tibetans is true. But when I look at the latest position revealed in the reports about India, and the making of roads during the last eighteen months or more in parts of Indian territory which have never at any time been conceded as included in the Tibet which was covered by past treaties, then I must say that I cannot find much excuse for the manner in which the Chinese have been acting.
Nor can I agree, at least on behalf of my Party, that we should regard an invasion and an over-stepping of territorial boundaries by strong Communist troops as being something which is justified in the conditions in which the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, put it previously to my noble friend Lord Chorley. Perhaps Lord Chorley's answer to Lord Birdwood in that exchange could possibly be justified on the basis of what

491
we used to refer to as the views of the Third International, but it certainly cannot be found within the views of the Second International, the International Socialist Party, who work for social democratic revolution in the world. Therefore, I could not go so far as my noble friend Lord Chorley in that particular answer. But I do say this: that it is fundamental to the present situation that all the blame for the present situation should not be put upon the Chinese Communist Government.
When one reads between the lines here and there, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood—if a charge is to be laid of a certain amount of aggression by the Chinese Government in Tibet and over the border—what is the answer of the Kuomintang? What is the situation in relation to those who take the Chinese Nationalist views of Chiang Kai-shek's Party, as compared with the Chinese Communists? Because it seems to me, at any rate, that there have been as many expressions about different parts of the world on behalf of that section of Chinese opinion which I should regard as just as aggressive as those from the Communist Government.
LORD BIRDWOOD: If I may speak perfectly objectively, my knowledge of the situation would be this: that the Chang Kai-shek Government and the Pekin Government have on the broad principle of Chinese suzerainty agreed—that they both take the same attitude in regard to Chinese suzerainty over Tibet. Where they part is that the Chiang Kai-shek Government would never accept what the Communists did in 1956—indeed they are perfectly prepared to subscribe to the whole concept of genocide on a very large scale being perpetrated by the Chinese Communists in Tibet.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am quite sure that Lord Birdwood believes that that is their attitude. It may well be that that is the attitude which has been expressed by some of their leaders. But the evidence seems to be that expressions of opinion from that section of the great Chinese nation have been regarded, certainly in India, as as much backed by a spirit of aggression as some of the aspects of the Chinese Communists.
492
I am most anxious that this matter should be handled in a peaceful way. It would be quite fatal that this incident should work up to a situation in which we came to a really widespread conflict. I hope that a settlement can be obtained, first of all between Mr. Nehru and the Chinese Communist Government. But also I think that any agreement which is likely to be made should be something which commends itself as a whole to the United Nations Organisation. It is a great pity that we have to face a situation in which the largest part of the Chinese people in the world are represented by a Chinese Communist Government in their own country but are refused admission to the United Nations Organisation. I feel that the British Government ought to take all active steps towards changing the falsity of the present position in the United Nations Organisation whereby a representative of a minority of the Chinese people sits in the United Nations Organisation as being truly representative of the Chinese people. There are countries which have recognised the Chinese Communist Government de facto. There are others who have recognised them, as we have long since in this country. If that is so, it seems to me that we ought to be lending all our weight to seeing that they are properly represented in the United Nations Organisation.
In the meantime, I think that it ought to go forth, from Parliament and from the Government, to the Chinese Communist Government that we do not view with any calmness or equanimity the extent to which this aggression has taken place. We should let them know our feeling that if they are anxious, in view of the great dangers which face the world, to secure an international basis of agreement for peace, that they would do well to retreat to some extent from the position they have taken up, and if possible, as a first step, come to a real and lasting agreement with Mr. Nehru. I think that that would perhaps lead to a change in the situation in Tibet. It would ease the situation there very much. Nobody seeks peace more genuinely than does Mr. Nehru in India; and I think that China should be told quite firmly that we are behind the people of India in their resistance to any further territorial aggression by the Chinese Communist Government in India.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SINHA: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission may I intervene for just a few moments? I had not intended to speak, but I have great pleasure in supporting Lord Birdwood's Motion, which might well have been introduced much earlier. I was greatly shocked to hear the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, suggest that there was a social revolution going on. I do not think that for a moment. Events there have proved that it was sheer military aggression—there is no doubt about that. I think that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he does not follow Lord Chorley to that extent; and I would suggest also that the noble Viscount's proposal that China should be brought into the picture is a most reasonable one. If we want to have real peace in the world, we cannot leave China out of the picture. With those few words I support the Motion.
6.35 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like with your Lordships' permission, to say two or three words. First of all, I apologise for having been detained by circumstances with which we are all only too familiar, and over which none of us, alas!, appears to have any control at all. I was therefore unable to get to the House as early as I hoped and expected. Whilst not following my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough in any detail, I should like to support what he has said in relation to the situation on the Sino-Indian frontier. What surely comes out from this is how profoundly and immensely undesirable is the present position, in which China is not represented at U.N.O. and where, therefore, the differences between the Member States cannot be discussed and solved. This is another example of the really appalling unreality of the situation in which the largest single political unit in the world is treated as non-existent so far as the United Nations Organisation is concerned.
I speak now at this rather late hour in your Lordships' House, not because I have any particular authority, but because I am perhaps one of the few Members of your Lordships' House who has had the privilege of visiting Tibet and also China. Largely as a result of
494
that visit, I find myself entirely in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said. There has been a discussion about the suzerainty of China over Tibet. Frankly, that is something which has been recognised by all States in their relations with China since the end of the eighteenth century, and I do not think it is helpful to discuss it any further. Nevertheless, I believe that all of us are bound to express most emphatically our views on anything which occurs anywhere in the world, whether it be in South Africa or in Tibet or anywhere else. If we believe that what is occurring is contrary to natural justice and to humanitarian principles, then we must speak out and bring all the spiritual weight that we can to bear against such practices. But on the other hand, if, as I am satisfied one must do, one has to recognise that China has had, during all the time which we have had diplomatic relations with China, sovereign power over Tibet, then of course it is perfectly ridiculous to talk about an invading Chinese Army.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord was here when I made my speech. I did point out that our recognition of Tibet's autonomy was in conflict with China, in that we said we could accept Chinese suzerainty, not sovereignty, over Tibet only on condition that China recognised Tibet's autonomy. The Treaty that spelled all that out the Chinese never signed. Therefore, the position remains one in which China claimed Tibet as part of China, and we just did not recognise that.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I am sorry but I disagree with the noble Lord. The fact is that we did recognise, and always have recognised, this in practice. Moreover, if I may, I would go rather further than that. In so far as I am speaking to-day at all, I am speaking largely because I have a small amount of experience which most of your Lordships do not possess. When I was in Tibet there was one thing which was perfectly certain. It may be that in other respects I am out of date, but one thing is perfectly certain: it was quite clear at that time that the residual seat of power in Tibet was in the hands of the Chinese agents there. There was no question

495
about that. Nobody questioned it for a moment. Indeed, other Europeans told one so and one was able to see it.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord say to which year he is referring?
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, this would be about 1932, so I do not claim that it is up to date. But certainly at that period there was no doubt that residual power lay in the hands of Chinese representatives in Tibet. They did not exercise that power in a very extensive or lively way. I might compare it to the exercise of power by a British Resident in an Indian Native State at about the same period; that is to say, they kept general overall control and brought their influence to bear when they thought Chinese interests were affected.
One thing which is absolutely certain to me, however, is that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley is perfectly right when he says there has been a social revolution in Tibet. This may have come to fruition thanks to Chinese influence, and in my view Chinese influence in Tibet has been reinforced in recent years very largely by Chinese fear of American aggression. None of us thinks of American diplomacy as being aggressive, but I ask your Lordships to try for a moment to place yourselves in the position of the Chinese Government. It seems to me inevitable that at the present time the Chinese should be profoundly anxious and fearful of what the American Government intend to do. The support given to the ridiculous little "Rump Government" in Taiwan and the attitude of the Americans on the offshore islands—Quemoy and others—seem to me to be translatable only too easily into a form of aggression.
When I was in China last year one thing the Chinese asked me about again and again was my view of the position of the Americans vis-à -vis the territories surrounding China. I was asked whether I thought that the criticism of American policy which had made itself heard in some of those States meant that they would therefore be more friendly to China, and so on. Those were questions which were put to me all the time when I was in China, and I have no doubt at all that, however unreal those fears may appear to us, they are extremely real
496
to the Chinese and are the basic reason why the Chinese have taken a closer interest in Tibet, where they fear that an American penetration might take place to their own immense disadvantage. To all of us who know our American friends so much better, all this may seem wholly unrealistic. Nevertheless, I assure your Lordships that these fears do exist and I believe they are largely responsible for China's increased interest in Tibet.
Undoubtedly the Chinese Government wanted and tried to administer Tibet under a system which I believe we should all recognise as one of indirect rule. In 1951 they made an agreement with the Tibetan Government by which they were to be autonomous—which is the usual arrangement where another people is concerned within Chinese frontiers; and certain reforms were to be carried out under a protocol which has been referred to as the Seventeen Heads. I believe that this arrangement was agreed to and would have been carried out by the Dalai Lama himself, and it is profoundly regrettable that he and the Chinese were not successful in doing so. He has admitted the authenticity of certain letters which have been published between himself and Commander Tung in Lhasa. Unless the Dalai Lama is to be held to have grossly bad taste (which I do not think he has) those letters can bear the implication only that the Dalai Lama was perfectly prepared to try to carry out the measures which the Chinese believed to be necessary.
I would have your Lordships understand that those measures were dealing with such things as serfdom, and even slavery. Those are conditions which no civilised Power would accept. Your Lordships will remember that when we first arived in India we found there were certain local practices—such as suttee— which were too much for us, and we declared that they must be abolished. On the other hand, we condoned and allowed the continuation of practices which to some of us are hardly less desirable. The Indians themselves have reformed their practices in certain other respects, and perhaps that is the best way for that to be done. In Tibet, the Chinese Government laid down certain procedures and standards which they believed ought to obtain there; and they obtained (and I say "obtained" advisedly) the co-operation of the Dalai Lama in order to bring in those reforms.

497
It seems to me that the only explanation of what occurred was that the Dalai Lama, though perhaps not physically carried off or abducted by his entourage, which naturally consisted very largely of the land-owning and feudal beneficiaries of the old Tibetan State, none the less may well have been in sympathy with them; though on the contrary it seemed to me that he showed quite an enlightened spirit in the terms on which he was prepared to co-operate with the Chinese. But I believe that he was overborne by his entourage, who carried him off to India, more or less willingly, and caused the outbreak of civil war in Tibet.
I have absolutely no doubt at all that the conditions of the vast majority of the Tibetans have been vastly improved by this Chinese incursion into their affairs. I do not think that that is at all open to question on the evidence of conditions as they were, and knowing what, in fact, the Chinese are now doing. That it has had to be done in that way is unfortunate, but it was brought about, I believe, by the rebellion of interested persons who had an interest in the maintenance of the old and—I say frankly and openly—bad ways in Tibet, the really bad ways, ways of which none of your Lordships could possibly approve.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I must just correct the noble Lord on one point. He has said that the Dalai Lama was carried off by his entourage. At a Press Conference in India on June 20 last year, he was asked the question: "What made you finally decide to leave Lhasa?" and he said:
"On March 17 at 4 p.m. two mortar shells were fired towards my residence as evidence of Chinese intention to use military force, and although I have endeavoured to keep up friendly relations with them for the past nine years my hopes of rendering any service in the interests of my people by remaining in Tibet were finally shattered. Therefore I and my Government had to leave for India secretly at 10 p.m. on March 17 with a view to rendering more beneficial service to my people."
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I have, of course, seen that statement. I think that perhaps the Dalai Lama is not in a position where he can now make statements which would be too much at variance with the views of those who are with him and around him. So I say, with great respect, that I consider that the statement which has just
498
been read is not necessarily the whole of the truth. But undoubtedly he went with this Government, and it is just exactly that Government that I am criticising, in that they belonged to the old feudatory families and with people interested in the maintenance of a truly shocking state of affairs. I therefore believe that we should not regard this as something imposed on Tibet.
I believe, on the contrary, that the Chinese will have had the support of the majority of the Tibetan people, who now for the first time are probably being allowed to manage their own affairs and to enjoy the fruits of their own labour, which in the past they were not, as was perfectly clear even to a superficial observer like myself at the time I was there. I admit that my visit is now a long time in the past, and I may well be out of date. On the other hand, things do not move very quickly in Tibet, and I should be surprised—in fact, I know I am not wrong in believing this—if things had changed fundamentally. Change was immensely necessary. Therefore, I suggest that we should not allow our very natural feelings of sympathy for people who have found it necessary to flee from their homes to overweigh the situation.
As to the people who have fled, the refugees who have fled to India, I have some little experience of working with refugees, and I sincerely hope that these Tibetan refugees may receive the best possible treatment that foreign Powers can give. I am delighted to hear that the Australian Government has apparently donated generously to the fund for their assistance, and I hope they will receive all help and comfort in this respect. The reception, the care and re-distribution of refugees is a moral duty on the modern world where these things can happen for reasons with which we may not all necessarily agree. I do not myself find it necessary to have political sympathies with refugees in order to have humanitarian sympathy. So, although I believe that the refugees from Tibet are those Tibetans who had exploited their fellows in Tibet, and therefore had to leave, I hope they will, none the less, receive the greatest possible help and assistance in their present sad predicament.
But, my Lords, I believe that in the end it will be found that a new and

499
better Tibet will emerge from the present unhappy situation—is, indeed, probably at this very date emerging. The figures of Tibetan production have increased quite appreciably in the last few years. It may be that they are not wholly acceptable, but I think it is to be expected that a people who have been freed, and given control and use of their own land, will probably be more productive than one which is in a state of serfdom and is working for the great manorial landlords. I apologise to your Lordships for arriving late this afternoon, and I appreciate that what experience I have of Tibet is now rather out of date. But I believe that probably there has been so little change that what I have been able to say to your Lordships is as true now as it was when I was there. We should not allow ourselves to be carried away by propaganda—and I think it has been propaganda to a very large extent—aimed at denigrating the Chinese Government and giving support to a Government which none of your Lordships on any side of this House could possibly, if he knew its nature, really approve of or support.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I wonder whether if, before the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, replies he will allow me just to refute this picture of the noble Lord who has just sat down of the coming paradise for Tibet. The Statesman of India is about as reliable a newspaper as there is in India to-day, and I am going to read him an account which has been written in it by an Indian who came out of Tibet quite recently. It says:
"On December 24, while most of the world was preparing to celebrate Christmas, a group of Tibetan lamas were being flogged in the streets of Yatung. … I was horrified. I felt sick."
He goes on to say:
"Lamas who refused to toe the Party line are subjected to the grossest indecencies, torture and public floggings such as the Indian saw on Christmas Eve in Yatung.
These public floggings are diabolically designed to heap fear and humiliation on a broken people rather than only to punish a few. In the case of Tibetan officials and landlords the floggings are administered by their servants and serfs. There can be no question of reluctance on the part of the executors; their own lives would be forfeit.
Several cases are known of Tibetan officials … being flogged and stoned to death. A
500
fortunate few have managed to forestall humiliation by suicide; others have been mercifully killed by devoted servants."
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, the noble Lord will of course be aware that that comes from a highly prejudiced source—
LORD BIRDWOOD: It comes from India.
LORD FARINGDON: —because all the external trade of Tibet used to be in Indian hands.
6.57 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as my right honourable friend has more than once stated, and I have, too, in your Lordships' House, Her Majesty's Government have been profoundly shocked by the reports that have been received of events in Tibet. The British people have perhaps been particularly distressed because of the long, the close and friendly relationships which have existed between the United Kingdom and Tibet, and also because of our high respect for the Dalai Lama. As my right honourable friend said in September of last year—and I hope that, with very few exceptions, my right honourable friend was expressing the opinion of the average British person when he said it:
"We have been greatly grieved to hear of massive repression by Communist China, of the suppression of national liberties and ruthless assaults upon the historic life of a sturdy and friendly people."
The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, chooses to describe this as the closer interest in Tibet of China. I myself, quite recently, met some of these people on a mountain track above Katmandu. They were a little group of fugitives from Lhasa, 400 miles away on the other side of the heights of the Himalayas. They were simple people, as I saw it, who were honest, straightforward people. So they were described to me by the interpreter with me, and I think that even the noble Lords, Lord Faringdon and Lord Chorley, could hardly have failed to be affected by the anxious inquiries of these men and women immediately on meeting us as to the whereabouts of their spiritual leader.
The reports of brutal repression in Tibet, the ruthless destruction of the fabric of an ancient civilisation by Chinese military might, this dreadful

501
human tragedy that has been enacted in the name of progress—these matters are surely of the gravest concern to all. It was for this reason that Her Majesty's Government thought it right that the United Nations should be given the opportunity to take cognizance of what has happened in Tibet. It was for this reason that we supported the inscription on the agenda of an item on the question of Tibet.
I know full well that the noble Lord the mover of this Motion decided to initiate this debate only after the most careful consideration; and I should like, in all humility, to commend him for his careful and moderate words. But I must make it perfectly clear, my Lords, that Her Majesty's Government have no reason to reconsider their approach to this tragic problem. Nor, in my opinion, has anything been said during the debate this afternoon to persuade me that the attitude of the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations should have been modified. We were glad to see that the Assembly, by a substantial majority, decided to inscribe the question of Tibet on its agenda, but we had carefully to consider how the Assembly should then proceed. It was our hope that, in the expression of our concern and that of other Governments, some influence might be brought to bear upon the Government of Communist China. Had there been no resolution, this expression of horror of the Members of the United Nations Assembly would still have been heard all over the world. We could not, however, support a resolution which dealt with human rights in a particular territory and which, moreover, rested on a juridical assumption about the status of Tibet a bout which there are contradictory interpretations.
Now the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has very fairly stated the great difficulties that are involved in the handling of questions of human rights. It is certainly my view that if the United Nations were allowed on any and every occasion to interfere in the domestic affairs of any State, the United Nations could never have existed at all. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has said about the risks of becoming a prisoner of the law, I am quite sure that he will be the first to agree that rules are not made to be broken.
502
The noble Viscount, Lord Furness, and, I am glad to say, the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, referred to the plight of the Tibetan refugees. Indeed, my Lords, we are all aware of the needs of these refugees; and I am thankful to be able to tell your Lordships that, due to the efforts of the Government of India, we understand that they are not at present short either of food or of shelter, as unfortunately is the case of other refugees in other parts of the world. None the less, I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, that Her Majesty's Government will watch the situation with the most sympathetic eye.
I am sure that we were all deeply grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for his timely intervention—an intervention which, if I may be allowed to say so, showed the deep humanity that I know is his. The noble Viscount referred in the course of his remarks to the absence of China from the United Nations. My Lords, we have often talked about this matter in your Lordships' House, and the noble Viscount is well aware, I think, that it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that, in view of the very deep division of opinion in the United Nations on the subject of Chinese representation, it would not be in the best interests of that organisation to press this issue, although I fully appreciate what the noble Viscount is driving at.
I have said that it is claimed that the action in Tibet was taken in the name of progress—progress as the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will see it. It is possible that some may concede that change was necessary, and even inevitable: but I am sure that, if we think and consider carefully, none of us can accept that change should be imposed by military might, by the infliction of deep human suffering, and with a complete disregard for the traditions and beliefs of a deeply religious people.
LORD FARINGDON: Has the noble Lord really any evidence of that?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not give way. I am sure that we were all grateful for the forthright and practical speech of the noble Lord, Lord Spens. Both he and the noble Viscount

503
the Leader of the Opposition warned us, quietly and without emotion, of the dangers that may lie in Communist China, and I am certain that those who have been present during this debate, and those who read the OFFICIAL REPORT of it to-morrow, will take note of those warnings.
7.7 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Marquess for the very sympathetic hearing which he has given to our views. On the juridical question, I am perhaps slightly disappointed in one respect. The noble Marquess referred to the fact that, of course, rules are not there to be broken; but, in the speech of our representative at the United Nations, as I see it, he inferred that we were in doubt whether there was a rule or not. He said:
"… while not taking up any definite or final position on the matter …"
That is why I was still hoping that, perhaps, those views might yet be considered. Otherwise, I am extremely grateful for the support which he has given to the general concept of meeting in some way, and condemning, the terrible things that have happened in Tibet.
I would draw the attention of the noble Lords, Lord Faringdon and Lord Chorley, to the Report of the International Commission of Jurists—a Report of 208 pages in which a very prominent and distinguished Indian lawyer, Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas, took a very large part. He was, in fact, instrumental in initiating this Report. That Indian lawyer was not of a type who would have been unsympathetic to China. On the contrary, he spent some five years,
504
I think, in prison under the old British régime in India. At one time he was private secretary to Mahatma Gandhi. My Lords, this Report is a complete and utter refutation of practically everything that the noble Lords opposite have presented as being the conditions in Tibet.
Finally, I should like to thank all your Lordships who have taken part in this debate. It has been extremely interesting and, I hope, useful. I should also like to thank those of your Lordships who have not taken part in the debate for waiting Ito the end to hear this issue out. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
SAINT MARTIN'S PARISH CHURCH BIRMINGHAM BILL
Reported, without amendment.
SAINT PETER'S CHURCH NOTTINGHAM (BROAD MARSH BURIAL GROUND) BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

CANTERBURY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.