Sitting of 26 June 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Professional Footballers
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour how many times the representatives of Association football have had meetings with his Chief Conciliation Officer during the last two years; on how many occasions agreement was reached; and why a final settlement has not yet been arrived at.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): There have been ten joint meetings and several preparatory meetings held separately with each side. An
    2
    agreement was reached on 18th January, and the terms of this agreement were clarified at a further joint meeting on 16th May. No final settlement has been reached because the annual general meeting of the Football League on 3rd June decided not to implement the agreement in full.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Does not the Minister agree that the players have been honourable and reasonable in their dealings? Is he aware that they now urgently and sincerely desire a settlement, and that they appreciate the services of his officers, especially the Chief Conciliation Officer? Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider the need to set up a representative industrial council, and will he consider inviting someone like Lord Monckton or Lord Citrine to preside over such a council?
    Mr. Hare: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about my officers. As he knows, we have tried our best to get a settlement. I do not know whether he is aware that the Professional Footballers' Association are meeting on 28th June to consider a letter from the Football League which was sent on the 5th. Until that meeting takes place, I would rather not make any further comment.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Is the Minister aware that we all hope that good will come from the journey he is about to make, but that it will take him away from this country; so will he have a good talk to his Parliamentary Secretary so that he will act in the same way as the Minister?
    Mr. Hare: I will certainly carry out the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Labour if he will arrange for an inquiry to be made into the relation. ships which exist in Association football, and into the long drawn out differences resulting in the dispute in which his conciliation officer was concerned; and if he will publish the results of this inquiry so that a settlement may be reached acceptable to all interests.
    Mr. Hare: I would not wish to rule out the possibility of a settlement being reached by negotiation between the parties and, in these circumstances, I do not think an inquiry would be appropriate.

    Wages
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the practice of many industrial firms in keeping a week's wages in hand imposes unnecessary hardship on men how, having been out of work, take up employment with such firms, that many such firms refuse to make advances to employees in respect of the payment of wages due to them, and that in consequence many men have to seek help from the National Assistance Board; and if he will consult with employers on this matter with a view to introducing legislation to protect workmen against such hardship.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): This problem was discussed with representatives of employers and trade unions on my right hon. Friend's National Joint Advisory Council in 1952, and the British Employers' Confederation took steps to bring it to the attention of employers. Subsequently there was a marked drop in the number of men who had to seek help on this account from the National Assistance Board. The situation is kept under review and does not appear to call for further action at the present time. If, however, the hon. Member would like to write to me about any difficulties which are arising, I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Woof: I will take advantage of the hon. Gentleman's offer. Is he aware that this Question arises out of com-
    4
    plaints made to me following a recent statement by the Chairman of the National Assistance Board to the Magistrates' Association at Carlisle? Does he appreciate that thousands of workmen endeavour to retain their dignity, pride and honesty but on some unfortunate occasions are embarrassed by being forced to go to the National Assistance Board because of the attitude of some employers who refuse to grant their request for part of their lying-on wages? Is he aware that this creates undue hardship and a demand on public moneys? Finally, will the Parliamentary Secretary agree to worth-while consultations taking place with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in an endeavour to improve the position?
    Mr. Thomas: I said that I should be pleased to hear from the hon. Member about any cases he has in mind. I realise that the practice of holding the first week's wage and refusing to make an advance may cause hardship in certain cases and, indeed, as the hon. Member said, may cause some wasteful Government expenditure. I hope that employers who keep a week's wages in hand and do not make advances will reconsider their policy in instances where this causes hardship.
    Mr. Lee: I join the hon. Member in that last sentiment. Does he believe that it is necessary for employers to retain a week's wages in hand? I understand the old basis for it, when the office equipment was not as modern as it is today. It was then very difficult. Perhaps he will also consider putting to the N.J.A.C. the general thought that employers may care to look again at their arrangements to see whether they can cut down the number of days' pay they keep in hand.
    Mr. Thomas: This matter was considered by the N.J.A.C. and, following that, there was a request by the B.E.C. to its constituent members in 1952. After that request the number of cases was cut down considerably. Apart from the complaint of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof), there have been no complaints since then and we have no reason to believe that the improvement has not been maintained.

    Wages Inspectors
    Mr. Whitlockasked the Minister of Labour whether he will increase the number of wages inspectors.
    Mr. Hare: No, Sir. The numbers of wages inspectors employed are adequate for current needs.
    Mr. Whitlock: Is it not a fact that for some years less than 10 per cent. of the establishments on the Wages Councils lists have been inspected and that as a result of these inspections over £100,000 per year has been recovered for employees who have been underpaid? Are we not entitled to assume from those figures that about £1 million a year remains in the pockets of unscrupulous and forgetful employers which should go into the pockets of people who are covered by these orders? Is it not time that these miserably low rates of pay were effectively enforced?
    Mr. Hare: I can only repeat that I am satisfied that the present system is working. I am glad to say that in the past five years the proportion of employees found to be underpaid has fallen. I would take some action if I felt there was need for it, but I am satisfied with the present arrangements.

    Disabled Persons, Ilkeston
    Mr. Oliverasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the high percentage of registered disabled persons unemployed in Ilkeston, Heanor, Ripley and Alfreton; and what steps are being taken to enlarge the field of employment in useful and remunerative work.
    Mr. P. Thomas: The rate of unemployment among registered disabled persons in these areas is lower than the rate among registered disabled persons in Great Britain as a whole. Our disablement resettlement officers take every opportunity of finding suitable openings for the disabled.
    Mr. Oliver: I am glad to know that the percentage is lower in this area than in others, but it is quite high. The point which arises out of the Question is that the prospect for men out of work, in a district where industry is predominantly heavy, is remote. Those out of work have a very remote chance of finding employment unless there is some
    6
    enlargement of the field of work in which they can be employed, such as Remploy and similar occupations.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will come to the question.
    Mr. Oliver: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I was waiting for some interrogatory matter.
    Mr. Oliver: Surely it was a natural sequence to the Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: It is not the time to make speeches but the time to ask Questions. I have to go on about it in order to keep the House on the move.
    Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. and learned Member that, in the main, the jobs in the area are heavy and, as such are unsuitable for disabled persons, but I am glad to say that about 400 additional jobs are expected to accrue in these areas, and the disablement re-settlement officers will see that disabled people benefit when these openings occur.

    North-East
    Mr. Greyasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the failure of the Local Employment Act to stop the shift of population from the North-East, what other measures he will adopt to stop this trend.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the Census Report which reveals considerable migration from the North-East during the past 10 years; and what action he proposes to deal with the problems involved.
    Mr. Ainsleyasked the Minister of Labour what remedial plans he has in mind to stop the migration from the North-East to other parts of the country.
    Mr. Hare: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 12th June, through their distribution of industry policy the Government are encouraging firms to develop in parts of the country where unemployment is relatively high and discouraging developments in already congested areas. Changes in the geographical distribution

    7
    of the country's labour force are, however, bound to occur in an expanding economy.
    Mr. Grey: I have read that reply, which means nothing. Is the Minister aware the continual migration from the North-East is having a disastrous effect on the area? Is he aware that during the last ten years half of those who have left have been under the age of 35? Is this not most undesirable, because not only is the North-East losing population but it is left with an unbalanced age population? Will he tell the House what steps he is taking to stop industry going into the already congested areas and to direct such industries to the North-East?
    Mr. Hare: As I indicated, a good deal is being done.
    Mr. Grey: What?
    Mr. Hare: May I try to answer the hon. Gentleman? There are 21,000 jobs in prospect in the North-East, and 10,000 of these are in development districts. If we look back, we see that as a result of Board of Trade assistance and so on there were about 57,000 workers in Board of Trade factories. The Government's policy is, therefore, helping to bring industry to the North-East. But I repeat that if we want economic growth we must accept a degree of labour mobility.
    Mr. Boyden: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government are doing these things, does he think that there is adequate co-operation between the different Government Departments? Would he consider convening a conference of the central Government Department and the local authorities on the problem and show some sign of coming to grips with the problem of the migration of the young from the North-East?
    Mr. Hare: I agree that there should be very close co-operation between the Government Departments and all others concerned, and I maintain that there is. It is not fair to deny that much has been done.
    Mr. Pentland: Does not the Minister agree that the Local Employment Act is expected to take account of future as
    8
    well as present unemployment? In view of the fact that this is having only a slight impression on the present unemployment position in the northeast of England, in spite of what he promised us, will he tell us how he expects to solve the long-term problem and thereby stop the drift of young people to other parts of the country looking for jobs?
    Mr. Hare: I hope the hon. Member noticed that as a result of Government policy there are 21,000 jobs in prospect in the North-East at the moment.
    Mr. Lee: Does the Minister agree that when he talks of a need for mobility of labour it should be a two-way street? In other words, the present mobility means that all are coming South. Many of my hon. Friends who represent towns throughout the North will certify that they are losing population rapidly. Will the Minister look again at the use of certification for extensions in the South in order to try to persuade those who wish to extend their businesses in the South that they will be short of labour if they do and that they will be far better served if they agreed to go to the North?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member and I have no quarrel on this. I made it clear in my Answer that we are encouraging firms to develop in parts of the country where unemployment is relatively high and are discouraging them from developing in congested areas.

    Apprenticeship and Training Schemes
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Labour whether he is ready to make a statement on the possibility of introducing a differential training levy on industry in order to stimulate apprenticeship schemes and other forms of training, following the recent visit of some of his officials to France to study the system there.
    Mr. Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a study of this whole question is being made, but I am not yet ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister likely to make that statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess? Will he bear in mind that there is a great deal of urgency in this matter, especially as

    9
    the bulge of school-leavers begins leaving school in four or five weeks' time? Even though a plan could not be in operation by then, if he made an announcement it might have a moral effect and improve the chances of those school-leavers.
    Mr. Hare: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member that assurance. These are far-reaching and important issues which will need plenty of time for consideration.

    Disabled Persons, Hillington
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Minister of Labour how many applications for training as machine operators at Hillington have been received in Aberdeen; and whether he is getting sufficient volunteers.
    Mr. P. Thomas: Since recruitment began in March there have been six applications. The number depends upon the availability of disabled persons suitable for training.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Although the employment position in Aberdeen is much better than it has been for the last four years, does not the Minister think that more could be done to encourage the disabled to join this scheme, because there are large numbers of men who could benefit from it?
    Mr. Thomas: These facilities for training are already being brought to the notice of disabled persons calling at the exchange who might benefit.

    Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total population in the Easington Parliamentary division at the census in 1951 and at the present date; and what is the number of insured workers in the area now and in 1951, respectively.
    Mr. P. Thomas: 82,170 in 1951 and 85,156 in 1961. Figures of insured employees in the Parliamentary division are not available, but in the wider area consisting of the Haswell, Houghton-le-Spring, Horden, Seaham Harbour and Wingate employment exchange areas, there were 60,784 insured employees in 1951 and 59,940 in 1960.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied with the arrangements for negotiation, conciliation and arbitration obtaining in the trades, services and professions staffed by white collar unions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hare: The arrangements vary so much in different trades, services and professions that it is not possible to express a general opinion. If the hon. Member is concerned about the arrangements in any particular sector, perhaps he would inform me. I would be pleased to consider any points he cares to raise.
    Mr. Lee: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that we are now seeing a new phenomenon in the rise of white collar unions and an improvement in the industries and the professions in which they are engaged? We now see in banking, insurance and professions of that type—and now in the teaching profession—that these unions are not content to have to go on with the old struggle which the manual unions had 100 years ago. Would it not be far better if the Ministry, with the N.J.C., considered how to short-circuit this to eliminate any dangers there may be of industrial unrest among these organisations?
    Mr. Hare: The hon. Member will remember that we had a very useful debate on this subject on 17th March. I have not much to add to what my hon. Friend said then, except to say that I have had some discussions with interested parties.

    Betting Industry (Apprenticeships)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour if he will describe the nature of the apprenticeship scheme operated by the betting industry, giving the length of time required to be served, the qualifications demanded, and the percentage of apprentices in the industry at present enrolled in the appropriate day release classes.
    Mr. P. Thomas: There is no apprenticeship schema for the betting industry as such. Figures recently published by the Department showed

    11
    sixteen boys and five girls entering apprenticeships or learnerships in the industry in 1960. Of these, two boys entered the industry as apprentices in engineering and printing occupations; one boy and four girls entered the industry as clerks, not as apprentices; eleven boys and one girl entering apprenticeships in other industries were wrongly classified as entering the betting industry and two cases cannot be traced. I apologise for these errors, which are partly due to changes in the industrial coding.
    Mr. Lawson: The published figures from which the information has been taken show there were more apprentices this year than ever before. Are not these figures exceedingly unreliable? Will the Minister look much more closely into the question of how the figures are arranged and obtained so that we can get some reliable information about the number of apprentices in industry?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not think the Answer I gave shows that the figures as a whole are unreliable. My inquiries have shown that the mistakes are mainly due to the recent introduction of the betting industry under a separate heading in the statistics, which apparently has led to some confusion between the new heading and previously existing headings. A new procedure which is to come into operation next month has as one of its objectives to reduce the possibility of such errors.

    Factory, Camborne (Closure)
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Labour what success he has had in finding other jobs for workers displaced by the decision of Imperial Chemical Industries to close its factory at Camborne, Cornwall; and how many of these jobs were outside the county.
    Mr. P. Thomas: Since the decision to close the factory was announced, two men and twenty-nine women have been discharged. Both men and eighteen women registered at the employment exchange. Of these, one man is still unemployed. The remainder secured employment locally. The factory will finally close at the end of July, and, in agreement with the firm, the employment exchange has taken advance regis-
    12
    trations for forty-two men and ninety-one women seeking other employment.
    Mr. Hayman: I find it rather difficult to understand the figures, because four years ago there were 500 workers in this factory? Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can, using whatever influence he may possess, to persuade I.C.I. to run another industry in my constituency instead of leaving us entirely in the lurch?
    Mr. Thomas: It is true that the labour force was originally 500. It has been reduced, but the reduction has been mainly due to retirements and resignations. Only 31 people have been discharged. As to the employment situation, I understand from the President of the Board of Trade that there are 500 jobs in prospect in the Camborne-Redruth area.
    Mr. Hayman: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the employees have decided not to take up other work? A considerable number of married women were concerned.
    Mr. Thomas: I cannot give the exact figure, but 67 of the 200 employees affected did not accept the offer of interview by our employment exchanges. It may well be that they will leave the employment field.

    Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959
    Mr. Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959, is not providing satisfactory arbitration procedure; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Hare: I have had representations made to me on various points, but I think that during the short period the Act has been in operation it has been fulfilling the purpose for which it was intended. I have no action in mind at the present time.
    Mr. Lee: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that N.A.L.G.O. is experiencing great difficulty with certain local authorities which will not honour agreements? Does he realise that when the Industrial Disputes Tribunal went out of being it left a gap, as some of us on this side of the House said at the

    13
    time it would? If we cannot have some form of arbitration to take the place of the Tribunal, we may well see unrest because of the lack of facilities for the unions to go to arbitration.
    Mr. Hare: I understand what the hon. Member has in mind, but I think we need more experience of the existing legislation before we think about possible revision.

    Wages and Productivity
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in percentage of negotiated hourly wage costs in 1960; what was the average increase over the whole period since 1957 to the latest convenient date; and how this compares with productivity growth during this period.
    Mr. Hare: In the manufacturing industries, hourly wage rates rose by 7·9 per cent. in 1960 and at the end of March 1961 were 21·8 per cent. higher than at 1st January, 1957. Output a head in these industries decreased by about 1 per cent. in 1960 and in the first quarter of 1961 was about 10 per cent. higher than in the first quarter of 1957.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Would my right hon. Friend agree that these figures are most disturbing in view of the lack of increase in productivity? Has he read the Report of the O.E.E.C., published in May, 1961? What is he doing to meet some of the main criticisms which say that institutional arrangements in a number of industries are antiquated, there is weakness in central bodies on both sides of industry, and arbiters have no definite norm to take as a guide when making awards? Is he aware that this Report is most disturbing and that we hope he is not going to be mesmerised by the problems of the Common Market but will get down to tackling these labour problems, which are the core and pith of all the problems in this country today?
    Mr. Hare: I assure my hon. Friend that, apart from a short visit abroad, I shall concentrate all my efforts on the matters of which he has been talking. As he knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made cleat on a number of occasions—and rein-
    14
    forced only last week—the real dangers which inflation could bring to this country.

    School Leavers, South-West Durham
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Labour, in view of anxiety regarding juvenile employment this year in southwest Durham, if he will institute, through his divisional offices, an inquiry regarding new vacancies for apprentice training to assist in meeting the employment situation of school leavers this year.
    Mr. P. Thomas: No, Sir. I do not think a special inquiry of the kind suggested is necessary. The Youth Employment Service is keeping the position under constant review.
    Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the east Durham area has been seriously affected over the last few years in the matter of employment and the apprenticeship of young people leaving school? Is he further aware—as he has said that his juvenile officers are looking into this matter—that the time has arrived, in view of the seriousness of the position, for his Department, with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Education, to enter into conversations about the employment of young people who will be leaving school at the end of this term?
    Mr. Thomas: I appreciate the employment difficulties in south-west Durham, but the present indications are that there has been an improvement. In addition, the percentage of boys entering apprenticeships is higher there than in the country as a whole. In 1960, in the Northern Region it was 40·1 per cent. compared with 36 per cent. for the whole country.
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers have been placed in apprenticeship schemes during the last 12 months in south-west Durham; how these figures compare with those for the rest of the county; and what proposals he has to meet the demand for juvenile employment at the close of the summer term this year.
    Mr. P. Thomas: Figures for the last twelve months are not available, but reports indicate that the percentage of boys obtaining apprenticeships in southwest Durham is higher than in the

    15
    country as a whole. The Youth Employment Service will do all it can to help summer school leavers find employment.
    Mr. Slater: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, unless employment can be found for these young people on leaving school, it will have serious effects upon the whole area? It is all very well for him to say that the percentage of boys obtaining apprenticeships in this area is much higher than in any other part of the country. I concede that that is correct in the eastern part of the country, but it is not correct in the south Durham area. Is he aware that the parents are very concerned? All they ask is that the same privileges and opportunities should be granted to their children as are given to children in other parts of the country?
    Mr. Thomas: The employment prospects for girls in the area are satisfactory. While I agree that the outlook for boys is less favourable than that for girls, it has greatly improved over the last year, and the rapid absorption of the Easter school leavers is very encouraging. On 12th June, out of 571 Easter school leavers four boys were left. The area is a development district under the Local Employment Act, and I am glad to say that there are now 1,600 jobs in prospect.
    Mr. Boyden: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these figures are very patchy, because that 40 per cent. includes a number of boys and girls who are travelling enormous distances from places like Middleton-in-Teesdale and Barnard Castle? The position is certainly not as rosy as he makes out.
    Mr. Thomas: I am giving the general figure. I agree that in certain areas there could be considerable improvement.

    Angola
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour what action has been taken by the International Labour Office arising from Ghana's complaint of the use of slave labour in Angola.
    Mr. Hare: The I.L.O. has set up a Commission to examine the complaint made by the Government of Ghana that the Government of Portugal are not observing the Abolition of Forced
    16
    Labour Convention in Angola and Mozambique.
    Mr. Brockway: Has the Minister seen the reports by Baptist missionaries and others of how thousands of Africans over a period of years have been kidnapped from their villages for forced labour, not only in the public service, but on sugar, sisal and other private plantations? Can he give us an assurance that the Government representative on the Council of the I.L.O. voted in favour of this investigation?
    Mr. Hare: Both parties were agreeable to setting up the Commission, and no vote was taken at the time.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Without asking the Government to interfere in the internal affairs of any country, may I ask my right hon. Friend if it is not the case that there are Arab, African and Communist member States of the I.L.O. and U.N.O. where slavery, the slave trade and forced labour are long-established institutions.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister confirm that this country has ratified the I.L.O. Convention against forced labour? In view of that, will he give the House an assurance that the United Kingdom delegate will continue to vote for the most stringent degree of investigation in this case and that the British attitude will not be in any way confused or ambiguous, as our attitude has been on other issues affecting Angola?
    Mr. Hare: The whole point is that the I.L.O. has agreed to set up a Commission. The Commission has been constituted. It hopes to have a report ready for the November meeting of the governing body of the I.L.O. The Commission is there to do its job, and until the report is available we do not want to ask too many hypothetical questions.

    National Service (Call-up)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Labour how many men are still liable to call-up for National Service, and in what ages or categories.
    Mr. Hare: All British male subjects resident in Great Britain born before 1st January, 1941, and under 26 years of age are still liable under the National Service Acts, unless they have already

    17
    served. They number about a million, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman of my reply on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) on 18th November last year.
    Mr. Lipton: Does this mean that about 1 million men are still liable for call-up under the National Service Acts? As men not issued with enlistment notices before 17th November last are not to be called up, has not the time come to tidy up the whole of this business with the least possible delay, because this means that quite a number of people still do not know what their position is likely to be?
    Mr. Hare: I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should repeal the National Service Acts, but these Acts cover men at present serving.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it really right that there are 1 million men liable to call-up? Is there any ambiguity as to their status and risk of call-up in the circumstances?
    Mr. Hare: The figures are as I have just given the House.
    Mr. Lipton: This is an alarming statement. Most members of the general public do not realise that this is the case. Can the Minister split up the figures or give us some further information, because his reply is most disconcerting?
    Mr. Hare: Yes, I will certainly undertake to do that.

    Smith's Motor Accessories (Strike)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about the strike at Smith's Motor Accessories of Cricklewood.
    Mr. Hare: This is an unofficial strike in support of a claim for higher wages. The procedure of the engineering industry for dealing with disputes has not been exhausted and the unions mainly concerned have instructed their members to return to work so that their claim may be dealt with through the procedure. I have asked the unions to take urgent steps to secure an early resumption of work and I very much hope their efforts will be successful. It is most
    18
    regrettable that a group of workers should take unofficial and unconstitutional action contraary to their own unions' instructions, most especially when this action throws thousands of their fellow workers out of employment, damages the good name of the trade union movement, and weakens a great industry which is vital to the prosperity of this country.
    Mr. Skeet: The Minister seems to have conceded two points. First, the strike is causing disproportionate injury to industry elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am coming to the question. The second point is that the strike is unofficial. What security have the public, workers in industry generally, and also the export drive in such a situation as this, or do we have to say that this is one of the irreconcilable problems of democracy?
    Mr. Hare: I think that my hon. Friend has had a very clear expression of my feeling, which I think is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I earnestly hope that as we get better understanding on these matters between both sides of industry incidents of this sort will not arise and, therefore, will not have the consequences to which I have just pointed.
    Mr. Lindsay: I acknowledge the outstanding efforts my right hon. Friend is making to bring about better relations in this industry. May I ask him if he has seen the statement by prominent trade union leaders that there is a connection between this stoppage and the one at Lucas's—the connection being a subversive movement with headquarters overseas? Will he get in touch with these trade union leaders to see if he can give them any assistance in their admirable intention of making this fact widely known?
    Mr. Hare: I have seen the newspaper reports to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I have no clear information on the subject. I think that there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of the strikers. When there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of strikers, it always lends itself to subversive influence.
    Mr. Lee: Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House join with him in hoping that the strikers will take

    19
    note of the advice given by the trade union leaders and return to work? Is he aware also that there is still only one nation in the world with a better strike record than the United Kingdom? Will the Minister inquire into this case and find out if it is a fact that the workers concerned cannot get access to higher management? In many industries which are now enlarging, when there is a large firm with a number of ancillaries, the workshop machinery for negotiating cannot function because the employers will not give proper powers of decision to people other than the higher management itself.
    Mr. Hare: I agree with what the hon. Member said in the first part of his supplementary question, and I will certainly take note of what he said at the end.

    Scotland
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Labour if he will state how the percentage rate of unemployment for Scotland now compares with that for Great Britain; what are the numbers involved; and how remedial schemes are progressing in Scotland.
    Mr. Hare: At 12th June 2·8 per cent., 59,766. in Scotland and 1·2 per cent., 266,705, in Great Britain. There are about 31,000 jobs in prospect in Scotland, including 27,000 in the development districts.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures, bad as they are, conceal a position which in parts is even worse than the figures he has given? Is he aware that in my division more and more men are being paid off from shipbuilding every week? More are being paid off now than a year ago. When will some of the many jobs concealed in the "pipelines" be released to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. Hare: As I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, although there has been some contraction in that industry, things in Scotland are better on the whole, and I think that the Government deserve considerable credit for playing their part in getting extra diversification. There are such things as the new strip mill at Ravenscraig and the Bathgate project for the British Motor Corporation. All these things are maturing and will in
    20
    time produce the extra jobs. Even so, what has already been achieved has produced this large number of extra jobs, which means, I am glad to say, that the unemployment figure in Scotland is lower than it has been for four years.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does that reply mean that we can be optimistic and confident about the future of the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde?
    Mr. Hare: I do not say anything of the kind. I said that as a result of the many measures put forward by the Government there was a greater diversification, which means that people have more choice of jobs in different types of industry than has ever before been the case in Scotland.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Manuelasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to make a forecast of the number of extra apprenticeships likely to be available to school leavers in Scotland this year.
    Mr. Hare: No, Sir. It is not possible to make any precise forecast, but reports reaching me give welcome indications that there is likely to be a good increase in apprenticeship numbers this year.
    Mr. Manuel: Is it not abundantly clear to the right hon. Gentleman that, even with the increase that he indicated might be reached this year, we shall, because of the number of school leavers, find that the number of those getting apprenticeships will fall far short of the number desiring them? Does he realise that this means that a large number of these boys and girls will go into dead-end jobs when they should be taking technical training to fit them for proper apprenticeships?
    Mr. Hare: As I think I have indicated already in the House, and as I certainly have in Scotland, there are in Scotland considerable shortages of skilled labour, and it is my constant appeal to employers—and pressure is put on them—to provide as many apprenticeships as possible. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will support me in every way in the efforts I am making in this direction.
    Mr. Prentice: Can the Minister be more specific about his hopes for increased numbers of apprenticeships in

    21
    Scotland? Is the number likely to be proportionate to the increase in the numbers of school leavers?
    Mr. Hare: I cannot give the answer to that. There is no way of giving any precise figure, but what I have said in answer to the Question is that I think there should be a good increase in the numbers.
    Mr. Hoy: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is because of the lack of these jobs in Scotland that our unemployment percentage is still more than twice that of the rest of Britain, and what we want to know is what he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are doing to put the matter right?
    Mr. Hare: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the unemployment rate is higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, but I am glad to say that unemployment in Scotland has fallen to 2·8 per cent., which is a considerable improvement.
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour if he will discuss with the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland the possibility of encouraging local education authorities to promote group apprentice schemes, based on local technical colleges.
    Mr. Hare: My right hon. Friends have issued circulars encouraging education authorities to provide first-year apprenticeship courses in technical colleges. Though this assistance is not limited to particular types of apprenticeship scheme, it is expected that these courses will be of particular benefit to small firms which find it difficult to provide adequate training facilities except by sharing in co-operative enterprise.
    Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what response there has been to this appeal and, in particular, what has been done in Scotland?
    Mr. Hare: If the hon. Gentleman would like me to give him full particulars, I shall certainly let him know. It is probably better to do it in that way.
    Miss Herbison: If local education authorities do provide such courses which are so necessary in Scotland, what financial aid will they get from the central Government, because that is of the
    22
    greatest importance to the working of the general grant?
    Mr. Hare: I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will be discussing these matters with local education authorities in England and Wales; and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland with those in Scotland. I think that these matters come within their purview rather than mine.
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Labour if he will take steps to establish a national bureau of apprenticeships so that there is full information about the numbers in training and the opportunities which exist.
    Mr. Hare: No, Sir. I see no need for this. Information about those entering apprenticeships is already collected on a national basis. Details of the opportunities in industry are know locally to the youth employment offices, and there is already a system for the circulation of vacancies between youth employment officers.
    Mr. Bence: No doubt the Minister appreciates our need for a considerable increase in productivity in the engineering industry, but is he aware that many of the apprenticeship schemes are hopelessly inadequate to produce the engineers necessary for the new industries, and the new techniques appearing in modern engineering? Will he not, therefore, undertake a survey to find out how many of our industrial apprenticeships are worthy of the name and likely to turn out top-class skilled men?
    Mr. Hare: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I am in sympathy with much that he says. As recently as our last debate on this subject in the House, I made it clear that I thought that the time had come when both sides of industry should look in detail at all their apprenticeships, and this is something that I shall certainly try to pursue with both sides of industry.
    Mr. Rossasked the Minister of Labour what methods are used by his Department to estimate the number of school-leavers who enter apprenticeships or some other form of organised training for skill.
    Mr. P. Thomas: At the time of issue of National Insurance cards to school

    23
    leavers on their entering employment, a record of the class of employment is made for statistical purposes by the youth employment offices. One of the classifications is apprenticeship or learnership to a skilled craft; another, introduced from the beginning of this year, covers other forms of organised training for skill.
    Mr. Ross: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, may I ask whether he appreciates that his Answer to Question No. 14 rather shattered our confidence in the customary reliability of his Department?
    Mr. Thomas: No. I think that the statistics are reasonably reliable. In fact, they probably understate the total entry of apprentices, as numbers of boys and girls enter into apprenticeships after previously having had other employment on leaving school.
    Mr. Manuel: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that his Department should be doing far more on the lines requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock in his Question? As it is, it seems that he can only tell us of young people who take up apprenticeships 12 months after leaving school because they could not previously get into industry. Should not his Department be dealing with these school leavers earlier?
    Mr. Thomas: Instructions have recently been given to youth employment officers which strengthen the system so as to ensure that the statistics are as comprehensive as possible.

    Training Development Officers, Scotland
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Labour whether he will increase the grant paid to the Industrial Training Council so as to enable that Council to make further appointments of training development officers in Scotland.
    Mr. Hare: If the Council should wish to make further appointments, they can be made within the existing grant.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not much is likely to result from one lonely soul wandering over Scotland trying to start these schemes, and that at the moment some of our more modern and highly-skilled
    24
    engineering organisations cannot get apprentices and apprenticeship schemes going? Will the Minister be prepared to send representatives of both sides of industry to the Continent to see what properly organised apprenticeship schemes are doing to create skilled young men? Is he aware that the time has gone for training apprentices by making them "run the cutter" and taking betting-slips?
    Mr. Hare: I really do not think that it is just one lone figure wandering over Scotland. The engineering and iron and steel industries have their own schemes, and certain other industries have their plans, in which Scotland is included. Of course, there is also the whole weight of the Industrial Training Council, which is pressing forward in its treatment of this problem. I do not think that the picture is as black as the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
    Mr. Prentice: Even so, are there only 10 full-time training development officers employed by the Industrial Training Council in the United Kingdom, of whom only one is stationed in Scotland? Does the Minister think that so small a number can possibly make the impact necessary for what will be needed in the next 10 years?
    Mr. Hare: I was very clear in my Answer. In addition to the officers of the Industrial Training Council, other industries have their own training councils and are sharing in the general effort. Both sides of industry are taking part in the follow-up, which all reinforces the efforts of the officers of the Industrial Training Council.

    Industrial Development, Scotland
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Labour what modifications will be imposed on the Scottish industrial development programme as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's curtailment of Government expenditure.
    Mr. Hare: My right hon. and learned Friend has announced no detailed plans for the curtailment of Government expenditure.
    Mr. Rankin: But, of course, is the Minister not aware that if the Question had been framed in that way it would

    25
    not have reached the Order Paper, for it would have been hypothetical? Is the Minister telling us, then, that in his speech on Thursday night the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make it perfectly clear that he proposes to reduce or to modify, if necessary, Government expenditure abroad? Is that untrue? Is it also untrue that the Chancellor made it perfectly clear that he proposes to restrict building schemes, and will that not affect Scottish industrial development programmes?
    Mr. Hare: I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman in getting this Question on the Order Paper in the form he has. As far as the interpretation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's speech is concerned, I would suggest that the Chancellor is available to be questioned on these matters in the House, and I feel sure that he would be able to give a better account than I could.
    Mr. Rankin: Ingenuity!

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Johne's Disease
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will authorise the use of the vaccine to immunise cattle against Johne's disease now that the whole country is designated an attested area.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): Much study is being made of immunisation as a method of controlling Johne's disease, but with the present state of knowledge it would not be wise to authorise the general use of vaccine against this disease while tuberculin testing is still a regular feature.
    Mr. Browne: Has the Minister read the Answer which his predecessor gave to me on 7th July last year? If not, will he do so? If he has, will he bear in mind the losses incurred by farmers due to Johne's disease, and now that this country is an attested area as a whole, surely farmers should be allowed—those who wish to—to immunise their cattle against this disease?
    Mr. Soames: I think that we would all be very glad if we could discover a vaccine which would be effective against Johne's disease without having a bad effect and creating more difficulties in the testing for tuberculosis, which still has to continue even though the country as a whole is clear. We have still to protect ourselves against T.B. breaking out again, and if we could find a suitable vaccine—and there are experiments going on in 350 farms at the moment—we would be glad to go forward on it.

    Barley
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in view of the low prices prevailing for barley, he will take steps to make an advanced deficiency payment for the 1961 crop at harvest time.
    Mr. Soames: No, Sir. It would not be practicable to make advance deficiency payments to barley growers at harvest time. But I am well aware of the importance to growers of these payments and they will be made as early as possible.
    Mr. Prior: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the low prices for barley continue as at present the orderly marketing of this year's crop will be quite impossible. Small farmers depend enormously on the cash that they obtain at harvest time from barley. If prices are going to be as low as we think they will, farmers will not get this cash and the only satisfactory alternative will be to place an embargo on cheap subsidised imports coming in.
    Mr. Soames: That is a different question and concerns our attitude towards importation. Concerning our own marketing, we have certain proposals that have been agreed with producer interests which, we hope, will make a contribution towards the more orderly marketing at home.
    Sir A. Hurd: Will the Minister use all his persuasive powers around the Cabinet table, with the President of the Board of Trade, to ensure that we take quick and effective measures to stop the dumping of foreign barley.
    Mr. Soames: As my hon. Friend knows, an application was submitted by the National Farmers' Union to the

    27
    Board of Trade exactly a week ago today on this matter, and it is, I know, receiving the close attention of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. de Freitas: Does the Minister remember that at least six months ago we were warning him of a possible disaster in barley and asking him to call an international conference of exporters? Will he not now please call that conference, because it is better late than never.
    Mr. Soames: An international conference is a different question to that on the Order Paper and that contained in the supplementary questions to it. It raises many difficult problems—of which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman is fully aware—and it would not be efficacious if we were merely to have a conference of exporters. Importers would have to be represented as well, and there are no signs in the international field that support for that would be forthcoming

    Land Drainage
    Mr. Priorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the number of acres drained under drainage grants during the last year; and whether he is satisfied with the rate of progress.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): In 1960, farm under-drainage schemes benefited some 110,000 acres. Information about the total acreage benefitting from all drainage work is not available. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend that grant-aid from the Department towards farm drainage schemes rose from £1⅔ million in 1958–9 to nearly £2½ million in 1959–60, and towards arterial drainage schemes from £2¾ million to £3⅓ million. This is good progress, but there is still much work to be done.
    Mr. Prior: If, as I am certain he does, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wishes to help small farmers in the improvement of their farms, he will realise that good drainage is the basic essential of all good farming. Will he not consider an increase in the grant, from 50 per cent. to some higher figure, to encourage this further?
    Mr. Vane: Of course, it is realised that good drainage is important for any farming, but 50 per cent. is a substantial proportion of the cost of the work involved, and I think that very good reasons would have to be put forward before we could consider increasing it.

    Beef
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of deficiency payments to the agricultural industries in respect of beef for the past six months.
    Mr. Soames: The estimated cost of deficiency payments paid on fat cattle for the 26 weeks ended 3rd June, 1961, is £12½ million.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that this is a high total indeed? Is he aware that in a reply to me on 19th June the President of the Board of Trade stated that over £11½ million worth of beef was imported into this country in the first four months of this year? Will the Minister look into the question of these imports, which are causing farmers to receive a high subsidy? Surely it would be better to restrict imports and pay less subsidy to the farmers, who do not want so much.
    Mr. Soames: Concerning the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question as to whether it is a large figure, it is, of course, a large figure, but it is less than 50 per cent. of the published estimate, adjusted after the Price Review, for the total deficiency payments for fat cattle. Concerning the second part about imports, in the last six months imports from abroad have been about 12 per cent. lower than for the same period last year, when the market at home was considerably higher.
    Mr. Prior: Will the Minister talk to the butchers to see if he can stop them from averaging out prices of various commodities, such as beef and pork, so that we can get a true reflection of the falls in prices of beef to the consumer?
    Mr. Soames: Of course, much averaging out goes on between different meats in the butchers' shops. It would be advantageous for the system as a whole if falls in the price of a certain

    29
    type of meat were to be reflected in the retail price in such a way as to increase demand.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease
    Sir A. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further reports he has received from his veterinary officers in Argentina showing the progress of the Argentine Government's campaign to confine foot-and-mouth disease by compulsory vaccination; and if the measures so far taken have had any significant effect on the risk of infection being carried by chilled and frozen meat shipped to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Soames: It seems clear from reports by my veterinary officers in the Argentine that the Argentine Government's vaccination campaign against foot-and-mouth disease is making progress. Vaccination is said to have been completed in the buffer zone north of Patagonia, and in the province of La Pampa. In the province of Buenos Aires, from which most of the meat exported to this country is derived, about 80 per cent. of the cattle have been vaccinated. It is too early as yet to measure with any precision what has been the effect of this progress on the risk of infection being carried in meat shipped here from South America.
    Sir A. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend get the impression that this is really satisfactory progress and that the Argentine authorities are now really seriously tackling the problem of foot-and-mouth disease? Can the Minister say if any requests have been made to the research station at Pirbright for assistance in this matter?
    Mr. Soames: Concerning the first part of my hon. Friends supplementary question, we all agree that considerable progress has been made in quite a short time in the Argentine. I cannot, however, answer the second part without notice.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the Minister say whether it is accepted that vaccination is now effective in this matter? Is he now prepared to authorise farmers in this country to use it?
    Mr. Soames: There is no doubt that vaccination in a country the size of Argentine, with the number of outbreaks
    30
    of foot-and-mouth disease with which they have to contend—and the same applies in France—is most advantageous. But in a country such as ours, where the disease is not endemic and the number of outbreaks is comparatively small, by far the better means of control is slaughter, and that, indeed, is the point which many other countries would like to reach.

    Plant Breeding (Research)
    Mr. B. Harrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements exit whereby Government-financed plant-breeding stations make available their basic research results and material to plant breeders.
    Mr. Vane: Research results are published in the reports of the institutes concerned and in appropriate scientific journals. The institutes are always ready to demonstrate their material, methods and results to plant breeders, to discuss problems and to give information and advice. Basic plant material which has been tested at the institutes is supplied to private plant breeders on request.
    Mr. Harrison: While wishing to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the co-operation that exists, may I ask him to make sure that viruses and diseases are also available at Government plant breeding establishments for private breeders?
    Mr. Vane: I think I can assure my hon. Friend that we try to be as helpful and co-operative as possible, and, as far as disease-resistant cereals material is concerned, it is hoped that more will be released this autumn.
    Mr. Farr: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this matter should perhaps be considered in the wider aspect of the Report of the findings of the Engholm Committee?
    Mr. Vane: I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement on that shortly.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Strachey: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask your guidance. In view of the fact that you were unable, no doubt on substantial grounds, to grant my request to

31
ask a Private Notice Question on what we consider to be the entirely unjustifiable decision of the Air Transport Advisory Committee on the Cunard Eagle application, may I have your guidance on the way in which we can raise in the House what we consider to be this most important and urgent matter?
Mr. Speaker: I can only say, most certainly not in that way. It is the practice of the House not to refer to Private Notice Questions which are not allowed. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to come and see me, I will try to help him to think about some way in which the matter could be raised, for instance, by putting an appropriate Motion on the Order Paper, but I should have to think about it.
Mr. Harold Davies Mr. Harold Davies rose—
Sir A. V. Harvey Sir A. V. Harvey rose—
Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of order. It never was one. We cannot discuss it.
Mr. Strachey: Mr. Speaker, may I have your assurance that on Thursday when we discuss the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, which has now become inextricably bound up with this matter, especially the financial aspect, it will be possible to raise this matter?
Mr. Speaker: So far as I remember, that Bill is at present in Committee and I do not carry in my mind the Amendments on which it might be suggested that the topic would be relevant. There is really no ground on which we can discuss this matter now.
Sir A. V. Harvey: With respect, Mr. Speaker, following the point raised by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), who sought your guidance, may I be allowed, with the greatest respect, to point out that if B.O.A.C. has said—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no ground whatever for discussing the merits of this matter now.
Sir A. V. Harvey: You did say, Sir, that you would consider the matter.
32
May I be allowed to point out that the Corporation has intimated that it intends to lodge an appeal? If so, is not the matter sub judice?
Mr. Speaker: I quite understand that point. What I said was that if the right hon. Gentleman felt that he required my assistance I would consider with him what could be done. I was not for a moment suggesting that anything could be done while there was an appeal pending. It is really no good trying to discuss the point now.
Mr. Rankin: May we have your guidance on this point, Mr. Speaker? You have suggested that you would discuss with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) whether some method could be adopted whereby the House might have a chance of discussing this matter. This is the point that is important to the House—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not here to give guidance. I am here to rule when some matter arises on which a Ruling is required. As a matter of courtesy, although I would not back myself against the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman as to what can or cannot be done here, I did say that I would see him, if he wanted my help, and discuss the machinery of the matter. But there is really no ground for discussion.
Mr. P. Williams: On a separate point or order. Is it not an abuse of the House to seek to raise a matter of this nature when, in fact, an appeal is pending against a decision?
Mr. Speaker: What is wrong is to refer to a Private Notice Question that was not allowed. We got off on the wrong foot about it, and I hope that we can drop it.
Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because it is relevant to the issue? Question No. 62 on the Order Paper is relevant to this problem. May the House know whether the Minister sought your permission to make a statement on that Question today?
Mr. Speaker: He did not.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION)
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I will, with permission, make a statement on the Northern Rhodesia Constitution.
In my statement of 21st February I informed the House that I had asked the Governor to put forward recommendations after consultation with political groups in Northern Rhodesia on the matters which then remained to be settled. In order to fill in the details of a picture of which only a general outline had been given, I have now received the Governor's recommendations, and a White Paper containing the text of them is available in the Vote Office.
Hon. Members will wish to study this White Paper carefully. At the moment, I propose to confine myself to a summary of the Governor's main recommendations in respect of the more important matters which were left for settlement and Her Majesty's Government's view as to the advice which should be tendered to Her Majesty on these points.
As regards the elected membership of the Legislative Council, the Governor considers that the number of elected members should total 45, as suggested in the White Paper, composed of three equal groups of 15, the 15 members returned by the upper and lower rolls respectively to be elected in single-member constituencies covering the whole of the country.
As regards the third group of national members, he suggests that the simplest arrangement would be a pattern of seven double-member constituencies, perhaps combined with a separate single-member constituency. Her Majesty's Government accept the Governor's recommendation in respect of the upper and lower roll constituencies and in respect of the seven double-member constituencies.
As regards the suggested single-member constituency, we have decided that since the proposed arrangements do not provide an opportunity for the smaller racial communities who have their particular contribution to make to Northern Rhodesia, the Asian and Coloured communities throughout the whole territory should constitute a separate single-
34
member constituency and, consequently, those registered in this constituency will elect an Asian or Coloured candidate.
As regards the method of electing national members the Governor—and Her Majesty's Government agree with him—has come to the conclusion that the basis should be the equalisation of the two rolls as outlined in the White Paper, but he makes two suggestions to meet some of the criticisms he has received. First, he suggests that three or four of the seven double-member national constituencies should each return one African and one European member.
Her Majesty's Government accept this suggestion and consider that four of the seven double-member national constituencies should be reserved in this manner. Secondly, while endorsing the view of the White Paper that all candidates for national seats should be required to obtain a prescribed measure of minimum support, he suggests that the particular method envisaged in the White Paper might not, in practice, meet its object of compelling candidates to seek support from both races.
He therefore recommends that the minimum support required by a candidate in order to qualify for election should be expressed as l2½ per cent. or 400 votes, whichever is the less, of the European votes cast in the election, and 12½ per cent. or 400, whichever is the less, of the African votes cast in the election. Her Majesty's Government accept this recommendation, but also consider that candidates to qualify should obtain in addition at least 20 per cent. of the votes cast by one or other of the two rolls.
As regards the delimitation of constituencies, Her Majesty's Government agree with the Governor's conclusion that it would he desirable to appoint a delimitation commission under the chairmanship of a serving or retired judge.
On the franchise, the Governor's proposals provide for the increase of voters eligible for registration on the upper and lower rolls on the lines recommended in the White Paper. The Governor has reported to me that he has had representations favouring an increase in the number of Africans on the upper roll, but felt that in view of the terms of the White Paper he could not recommend

35
an increase beyond the figures of 1,500 to 2,000.
Her Majesty's Government nevertheless feel that an increase here would be justified, and, accordingly, I propose to ask the Governor to add categories to the upper roll which would enfranchise an additional 500 Africans beyond the numbers mentioned in the White Paper.
I am sure that the House will agree with me in paying tribute to the statesmanlike way in which Sir Evelyn Hone has discharged the difficult and burdensome responsibilities which we had placed upon him. Her Majesty's Government and all communities in the territory are deeply in his debt.
The recommendations he has put forward, with the amendments which Her Majesty's Government have made, accord fully with the objectives which have always governed our approach to this matter—that we should secure a substantially increased number of African members in the Legislative Council, while, at the same time, maintaining the principle of a non-racial political approach in which political parties are obliged to seek support from both races.
Mr. Callaghan: I associate myself with what the Colonial Secretary has said about the Governor, whose steadfastness in recent weeks has undoubtedly been an example to others who have been inclined to flap a little more readily.
Does not the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made—if the House will permit an inelegant expression—remind him of a dog's breakfast? Half seriously, I say to him that he ought to supply a slide rule to every elector if everyone is to understand what is proposed.
Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain—if it is possible to get it across—what he means in his statement by African voters and European voters? Surely, there is no such things. There is an upper roll and a lower roll. Can he explain how his reference to 12½ per cent. of African votes and European votes comes to be included, and what connection this has with the 20 per cent. minimum which the Government believe that people must have? I say, frankly, that I do not begin to understand it. Obviously, we shall need time—I hope
36
that the Government will provide time for a debate—so that we may understand these issues.
Does the Colonial Secretary realise just what difficulties one falls into when one departs from a simple statement such as that made by Monckton, that the object of this exercise is to provide a majority for the Africans in the Legislature, and that, if he had stuck to that, he would not have been involved in this tissue of nonsense, which will not stand up beyond one election even if it lasts so long?
Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman seems to have changed his mind a good deal since we debated the White Paper. In fact, we have stuck with almost obstinate fidelity to the White Paper which we laid before the House.
If the hon. Gentleman will study carefully—I am sure he will—paragraphs 18 and 19 of the White Paper I have put before the House, he will see that we put two objectives there for the national seats, the whole objective of the national seats—I think it commanded the support of the House—being to have seats which would be won by moderate people whatever the colour of their faces might happen to be. We said there that we wanted to see a qualifying minimum percentage, which we regard as essential because, otherwise, a purely racial approach could be made, and also that support could be had from both races. If the hon. Gentleman will study the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in a short debate we had the next day, he will see that when talking of the qualifying minimum percentage he was referring entirely to race.
The position is that the two rolls are equalised for the purpose of the national seats, but, as the Governor points out, unless there is a qualifying minimum percentage on a basis of race it would be possible to reach it without producing a single Member in one case of the other race. Therefore, though the basic principle remains of the appeal to the two rolls and the equalisation of the two rolls—the hon. Gentleman will, I think, fairly easily be able to do his sums in regard to that—it is necessary, for the qualifying minimum percentage, to do it in terms of race.
I fully acknowledge the complexity of the scheme, but, after all, if one is trying

37
to have not just a parity scheme but a parity scheme plus the addition of a block of seats which are won, and which can only be won, because of the qualifying percentage, by those of moderate views, it is necessary to import a good deal of complexity.
Mr. Callaghan: Will the Colonial Secretary explain what relation the 20 per cent. minimum bears to the 12½ per cent. minimum? How does he justify this as a non-racial approach, when what he has done is to ensure that more Europeans and Africans are elected as such in the national constituencies and that an Asian is elected or, at any rate, that Asian interests are represented?
Mr. Macleod: I am sorry; I forgot the point about the 20 per cent. If one had just 12½ per cent. alone, it would then be possible, for example, for somebody who got, shall we say, 13 per cent. of each race to qualify and to beat someone whose vote was very much higher. We thought that we should add the small additional hurdle that, on either roll but not both, a candidate would have to reach a figure of 20 per cent.
Mr. Callaghan: What happens if no one does?
Mr. Macleod: If no one reaches it—the question of frustration is dealt with in paragraph 10 of his report—the Governor recommends that there should be one by-election in the same circumstances and that, if after that nobody reaches the qualification, the seat should remain unfilled.
Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say on what argument he bases the claim that this solution follows the principles laid down in the Lennox-Boyd Constitution of 1958? Can he deny that that 1958 Constitution was far less racial in character in relation to representation than this solution?
Mr. Macleod: No, I cannot accept that. If my right hon. Friend will refer to the Northern Rhodesia White Paper of 1958, he will see it clearly laid down there that it must be necessary for Africans to elect with their votes an African and for Europeans to elect with their votes a European. I should not say that this is in any way a more racial approach than that of 1958. Indeed, I
38
think that it is closely linked to that approach.
Mr. Grimond: Will the Colonial Secretary agree that this is a very complicated Constitution, especially coming from a Government who have always said that any type of electoral reform in this country would be too difficult for the electorate to understand?
As regards the seven double-member constituencies, I gather that four are to elect one European and one African. I do not know what is to happen to the other three, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain that. Secondly, though I quite understand that he wants a non-racial approach, the majority Report of the Monckton Commission made quite clear that in its view the only Constitution which would work in Northern Rhodesia was one which allowed Africans at least the chance of electing an African majority. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his proposals would allow the Africans to elect an African majority, were they so minded?
Mr. Macleod: Yes; the two questions are, in a sense, one. Six of the 14 seats are unreserved and anybody can put up any candidate at all there, either African or European. It is, therefore, implicit in that that these proposals could produce either a European or an African majority.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is this to be an imposed Constitution which it is expected will be opposed formally or otherwise by the United National Independence Party or the United Federal Party?
Mr. Macleod: I do not know yet. Each Constitution of the last six has been imposed. I hope that one will receive a measure of support for this Constitution, but, of course, it is too early to tell.
Mr. Brockway: The right hon. Gentle-may said that the Governor had discussed these proposals with representatives of the parties, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has discussed them in London. Will he inform the House how far the various parties in Northern Rhodesia support these proposals and how far his statement is an agreed statement?
Mr. Macleod: Obviously, I cannot, because, naturally, it is my duty to inform the House of Commons first. The parties in Lusaka will not be aware until now—they will be told at once by the Governor—of the proposals I have put before the House.
Mr. Wall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving a solution within the terms of the White Paper, which should satisfy all political parties in Northern Rhodesia. I have two questions to put to him.
First, who is to decide—and on what basis—which of the middle roll seats will return an African and a European and which will return two members of any race? Secondly, in order to make the system rather more simple in providing for how the middle roll is to return 14 plus one for the minorities, would it not be better to have a combination of three 14s rather than three 15s?
Mr. Macleod: The Governor recommends that the three-15 system should be maintained. I do not think that he found serious opposition to that from the parties in Lusaka. So far as the detailed questions of delimitation are concerned, we thought the best thing to do was to appoint a Delimitation Commission, as I have said, under the chairmanship of a judge. Although one cannot undertake to do so, I am sure that his recommendations on the sort of matters which my hon. Friend mentioned would be accepted.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate how difficult it is for us to grasp, from his statement, exactly how the national roll will work out. I should like to ask him three questions, the first a very simple one. When will the Delimitation Commission conclude its work, because it is obviously of major importance? Secondly, can he say whether there will now be a necessity for registering either as Europeans or Africans or Asians—the third category? Thirdly, will he arrange—and perhaps this is already taken care of—that in a White Paper or in some other way a series of illustrations and examples could be produced, as, for example, in bridge problems, in dealing with which the right hon. Gentleman is so adept?
Mr. Macleod: That seems to me where I came in. I cannot give a precise time
40
for the work of the Delimitation Commission. We will have to draw up terms of reference. All I can say is that the administrative work that is inevitable will follow as quickly as possible. I am told that with the exception of registering Asians it will not be necessary under this system to have racial registration.
Mr. Callaghan: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?
Mr. Macleod: This is what I am told by the Governor. I will certainly consider arranging illustrations of how this scheme will work out.
I would make this simple point. It seemed to me that from the beginning there were three key objectives in the White Paper. First, the basic point that the rolls should be equalised for the national seats. Secondly, that there should be a qualifying minimum percentage throughout all the seats. Thirdly, that an appeal should be made to people of both the main races. This scheme—and I acknowledge its complexity—at least does all these three things, and, therefore, follows faithfully the White Paper which was put before the House.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: In all these complexities, is not what really matters the strength and prosperity of the Federation as a united non-racial State? May I ask the Colonial Secretary, now that he has laid his White Paper, whether Her Majesty's Government will do their best to expedite the Exchequer loan to the Federation, which many people think has been unreasonably delayed?
Mr. Macleod: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no connection whatever between those two matters. It does not arise out of my statement, but I give him that assurance. I think that these matters are more or less finalised now.
Mr. Callaghan: Is there a mistake in the Colonial Secretary's original statement? He has just told us, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that there is no need to register as Europeans or as Africans. Did not his statement say that it would be necessary to get 12½ per cent. of the European votes cast in the election or 12½ per cent., or 400, of the African votes cast in the election? How will they know which are African and which are

41
European votes unless the people are registered as Europeans or Africans?
May I ask him whether he is aware that most of us regard Federal influence in this matter as being most baleful and completely unproductive of any lasting settlement?
Mr. Macleod: I do not subscribe to that last view at all. I have no complaint to make of the very proper interest which the Federal Government have throughout shown. Sir Roy Welensky is a man who fights his corner firmly. Every single line of this is in accordance with the White Paper, with one exception, which is the addition of 500 Africans to the upper roll. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is objecting to this. I discussed racial registration with the Governor. It would be necessary to register the Asians of the Colony, but I am told that if that is done there is no need to have an additional registration of Europeans and Africans, who would merely be handed different forms at the polling booth.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue this matter now.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (RECOMMITTED) BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 2nd May].
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (RECOMMITTED) BILL

    Clause 8.—(TERMS OF ENLISTMENT IN REGULAR AIR FORCE.)
    3.56 p.m.
    The Chairman: The first Amendment selected is that in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), in page 8, line 36, and it may be convenient to the Committee to discuss with it the later Amendments in the name of the same hon. Member in page 9, line 4, to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and to insert:
    "the date of his attestation or his eighteenth birthday, whichever be later, and in the case of women—the date of attestation."
    and that in page 9, line 9, to leave out subsection (5).
    Mr. John Cronin: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, at the end to insert:
    "or
    (d)in the case of women enlisting in the regular air force a term not exceeding six years as may be prescribed, being a term of air force service."
    I think that it might be convenient also to discuss the Amendment following this Amendment, also in my name, to leave out lines 37 to 42, if that is agreeable to you, Sir Gordon.
    The Chairman: So be it.
    Mr. Cronin: We are placed in some difficulty, because that Amendment goes with the first two Amendments on the Notice Paper, to lines 15 and 24, to leave out "term" and insert "long term enlistment", which are not selected.
    The Chairman: Those Amendments are not selected, because they were discussed previously on Clause 3.
    Mr. Cronin: I move this Amendment with some brevity, and will speak briefly to the three Amendments concerned. As we know, the Government got themselves into serious difficulties the last time that we discussed the Bill and on this occasion we are very anxious to

    43
    help them. We want to expedite the passage of the Bill in every possible way, so if we speak with a good deal more brevity than on the last occasion it will not be for any lack of ceremony or any lack of desire to go into these matters very thoroughly, but simply to expedite business, in view of the Government's previous difficulties.
    This is purely a drafting Amendment, as are the other Amendments which we are now discussing. They have been drafted by the fertile pen of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and we think that they are a considerable improvement on the drafting in the Bill as it stands. We have a great respect for the Government's draftsmen, but we feel that on this occasion their drafting is somewhat cumbersome and tautological, and that nothing would be lost in clarity if the Amendment were accepted.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I want to add very little indeed to what my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has said. I am not clear about the first two Amendments, which are not selected, and the Amendment to leave out lines 37 to 42. Those lines certainly could not be done unless something were put in their place. What is proposed in the first two Amendments which are not selected is what I suggest should be put in the place of the six lines which. I suggest should be omitted. In other words, what I am saying is that six words should take the place of six lines. But the Amendment in page 8, to leave out lines 37 to 42, does not make sense without the Amendments in page 8, lines 15 and 24.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: The Amendments in page 8, lines 15 and 24 and the Amendment in page 8 to leave out lines 37 to 42 were not selected.
    Mr. Paget: I am sorry. I thought that the Amendment to leave out lines 37 to 42 was selected.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) wished to refer to the Amendment to leave out lines 37 to 42, and I said that I had no objection to that.
    Mr. Paget: I am sorry. I had not followed that.
    44
    It cannot be disputed that my suggestion would entail far fewer and more easily comprehensible words than those of the Clause. Why do the words which I suggest have a different effect from that of the words in the Clause?
    Mr. George Wigg: I am at a loss to know what we are discussing, but, in an endeavour to come to grips with the matter, may I say that I have studied the Amendments and that I should like to ask one or two questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on them.
    What I cannot understand is why a distinction should be drawn between men and women in relation to these engagements. It is clear that, if the Amendments are carried, the term of the engagement of a man could date either from the date of attestation or from his birthday, whereas the term of engagement of a woman can date only from the date of attestation. Why such a distinction should be introduced, I do not know. It is a new principle. Possibly there is a hidden reason for it.
    I have always understood, ever since the controversy over terms of service started about ten years ago, that a short-term engagement is one thing, with a minor qualification as far as the Army is concerned, and a long-term engagement another. If the Amendments are carried, it will leave the matter in the air. If the proposal is accepted, the words "in the said sections" in the last line on page 8, will be in complete isolation.
    I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough can explain why this new principle has been introduced to differentiate between men and women concerning the date of attestation, why the evaluation of the long-term engagement has been altered and to which sections the words "in the said sections" refer.
    Mr. Cronin: I think that it would be beneficial if we heard what the Under-Secretary of State had to say about this before we went any further.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): As I see it, the Amendments make one change of substance. As the Clause is at present worded, women under the age of 18 may

    45
    enlist either for a term running from their eighteenth birthday or for a term of up to six years running from the date of attestation. Under the Amendment the engagement would always run from the date of attestation. In practice, this probably would not matter very much—
    Mr. Wigg: With respect, it would make one very important difference. If women serving a long-term engagement can join at 17 years, it will very seriously affect their pension rights.
    Mr. Taylor: That is so. But most are likely to come under these terms, anyway. If a girl has in mind a long-term career in the Women's Royal Air Force, it will be in her interest to enlist on an engagement which runs from her eighteenth birthday, since service under the age of 18 does not count for pension. The engagement running from the eighteenth birthday is a new concession for recruits under 18 years. There is no particular reason why it should be restricted to men. That is the view that we take in this Bill.
    I think that to some extent the other Amendments are a matter of taste. The definition of the relative date from which a term of enlistment is reckoned saves words, but it does not make the Clause simpler. I think that this was the point which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made. The present wording gives separate definitions for people enlisting over the age of 18 and for people enlisting under the age of 18. Therefore, a man can pick out the definition which applies to him and learn directly what the relative date means in relation to his own engagement. With the amended form of words, he would have to work it out from an omnibus definition. Obviously this would not matter very much, but we think that it would be a disadvantage to a man in looking up his own case.
    The proposal to roll up the special subsection about women raises much the same considerations. Under the Bill women can enlist on any of the engagements concerning periods of service open to men. In addition, as I have said, women under 18 can come in on engagements of up to six years running from the date of attestation. Since this will now be a special provision applicable
    46
    only to women and will probably cover the bulk of Women's Royal Air Force recruiting, it seems sensible to us to put it in a subsection of its own where anyone to whom it applies can readily find it.
    For all these reasons, we much prefer to leave the Clause as it stands, and I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Cronin: As the Under-Secretary of State said, this is purely a matter of taste. No great point of substance is involved. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 9, line 2, to leave out from "the" to the end of line 3 and insert "said section fifteen".
    This is a drafting Amendment. Section 15 is specifically referred to in line 38 on page 8 of the Bill. It is, therefore, necessary to insert the words "said section fifteen" in line 2, on page 9 and to leave out the words:
    "section of this Act relating to persons therein referred to as existing airmen. …"
    Mr. Cronin: My hon. Friends and I agree entirely with the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 9.—(CHANGE OF CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AFTER LONG-TERM ENLISTMENT IN REGULAR AIR FORCE.)
    Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, to leave out "fifty-five" and insert "sixty".
    This is an Amendment of some substance and one about which those approaching the limit of 55 years, perhaps, feel a little sensitive. I do not feel that I shall be unemployable for every conceivable purpose in two or three years and I do not see why the Royal Air Force should take that view. I do not suggest that in a general way airmen should serve up to the age of 60, but I feel that there are exceptional cases in which the man concerned may wish to continue his service and that the Air Force may have a use for him. Therefore, why not take the power to enable him to continue his service?
    Mr. Cronin: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It seems to me quite unnecessary that airmen should be obliged to quit the Service at the age of 55, as the Clause seems to indicate. In these days, there have been tremendous advances in medical knowledge and, in consequence, people keep their mental and physical fitness much longer. Again, work in the Royal Air Force is much less arduous in many respects than in the other Services. It may involve a good deal of mental strain, but not so much physical strain. For instance, much of it is of a technical nature.
    It is a little unreasonable that an airman who might be skilled in repairing the radar apparatus in the nose-cone of a Bloodhound should cease to be skilled officially as soon as he has passed his fifty-fifth birthday and should, therefore, have to leave the Service. There is a real danger of losing highly-skilled personnel, particularly those engaged in the technical and equipment branches, if the Amendment is not accepted. I appreciate that there might be occasions when it may be desirable to get rid of a person who is not doing his work as well as he could do. It might be embarrassing sometimes in the case of a senior N.C.O. or warrant officer, but there ought to be some other way of getting round the difficulty than by imposing this age limit of 55.
    I believe that there are certain circumstances in which an airman or N.C.O. can stay on beyond the age of 55. If the Under-Secretary of State will tell us something about those circumstances, it might go some way to assauging our difficulties. In the meantime, however, I should like him to give the matter careful consideration and to give us the full reasons why 55 is a more agreeable age than 60.
    Mr. Wigg: I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that what the Clause refers to is the term of enlistment under the Clause. If my hon. Friend turns over two pages to Clause 12, he will find what happens to an airman when he has gone beyond twenty-two years. I understand the technical term better in connection with the Army, but at the end of his long-term enlistment the man
    48
    then continues in the Service. Clause 12 deals with continuance of Regular airmen in the Service after the expiration of their term and there is no limit whatever on the age.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: I assure the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and his hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that the Air Council is in no way less sympathetic towards the serving man who approaches the age of 55. As I shall show, the Air Council has power to extend the period of service in certain circumstances.
    First, I should like to explain the reasons which have influenced us in fixing 55 as the normal retiring age of airmen. There are two main considerations which limit the age to which we can extend a man's service. The first of these is the age structure of the Service as a whole. All I need say on this is that we have to make sure that we avoid a policy which will leave us with an undue proportion of elderly men in the Service at any date.
    The second thing to be borne in mind is the need to provide attractive prospects of advancement to young men and to the recruits of the future. This consideration clearly places a limit on the length of time for which we allow airmen to hold the most senior ranks, otherwise we should have promotion blockages affecting airmen at the bottom of the ladder and this would be bound to react unfavourably on recruitment. These are the difficulties which we have to consider in connection with our desire to offer a full and attractive career. We have concluded that 55 is the maximum age to which the full career airman can normally be retained.
    4.15 p.m.
    I do not see any prospect of increasing the age generally. This does not mean that we cannot make exceptions to keep individual airmen beyond the age of 55 if a man is fit and willing to serve on after that age. If we still want him, he can continue in service at the end of his engagement at three months' notice for an indefinite period. This provision is contained in Clause 12, to which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred.
    Our position on the Amendment, therefore, is that while there can be no question of a general increase in the retiring age of airmen, for the reasons which I

    49
    have stated, the Bill gives us the authority which we need to make exceptions and to continue individual airmen in the Service up to any age. The Amendment would serve no useful purpose and I must ask the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: I have some difficulty in following the arguments adduced by the Under-Secretary of State and by the reference to Clause 12 by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). If Clause 12 means that by making a submission to his commanding officer and giving him the requisite three months' notice, an airman can continue in the service, obviously even the age of 60 does not apply. I do not know whether it means that by making the necessary submission and giving the requisite three months' notice, an airman can go on to the age of 70 or 75. There must be an arbitrary date when he is called upon to retire and he can be no longer retained in the Service.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: There is no arbitrary date. It is a question of the good judgment of the Air Council in this matter as to whether there is use for the man for an extended period, always assuming that the man wants to continue. It is a perfectly reasonable arrangement that after the statutory age, as it were, of 55, either side should be able to go on at three months' notice.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is merely theory. Everybody knows that it conflicts with the practice. Obviously, when an airman reaches the ages of 55 or 60, as the case may be, and certainly not later, in the opinion of the Air Council and of his superior officers the time has come for him to retire.
    I am concerned about one aspect of the problem which came to my notice in a formidable fashion when I was engaged in the administrative side of this affair, not in the Air Force, but in the Army, when I was Under-Secretary. I refer to the difficulty that applies in the case of men who are called upon to retire at what I regard as the comparatively early age of 55 or 60, when it is impossible for them to obtain any alternative employment. Their pension is not particularly extravagant and men of that age are often in the prime of life, but when they are looking around for
    50
    employment and give their age as 55, 58 or 60, as the case may be, they are told that they are much too old, and they are out on a limb. It is very bad for men of that age not to be usefully employed.
    The Under-Secretary referred to exceptional cases in which the Air Council can decide whether a man should remain in the Service. I gather, however, that there is no provision of this nature in the Bill, apart from Clause 12, which is very much in the air.
    Mr. Wigg Mr. Wigg rose—
    Mr. Shinwell: Let me complete the sentence, otherwise it will be misunderstood.
    Unless there is some provision in the Bill agreeing that the man should continue until the age of 60, when, I think, it would be reasonable, in the circumstances, to ask him to retire from the Service, I am bound to support the Amendment.
    Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) fails to understand that there is a great deal of difference between the re-engagement and pensionable engagement in the Army and the Royal Air Force now, and the period about which he was talking.
    To go back to pre-war days when my right hon. Friend was Under-Secretary of State for War, as I have said on a number of occasions, a man enlisted in the Army always for twelve years, partly with the Colours and partly with the Reserve, without any claim for pension at all. In his ninth year, when he could be promoted to the rank of sergeant, a man could claim to re-engage.
    In the Air Force the peculiar structure of the Service makes it necessary to limit the number of people engaged in a particular trade. I remember the time when only a handful of men were engaged in mechanical transport and after a twelve-year engagement, out they would go. Only in the Army could a soldier re-engage with establish pensionable rights. The long service engagement gave the soldier the right of a pension from enlisting. He could undertake an engagement of twenty-two years if he wished, and at the moment of joining he was entitled to a pension.

    51
    The Air Force authorities, in their wisdom, have now come along with a similar proposal for the Air Force.
    If it is proposed to introduce the right for a man to stay on for a period of twenty-two years, it is necessary to consider the structure of the Service, otherwise we should have an Army or an Air Force composed of "greybeards". If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will look at Clause 9, he will see that we are discussing a long-term engagement and enlistment under the provisions in that Clause, that is to say, the right of a man to engage for twenty-two years. The man can continue to serve until he is 55 years of age and then in the majority of cases he will finish.
    Clause 12 says that a man who has entered on a long-term engagement can in the last year of his service, give notice to his commanding officer that he wishes to continue in the Service, and the competent Air Force authority will consider the rights of the man, on the one hand, and the needs of the Service, on the other. It can permit the man to continue to serve for as long as the needs of the Air Force allow.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington cannot apply his judgment of events of twenty years ago to the position today because, even until the passing of this Bill, a man had no such right. But now he is to have the absolute right to engage for twenty-two years and finish at the age of 55 or, if he wishes to continue, to give notice to his commanding officer. In the Army, the reference is to the commanding officer. The Air Force is even more careful, and refers to the competent Air Force authority. I dare say that would mean the officer-in-charge of records, who would hold the balance.
    Mr. Shinwell: What is the purpose of subsection (2, a), in Clause 9, where there is a reference to attaining the age of 55 years? Is it necessary to include this provision in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said about Clause 12?
    Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend has asked me a question. I assume that this paragraph has been inserted in the Bill because the Air Force cannot afford—certainly the Army could not afford—
    52
    to give people such a statutory right. If we had an infantry regiment in which all the warrant officers had the right to stay on in the Service beyond the age of 55, obviously it would impair the efficiency of the force.
    The Air Force has a different problem from that of the Army. It is an overall problem rather than a regimental problem. It gives the man a statutory right regarding the length of his engagement and then tells him that he may apply in the last year if his service to extend his service and the competent Air Force authority will make a decision. This brings the Air Force, rather belatedly, into line with the Army.
    Mr. Paget: We have had some extremely interesting speeches and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been given the opportunity to display his great expertise. But it seems to me that none of the speeches has had anything whatever to do with the Amendment. The proposal contained in the Amendment would not interfere with the age structure of the Air Force. Everybody understands that. Its purpose is not to make the regular retiring age 60 instead of 55.
    The Clause states, in subsection (2), that
    "Where a person in air-force service enlisted as aforesaid his conditions of service may, on written application in that behalf made by him to his commanding officer and with the consent of the competent air-force authority …"
    That gives discretion to the competent Air Force authority as to whether the man can continue at all or for how long. In its wisdom the authority may think that a man should not serve beyond the age of 55.
    In an exceptional case, when the authority decided to make the term of service longer, it might be that a mere three months' notice would not be suitable for the purpose. Some highly technical jobs could be done by old men. They may be jobs in which age and experience may be an advantage. There may be cases in which a man may want to know that he has a job for a certain period, and three months' notice may not be satisfactory to him. Even more so, it may not be satisfactory to the Air Force. In a particular job, requiring a particular expertise, training or experience, the Air Force may wish to rely

    53
    on being staffed-up. The Service may want to have people on which it knows it can rely to serve for a certain period. Why should the hands of the competent authority be tied?
    To accept the Amendment would commit the Air Force to nothing at all. It would simply widen the discretion to deal with the exceptional and not the general case. I suggest that the Amendment is reasonable.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Foot: I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been made on this Amendment. We have heard two experts on the subject, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).
    Mr. Wigg: I would not put myself quite in the class of my right hon. Friend, because I generally get my facts right.
    Mr. Foot: I was about to pay my hon. Friend that compliment. It would have come better from me, perhaps, than from him. All of us in these debates, particularly the Minister, wait to hear what my hon. Friend has to say, because he can usually explain a Clause better than can the Minister himself. I must confess, having listened to what the Minister said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said, that I was not quite sure they were saying the same thing.
    My hon. Friend is now saying that Clause 12 gives some mitigation of the position under Clause 9, but I was not quite clear that that was exactly the same claim made for the Clause and the present position by the Minister. I listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who said that the Clause did not commit the Air Force to keeping anyone in the Air Force longer than it wished. If that is the case under the Clause, I cannot see why it should not be accepted. If it is not the case, it alters what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.
    For us amateurs in these matters it might be of assistance if we could be given a few figures showing what happens now. How many are there in the Air Force who reach the age of 55, who
    54
    wish to stay on, but who are denied by the authorities the right to do so? If we were told those figures we might be able to form some judgment whether it is desirable to alter the present position and whether the Clause alters it in the way in which we should wish. If there are very few cases where it arises that a person wants to stay on after 55 we are asking about not very much. Alternatively, it could be argued that if only a few who reach 55 wish to stay on and are denied the right because the matter has been referred to commanding officers 01 the Air Council, it might be perfectly reasonable to slay that we should give the choice to the man as well as to the Air Council. I do not see why we should not do that.
    There is another conflict of evidence between two whom I never like to see fall out, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. My right hon. Friend said that there are very few who want to stay on after 55 and who are denied the right to do so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley takes the view that this proposal would disrupt the whole Air Force. Who is right? I cannot see whether we shall have enlightenment from the Minister about who is correct. It would be easier for those who wish to know whether they should support the Amendment or not if we could know how many wish to stay on after 55 and are denied the right to do so. Then we could consider if it would not be more just—particularly in view of the difficulties for people of 55 to get another job—to waive the matter and give them the choice of deciding, instead of having the matter absolutely under the decision of the Air Ministry. That, I understand, under the arrangement of the Clause without the Amendment would be the position.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: The very expert exposition of the existing legislation given by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) could, not be bettered by any Minister, I am grateful to, him for putting it better than I could put it. He asked about "the competent Air Force authority". That would be the Air Member of Council for Personnel. It would be at that level.
    On the question raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot)

    55
    about the numbers, I am sorry that I have not figures available, but I think that they would be extremely small. The essential point is that Clause 12 allows us to be selective. The hon. Member for Dudley explained that it allows the Air Ministry to hold the balance at the time according to the requirements in any particular trade or section of the Service. If the Amendment is to mean anything at all—and here I take issue with the right hon. Member for Essington (Mr. Shinwell)—it means that an airman is to be engaged to 60 at a much earlier stage. It must mean that. For the reasons I have explained, we could not accept that if we altered the three months' notice under Clause 12 it would not create difficulties.
    Mr. Cronin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite understands the position. A man may be retained until he is 60 only with the consent of "the competent Air Force authority".
    Mr. Taylor: I have dealt with that point. When an application was received it would be dealt with in the organisation. Responsibility for the ultimate decision rests on the Air Member of Council for Personnel.
    The three months' notice under Clause 12 does not in fact create difficulty. Acceptance of the Amendment might not commit the Air Force to anything, indeed it would provide us with a power that we should not normally want to use. It would give the impression that the normal retiring age was 60. For all these reasons, we feel that it would be unwise to accept the Amendment.
    The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, in I think as many words, that the Amendment would commit the Air Council to nothing at all. That is true, but we feel that the present legislation is adequate to deal with a situation which is not very demanding. I have been advised, since I spoke of the numbers, that the number of men applying for continuation of service beyond 55 is very small indeed. I repeat that the approval depends not only on a man's fitness but on his desire to continue in a particular trade or rank.
    Mr. Paget: The Minister does not seem to follow what the Amendment
    56
    would do. A man enters on a long term of service. That cannot take him beyond 55, but at the end of it new circumstances may arise. There may be a special department or a special craft for which people are being trained and for which the Air Force has a continuing, but limited, requirement. It wants to be sure of having that craft available for a certain number of jobs which could be done by keeping a limited number of men until they are 60. In those circumstances, to take them on on a three months' engagement might leave the Service short of a particular craft which was vital, but only for a limited period, and would make the training of young men for that craft uneconomic and unnecessary. Those are the sort of circumstances I envisage.
    Why should the Air Force tie its hands in this way? The Minister has admitted that the Amendment would not commit it to anything. I cannot conceive that anyone could imagine that the Air Force considers its discretion to keep people in certain circumstances up to a certain age as a right and a policy generally to keep them until that age. This is a discretionary power which might arise only occasionally. There are various crafts for which there is a requirement. One might see a requirement coming which will end at a specific date. It might be uneconomic to train people to do it when the older men can do it.
    Mr. Wigg: I must be careful how I handle this matter, in view of the friendly references made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to my expertise. I offer the excuse that I have been through all these phases with members of my family. I know the heartbreak which can be caused to people by things in regulations which one can never hope to achieve.
    The Army and the Air Force have given a man the right to go on for twenty-two years, and they say that, overall, he can stay until he is 55. This limit of age has always been there. It goes back to the beginning of the century and before. If the Under-Secretary of State were ill-advised enough, and disregarded the needs of his Service enough, and listened to my hon. and learned Friend—even assuming that my hon. and learned Friend is right, which

    57
    he is not—and accepted his argument—which is a purely legal one and above my head—he would affect the overall structure of the Air Force and of the Army. En effect, the chopper would have to come down either on the exercise of the competent Air Force authority under Clause 9 or it would have to be left to Clause 12, because this would be neither the rule nor the exception.
    The Royal Air Force has gone a long way from the time when there was a limited number of people it could take, and the realities of the administrative structure are expressed in this legislative reform. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will stay true to truth and reality and not listen to this siren song which, even if my hon. and learned Friend became Secretary of State, would he meaningless and would be bound to bring unhappiness and disappointment to a great number of chaps, who might believe that they were expected to go on while the Secretary of State knew that there would be no vacancies for them in twenty years' time.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has put a plausible case, but I shall not fall for it. Service beyond the age of 55 must still continue to be regarded as a special case designed to fill particular vacancies which may exist at any particular time. I cannot move from that position. The Air Council must be given authority to use its own discretion in this matter, and, therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Cronin: I beg to move, in page 9, line 43, to leave out from "person" to "in" in line 44.
    This is not an Amendment of great substance and I do not propose to dilate upon it. All of us, on both sides of the Committee, are entirely sympathetic with the object of Clause 9 (4). It is obviously undesirable that an airman or N.C.O. who is undergoing an expensive or complicated course should leave it before it is completed and waste the money and time involved, but this Amendment would increase the discretion of the competent Air Force authority. This is a matter which is obviously of convenience
    58
    to the Air Ministry, and I cannot imagine that the Under-Secretary of State will find great difficulty in accepting it.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: I am very glad on this occasion to be able to accommodate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin). The four-year proviso was put in in the interests of individual airmen, so that they should not be induced to extend their period of committed service at too early a stage. However, there will be a further rule that the period of additional service needed as a qualification in these cases should not have exceeded six years.
    Since the prescribed courses of instruction for which this further commitment would be needed are never likely to last for much more than two years, it follows that it will be virtually impossible for the man with less than four years' service to commit himself beyond the twelve-year maximum proposed in Clause 9 (1). The value of the four-year rule is, therefore, minimal. If it is the feeling of the Committee, I shall be very glad to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Cronin: On behalf of this side of the Committee, I want to say how glad we are that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment. It is not a concession of a most sweeping nature, but we are nevertheless thankful for this small mercy and express the hope that this liberality will continue.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered w stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10.—(CONVERSION OF SHORT-TERM ENLISTMENT IN REGULAR AIR FORCE INTO LONGE-TERM ENLISTMENT.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not think we should pass this Clause without a certain amount of questioning and criticism. Very young persons are to be called upon to enlist under the age of 21 for considerable periods. These persons are far too young to undertake these long-term agreements. For example, we are told that,
    "A person shall not give notice … before attaining the age of seventeen years and six months."

    59
    That is too young.
    A young person under the age of 21 should not be called upon to undertake a long-term agreement such as twenty-two years in the Royal Air Force. I wonder how many young people seriously sit down and plan their lives twenty-two years ahead in such an institution as the Royal Air Force. The character of the Service, and the background to it, must change perpetually as the years go on. What is likely to happen to the Royal Air Force in the next twenty-two years? We know of the great scientific advances being made. The kind of aircraft which will be flying in four or five years time, let alone in twenty-two years time, will be very different from the type of aircraft flying today. I suggest that, by a series of specious advertisements and promises of security, the Air Ministry is attracting young men into an occupation which might be a dead-end occupation.
    I know that many young people are being asked to undertake this commitment without having any real understanding of what it involves. Very plausible Royal Air Force recruiting officers visit some schools and hold out prospects of early retirement with special pensions and bonuses, so attracting young people from other professions. These officers have gone to secondary schools in my part of the world and have enticed into the Royal Air Force young people who are needed for our teaching profession.
    It is far more necessary to attract young people to take up scientific careers than to go into the Royal Air Force, because it is more likely to be an advantage to themselves and to the nation. If the Air Force changes during the next four or five years, as is likely, with the advance of science, the country may have to provide some kind of compensation. We are in danger of making the Air Force too attractive, in contrast with careers in education or in industry. As a result, young people could be persuaded to take up what may prove to be a dead-end occupation when they could much better have devoted their services, youth and intelligence to a more productive form of national activity.
    Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend seems to have failed to appreciate that the Clause
    60
    does not deal with people who are in school, or are likely to have a career in the Air Force put forward to them as an attractive proposition. It refers to people who are already serving in the Royal Air Force. A man serving a 12-year engagement would not add anything to that engagement by taking advantage of these provisions; all that he would do would be to qualify for a pension. These provisions are inserted in the interests of the man.
    It is true that a young man serving a short-service engagement and then converting it into a 22-year engagement would have the added liability of carrying on for a further twelve years, but he could break his engagement at twelve years, which he could have done in any case. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have had nothing against the Clause. There is no question of young people being told a story and persuaded to join, and then finding the conditions to be very different from what they thought. In this case the man would have had a bite at the cake; he would have liked it, and would have asked for more. In those circumstances, I cannot see why my hon. Friend is against the Clause.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: The remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) merit a brief reply. The man who converts to a 22-year engagement when under the age of 21 will always have had less than four years' service. He is not the person at school; he is already in the Service. What he is seeking at this point is security. He wants to provide himself with a good career, with a pension at the end of it. He does this deliberately. He can break his service again later in his career if he so desires.
    If he converts to a long-term engagement he will have his right to break his service before the 12-year point, under the provisions of Clause 9 (1). If he is already serving a 12-year engagement there is no further commitment for service on his part, but he gains the promise of a career with a pension if he elects to stay on beyond the option point. That is a pure advantage to him. The man converting to a 22-year engagement from one of less than twelve years may commit himself to twelve years, but he could equally do that from the age of 17½, by

    61
    enlisting or converting to a normal 12-year engagement. The main difference if he takes on the long-term engagement is the prospect of a pension. The hon. Member's argument has no validity.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12.—(CONTINUANCE IN SERVICE IN REGULAR AIR FORCE AFTER EXPIRATION OF TERM.)
    Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 12, line 18, after "continued" to insert:
    "for the period requested in the application or for such less period as the competent air force authority may approve".
    The object of this Amendment is similar to that of the last one I moved. It gives discretion to the provisions contained in the Clause, to extend not merely on a three-months' to three-months' basis but for a definite period, should that suit the convenience both of the Air Force and the man concerned. It is purely discretionary. The man need not ask for a definite period, and the Air Force may not want a definite period. I should have thought that there were circumstances in which it might be convenient to both to have a definite period of extension.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: As the Clause stands, a man continues to serve for an indefinite period. He can take his discharge at any time by giving three months' notice, and the Air Force can discharge him at any time with full terminal leave, and so on. The Amendment would provide for the continuance for a fixed period only, subject to the man's right to take his discharge on three months' notice—
    Mr. Paget: The Minister says that the Amendment would provide for a fixed period only. That is not right. It is entirely a question of discretion. It allows for an indefinite period, as at present, or for a fixed period in special cases, if it is thought desirable. It merely widens the present discretion; it in no way confines it.
    Mr. Taylor: As I read it, the Amendment would provide for the continuance for a fixed period only, subject to the airman's right to have his discharge be-
    62
    fore the end of the period, on giving three months' notice.
    Mr. Paget: That is not what the Amendment says. It refers to
    "the period requested in the application"
    which may be an indefinite or a fixed period—
    "or for such less period as the competent air force authority may approve."
    That may be on a three months' to three months' basis. The Amendment simply provides that the Air Force can lay down a fixed period if it chooses and the airman agrees.
    Mr. Taylor: I appreciate that, but I cannot see what advantage the Amendment confers either upon the man or the Service. If there were any merit in the Amendment which would do either of those things some reasonable purpose would be served in discussing details, but as the Amendment is drafted I cannot see that it benefits either the man or the Service.
    Mr. Paget: A man who comes to the end of his period of service may wish to continue. Surely there are circumstances in which he would like to continue for a definite period, just as there are when he enlists. It would then be for the convenience of the Air Force to fix a definite period. Why should there not be some discretion to deal with this point? An indefinite period may usually be convenient, and nothing in the Amendment would prevent it, but if a fixed period is desired the Amendment allows for it.
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a very persuasive advocate, hut, as in the case of his previous Amendment, I am not prepared to give way to his arguments.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Paget: I read this Clause several times, trying to ascertain its meaning, and I hope that the Minister will not be offended if I say that I have a feeling that he himself had some difficulty in ascertaining just what it means.
    I tried in a proposed new Clause—(Continuation in service in Royal Air Force after end of term)—which has not

    63
    been selected, to say in simple language what I thought this Clause meant. I think that it means that
    "A person in air force service who has served not less than twelve years may, in the last year of his current term, apply to be kept on, and if the competent air force authority consent he shall continue as though his term were unexpired save that sections nine to eleven of this Act shall no longer apply to him and that he may at any time claim his discharge on giving three months' notice in writing".
    Is not that in fact what Clause 12 states, and, if so, would not this be a simpler way of expressing it?
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 15.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO SECTIONS 8 TO 14.)
    Mr. Cronin: I beg to move, in page 13, line 36, to leave out subsection (2).
    Would it be convenient, Dr. King, to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendment, to leave out subsection (3)?
    The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): I see no reason why we should not.
    Mr. Cronin: We on this side of the Committee have no objection to subsection (2) or to subsection (3), but we feel that these transitional provisions are extremely important, and, as the language of the subsections is somewhat complex, I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State would give us an explanation which would perhaps make it clearer to us.
    Mr. W. J. Taylor: These Amendments are in effect drafting Amendments. The Clause is intended to clarify the position of the existing airmen, that is the airman already serving when the new Act comes into force. In general, it provides for the terms of service of existing airmen to remain unaffected, although there may be some changes in terminology. Subsection (2) ensures the repeal of Sections 4 to 8 of the 1955 Act. It does not affect the terms of service of airmen already enlisted under that Act. If we left it out, as proposed in the first Amendment, the enlistments would be invalid.
    64
    Subsection (3) is concerned only with existing airmen who enlisted after attaining the minimum age for man service, that is 17½, and before they reached the age of 18. The deletion of this subsection, as proposed in the second Amendment, would mean that such airmen would be liable to serve a longer term than they expected on enlistment, because the relevant date from which the term of service would run would be at the age of 18 instead of the date of enlistment. Any change in the meaning of the term "relevant date" would also have an effect on the reckoning of the period of service necessary to qualify the airman to apply to extend his term of service beyond twelve years.
    The third Amendment has reference to Clause 10 (4), which it seeks to delete.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. That Amendment has not been selected.
    Mr. Taylor: For reasons which are largely technical, as I have explained, we feel that the Committee should not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Cronin: In view of the Under-Secretary of State's lucid explanation, which may have been a little more comprehensible to some of my hon. Friends than to myself, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 17.—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 14 OF ARMY ACT, 1955, AND AIR FORCE ACT, 1955.)
    Mr. Wigg: I beg to move in page 15, line 19, after "pounds", to insert:
    "or such other amount (whether more or less than twenty pounds) as may be prescribed".
    Brigadier Sir Otho Prior-Palmer: Would the hon. Gentleman like to suggest that we should take this Amendment and the following two Amendments together?
    In page 15, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
    (a) the right conferred by this section shall not be exercisable by a recruit before the expiration of two months beginning with the date of his attestation.

    65
    In page 15, line 32, at end insert:
    "but the period of the proclamation shall not count as part of the three months commencing at the date of attestation, and the recruit shall be entitled to 'exercise' the right conferred by this section during the first three months of his service during which the proclamation under section ten of this Act shall not be in force"
    Mr. Wigg: I have no objection to the Amendment in page 15, line 21, being discussed with this one, but the Amendment, in page 15, line 32, is on a different subject and has to be discussed in relation to Section 10 of the 1955 Act.
    Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I think that it might make for greater clarity if we took the three Amendments separately. The reason for that, I think, will emerge when we discuss them.
    Mr. Wigg: Perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I say a word about the Clause. It is a very interesting fact that the House, at various stages, has had to be convinced on what seemed to me a fairly obvious fact. At the beginning of this controversy about the Army and the number of recruits which would be obtained in ultimate years, the main discussion was in terms of manpower. It always seemed to me to be crystal clear that the size of the Army was determined not by the number of men who joined but by how long they joined. It took us until 1956 or 1957 to get that proposition accepted, and now that it is accepted it is completely relevant. It does not matter whether a man joins for 3, 6, 9 or 22 years in relation to the immediate manpower targets of the Government. The length of the engagement on which he is now serving does not affect it, because it will take him on to 1962–63.
    What matters is not only the number of men who join but the number of men who go out. Hon. Members will remember when they were young having to work out the problem of how much water there was in a bath. It is not only the amount of water which comes into the bath which must be considered, but the amount of water that goes down the waste hole. Although one is reluctant to talk about it, it has been clear for two or three years that wastage in the Army has been very high.
    66
    Last year I started to do a little homework on this subject. I discovered some interesting facts. Under Section 14 of the Army Act, which gives a soldier the statutory right to take his discharge within three months, the rate was fixed at £10 in the latter part of the nineteenth century—in about 1880—and then at £20 in 1920. It became clear that if those figures were right in those years, because of the changes in the value of money—and there have been many changes—and the changes in the rates of pay, they were wrong today.
    During the Second Reading debate I put forward the view, as I did in the Select Committee in 1955, that this form of wastage ought to be looked at. To my surprise I found that, as so often, I was exposing myself to misrepresentation on the charge of being illiberal, on the ground that at all costs nothing must be done to infringe the right of the soldier, that he must have the right to go and that £20 was the right figure.
    This staggered me a little because for 91 clays, or the first three months, the man is all right, but on the 92nd day down comes the chopper. A man then finds himself having to pay not £20 but £250 to go out. On top of that, in the Army, in particular, there is an Army Council Instruction—I will not weary the House with details of it—which lays down a whole list of trades from which a man cannot purchase his discharge at all without special reference to the War Office.
    This is a grave problem, and it will get worse. In January, the Secretary of State for War was kind enough to give me some figures for 1958–59. He told me that the number of men claiming the right to purchase discharge under Section 14 was 1,650 and that thereafter, that is to say, outside Section 14, under the provisions of the Royal Warrant, 567, making a total of 2,217. For 1959–60 the figures were, under Section 14, 2,206, and thereafter 676, making a total of 2,882.
    At that stage he could not give me the figures beyond November, but the other day I asked him to give me the completed figures for 1960–61. They show that Section 14 discharges amounted to 2,056, and that thereafter under the purchase provisions they leapt to 1,063, making a total wastage of 3,149 under the purchase provisions alone.

    67
    Those figures are high, but I must confess—and here I hope that I will not bore my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—that when one tries to break the figures down into arms of the Service, or when one breaks them down inside arms of the Service, that is to say, if one takes discharge by purchase in the Foot Guards and in other infantry regiments, one finds that the range is very wide. In the infantry as a whole the figure is slightly less than 3 per cent. The figure for the Foot Guards is about 4 per cent. No less than five areas are above the average, going as high as 5·2 per cent. in the Parachute Regiment.
    There are clearly some odd forces at work, and I was glad to learn from the Secretary of State for War that the War Office is investigating this problem. I do not think that it is capable of easy solution. There are a number of forces at work, one of which is that some regiments have higher standards than others. Life being perhaps a little harder in one case than in another, it tends to make a person want to leave one regiment but not another. However, there is an easy answer to this.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Amendment proposes to give the Secretary of State for War flexibility while retaining—and it is right that it should be retained—the statutory right to permit discharge by purchase within three months. The recruit has a statutory right to go, but the rate at which he shall go and the period when he shall go shall be determined by the Army Council and it shall be governed both as to the amount and the period by regulation. At the moment it is £20, and it has to be effective within three months. If the Secretary of State for War wants to make a change he has to get the legislation amended either as regards the amount or as regards the period.
    What I am asking the Committee to accept is by no means an innovation. This is a serious matter to those who are concerned with the future strength of the Army. I do not want to bowl a googly or a quick one to which the Minister has no answer. I say this without trying to score points. If anyone says that the Army Council or the Secretary of State for War will be given
    68
    too much power by introducing flexibility, let me point out that flexibility exists in the Women's Service. A woman recruit has a statutory right to take her discharge within three months, but the conditions under which she does so, both as regards amount and time, are governed not by the Army Act but by Article 602 (B) of the Royal Warrant, which says:
    "A recruit who claims her discharge under Section 14 shall pay such sum as is prescribed in the following Table …"
    One sees in the table that a recruit pays £3 if she takes her discharge within one month, and £15 if she takes her discharge at any time between one month and three months.
    I do not know how that comes about, in view of the terms of Section 14, but I point out to the Committee that this flexibility both as to time and period exists under the provisions of the Royal Warrant. My proposal is therefore not a startling, revolutionary one, but is in accordance with established practice.
    It is important that the statutory right of the soldier should be retained. It is also important that the Army Council should keep the situation under review and under control, and if in its wisdom it wants to keep the amount at £20 and do what the Amendment says, namely, limit the right of a man to take his discharge after two months after he has had a taste of it and knows what it is like, it can do so. On the other hand, if many recruits are coming in and the Army Council wants to do for the men what it can do for the women under Article 602, there is nothing to stop it doing so.
    For those reasons, I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment as being common sense and in accordance with existing facts. It will retain the liberal spirit which has been expressed and will meet the conditions which the Army Council has to face at the present time.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I support the Amendment. The Committee will appreciate that this is a very important matter. We have all discussed getting recruits, but, as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said, this is one of the methods by which we lose many men.

    69
    The hon. Member put it very aptly when he said that in 1920 the cost of purchasing a discharge was £20, so that the sum was now quite unrealistic. As he said, a recruit of less than three months' service can purchase his discharge at the cost of £20, but, within 24 hours of having completed his three months' service, may have to pay £250. There is no rhyme or reason in that sudden rise.
    The Secretary of State should have some sort of power to alter the amounts. It may be that he should be able not only to alter the amount year by year, but to alter the amount taking into consideration the amount of money which has been spent on training the man. The State may have been put to a great deal of expense if a man has been trained for three months. At the same time, the Army should consider, as it does, whether there are any compassionate grounds on which a man should be discharged.
    I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, which would be beneficial to the Army and give the Secretary of State a great deal more flexibility in this matter of the purchase of discharge.
    Mr. Mayhew: The Amendment has been proposed and supported in two persuasive speeches, yet I hope that the Government will be slow to accept it. We all agree that purchasing discharge is a critical problem, but all the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) were carefully considered by the Select Committee, although we concluded that it would not help recruiting or keep men in the Army if the sum were increased from £20.
    It is true that this flexibility exists in the case of purchase of discharge by women, but the problem is not the problem of women purchasing their discharge but of men doing so. The Select Committee concluded that, in view of the resulting publicity, it would not help recruiting to raise the sum from £20, thus giving the public an impression of failure. We also bore in mind that, although it might not appear to be a very large sum, it bore with unequal strength on persons of different wealth and income. What might be a negligible sum to some men might be considerable to others.
    70
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley suggested that if £20 was right all those years ago, it must be wrong today. Although the value of the £ has gone down and down, the idea that money should be a test in this kind of thing has also diminished, in the sense that we are now less willing to declare that a man should remain in the Army if he cannot afford a certain sum than we were at the time when the £20 figure was fixed.
    It may be a good thing for Parliament to decide the issue of flexibility. We want to impose on the Army Council the greatest possible incentive to go ahead with the acclimatisation of the young recruit, to attract him into the Army and to persuade him to remain in, rather than to give him what might be wrongly considered to be an easy way out, or pressuring him to remain by increasing the amount of money which he has to pay for his discharge.
    Mr. Wigg: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's argument that the House of Commons and the country as a whole reject the idea of the test of money. But how does it come about that, at a time when my hon. Friend was a Minister, he accepted the principle of the purchase of discharge jumping to £250 on the ninety-second day?
    Mr. Mayhew: The recruit has the right to purchase his discharge in the first three months, but no right at all to do so after the three months. The two are not strictly comparable.
    Those are substantial reasons for keeping Parliament in control of this matter and I do not see why the recommendations of the Select Committee should not be included in the Bill. That seems a sufficient answer to the Amendment.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: Would not the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) agree that the sum might also be reduced as well as raised?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is theoretical. I have never heard it seriously suggested.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not very much impressed by the view that because the Select Committee came to a certain decision it should be accepted by this Committee. I say that merely in passing.

    71
    This is a matter of considerable complexity, ranging far beyond mere monetary considerations and how much should be paid by a recruit who, having served rather less than three months in the Army, wishes to terminate his engagement. I appreciate the purpose behind the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is concerned here primarily not with how much the recruit will pay to terminate his engagement, but with the whole matter of wastage, of which this is a very important aspect. We cannot debate the whole subject of wastage now, although, of course, reference can be made to it.
    On more than one occasion, in the course of many speeches on the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, whose speeches we have all enjoyed and which have illumined our minds with the information which they furnish from time to time, has frequently said that no matter what we do by means of television advertising or other devices to stimulate recruitment, there is a constant factor in the number of recruits who can be induced to join the Services. If that is so, the question of fixing the figure for the purchase of discharge with- in three months at £20, or providing some flexibility, does not, in logic, have much bearing on how we are to curtail wastage.
    When I had to deal with the problem, the circumstances were somewhat different, because we had at our disposal a vast reservoir of National Service men and there was no question of terminating the National Service Acts. We are now on the eve of the termination of that legislation and the problem facing the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is far more formidable than that which I had to face. It was then easy to tackle the problem. I qualify that by saying that it was not so easy as might be thought, because, even with all the vast number of men at our disposal, during the Korean crisis we had to extend the term of engagement and call up reserves.
    5.30 p.m.
    I often wondered why, with these millions of National Service men, we were placed in such a quandary. I never could understand it. One has to depend on expert advisers, particularly if one is
    72
    an amateur like myself—I am not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of being as amateurish as I was—but the advisers were unable to find the solution to the problem. I regard this matter as almost insoluble unless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has proposed more than once, we revert to the National Service Act either by means of a selective ballot or by means of a direct piece of legislation by which men are called up for a stipulated period.
    Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend says that I have always claimed that the number of men available to be recruited is constant. What he fails to see is that that number is the number of men joining. We are here discussing what happens after they have joined.
    Secondly, my right hon. Friend slightly misrepresented me, which I am sure is accidental. I have said that as long as the commitments are kept as they are, we shall not be able to recruit sufficient men to discharge them. There are three courses of action: to cut the commitments; to introduce conscription in some form; or, as will probably happen, looking at both Front Benches, to do nothing.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is a subject relevant to an Army Estimates debate, when we deal with the whole range of problems associated with recruitment, the commitments and the future of the Services. I do not propose to detain the Committee with considerations of that sort, but I will deal with the first part of that interjection—that we are dealing not so much with the matter of recruitment as with that of retaining men in the Service once we have recruited them. That question which arises on the Amendment is whether we accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, which, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), was the submission of the Select Committee, or whether we impart a measure of flexibility in the hope of easing the situation both for the recruit and for the War Office.
    It is a dilemma. If we provide flexibility and leave the decision to the Army Council, as a result of some maladministration there might be a diminution in recruitment. Men will say, when about to enlist in the Service, "After all, if I do not like the job I can intimate

    73
    before three months have expired that I want to leave, and I can manage to rasie £20, or my friends will raise it for me. Because it will be so easy to leave the Service, I will join." It is true that wastage is at a fairly high level, but it is only a percentage of the number of recruits to the Service. Many recruits may be induced to remain in the Service if new devices are employed by those who are responsible for administration and for the welfare of the men.
    When I had to go round the depots, accompanied by a vast entourage of be-ribboned and be-medalled high-ranking military gentlemen, I often thought that the demeanour of some of the non-commissioned officers was rather harsh, and their expression to the men was not calculated to endear them to the men. It may be different now-I hope that it is—but it worried me a good deal and I did not like it. Once or twice I asked the adjutant, or whoever was accompanying me, whether they could not stop that sort of thing. Why is it necessary to shout at the men? I can understand a little shouting when they are doing square-bashing or are on parade and they do not appear to be as satisfactory in their dress or in their drill as the N.C.O. would like, but when someone is being shown round and is looking at the men, why do they shout at them and bully them—or appear to be bullying them? There may be nothing in it; it may be just their method. But in my opinion much more welfare is required.
    If a young fellow enlists at the age of 18 and finds after three months or ten or eleven weeks that he is unsuitable and does not like the company, or the way in which he is being bullied or appears to be bullied, then it could be helpful if someone were to talk to him about it. But not the chaplain. I do not think that they want to be sermonised and preached at. They could be talked to in a reasonable way and perhaps persuaded to remain in the Service. That would be far more effective than all the flexibility which my hon. Friend has mentioned.
    I do not know what could be done in that direction. I very much doubt whether flexibility will lead to more enlistment. Moreover, I am not at all happy about leaving the decision in the hands of the Army Council. It would
    74
    not always rest with the Council but would be left in the hands of the commanding officers. I doubt whether many cases would come before the Army Council. I would not leave it to anybody to decide as a matter of judgment. Good judgment is not a peculiarity of people in the Service on matters of this sort. I do not want to be offensive in any way, but there is a possibility that their judgment would err on certain occasions. I am sorry that I cannot support my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wigg: I am sorry, too, but I should have been even more sorry if it were for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend, because quite clearly, although he has been Secretary of State for War, he does not appear to understand how the Regulations are prescribed. They are certainly not at the level of commanding officer but at that of Secretary of State. Perhaps it was not so in his day.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is it necessary to direct attention to my limitations? I am more conscious of them than is my hon. Friend and always have been—and never more conscious of them than when he was my Parliamentary Private Secretary and frequently informed me of them. But I managed to get through, and I believe that in certain quarters it has been said that I managed with a qualified measure of success. I will not put it higher than that.
    I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I feel that on balance it is far better to have a rigid and arbitrary figure of £20 within a period of three months. After that it is at the discretion of the Army Council, and I know that it can go up to £200 or more. I have received correspondence from men who have had difficulty when they wanted to get out of the Army and could not raise the money.
    If flexibility is provided and a recruit who wants to leave before the end of three months shows some potential, his commanding officer may wish to retain him in the Service and may say to him, "You cannot leave unless you pay £100."
    Mr. Wigg: The present sum is £20 within three months, as provided by Section 14 of the 1955 Act. I want the Secretary of State to do exactly as happens in the case of women already,

    75
    namely, to do it by Royal Warrant. This is nothing to do with the commanding officer. It is done by the Secretary of State in exercise of his powers.
    Mr. Shinwell: Exactly. The words are:
    "twenty pounds or such other amount … as may be prescribed "
    by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Wigg: It does not say that.
    Mr. Shinwell: That is the Amendment. What is the Amendment, if it is not that? Despite my limitations, I can read, and perhaps it would be better if I now read the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and others of my hon. Friends, most of whom are absent from our discussions. The Amendment in page 15, line 19. is to this effect:
    "after 'pounds', insert 'or such other amount (whether more or less than twenty pounds) as may be prescribed'."
    The word "more" is important. Twenty pounds would be the arbitrary sum within three months. After three months it could be any figure. It is to be prescribed, presumably by the Secretary of State. It could be £30, £50 or £100. It could go up to a very high figure.
    It would be detrimental to the Service if men who wished to leave were restrained. If men where straining at the leash to get out and were dissatisfied with the conditions, it would be detrimental to the Service if they were prevented from doing so merely because in measure of flexibility were imparted n the matter of discharge by purchase. On this occasion I am bound to support my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and I hope that that will be counted unto me for righteousness.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I am in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). We should be very careful before we accept the Amendment. These provisions give the soldier a certain guarantee, a certain privilege, in respect of his ability to change his mind within three months. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that this was an expression of the spirit of liberality. I think so, too. It is precisely because that is so that we should be careful before we whittle it away.
    76
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley pointed to the very large wastage figures which have taken place in the past two or three years due to discharge by purchase within the first three months of service. My hon. Friend suggests that we should give the Army Council the power to change the figure of £20. I submit that in the conditions of the day the change would be upwards. I shall later suggest that it will never be downwards. Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, Parliament would be saying to the Army Council, "You can fix the figure. You can determine how liberal we, the House of Commons, are going to be. You can decide whether we shall let people get out easily during the first three months by virtue of the sum that you, the Army Council, decide shall be paid to secure discharge".
    5.45 p.m.
    I am not prepared to leave this to the Army Council. In present circumstances the sum would always be increased. It would never be reduced. I should like to be told what the circumstances are in which the sum is likely to be reduced, if any hon. Member thinks that that would happen.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: A man might have grounds which were short of compassionate grounds and the Secretary of State, or whatever the authority is, might well decide that it was reasonable to release him on payment of a lower figure. The Amendment would give complete flexibility and allow the appropriate authority to deal with individual cases.
    Mr. Willis: As I read the Amendment, it would not achieve that purpose. If the Amendment were carried, the provision would be as follows:
    "on payment of a sum not exceeding twenty pounds or such other amount (whether more or less than twenty pounds) as may be prescribed".
    When is it likely to become less than £20?
    I assume that there is only one set of conditions in which that is likely to happen, namely, if the Army finds itself with too many men. In those circumstances, the obvious course would be to be more selective in recruiting. As far as I know, every Service aims at being selective in its recruiting. I am confident that, if the Army could get as

    77
    many recruits as it wanted—more than it wanted; the more the merrier from the Army point of view—it would be much more selective in its recruiting.
    There are other ways of solving the problem of having too many men. Because that is so and because the Army could be more selective, the figure of £20 would never be reduced but would always be raised. This would be done on our authority by the Army Council. It may be true that the Secretary of State would prescribe it, but the House of Commons would not discuss it because there is no provision that the figure must be changed by regulation to be approved by the House of Commons. If the Amendment were passed, we should give the Army Council the right to fix the figure as high as it liked. We should allow the Army Council to destroy what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley called our great spirit of liberality to as great an extent as it wished to destroy it. The Committee should think twice before doing this, and I sincerely hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage, having listened very carefully to all the arguments, I state what my views on the Amendment are. It must be unusual for a Minister to come to Parliament and refuse to be given more flexibility and greater powers, but on this occasion it is my duty to take the opposite attitude to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), whose sincerity I fully appreciate and understand.
    Section 14 of the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955, gives a recruit the right to buy himself out during the first three months on payment of £20. Some flexibility already exists under the 1955 Acts. The hon. Member for Dudley wants to give me the power to vary the amount upwards if necessary. I already have power to make it less. The words are "not exceeding". The whole argument about changing the present sum is so that the Secretary of State and the Army Council could, if they wished, put the price up.
    It is clearly Parliament's intention that there should be a period during which a soldier can have second thoughts. The Clause seeks to modify this to the extent that the Army and Air Councils would
    78
    be given power to make regulations stopping the exercise of this right during the first two months of a recruit's service. The period of two months is a maximum period, and a ban would be imposed on any period within that maximum.
    As has been pointed out, Clause 17 was inserted by the Select Committee, whose reasons are set out in paragraphs 10–15 of the Special Report. The Committee may recollect that during the debate on the Army Estimates in March, I said that I should be perfectly prepared to accept this, but the present Amendment is quite clearly intended to give the Army and Air Councils complete freedom to vary the amount of the purchase money from nothing at all upwards, without any limit at all.
    I should like to remind the Committee that during the Second Reading debate I said of the purchase price:
    "… I believe that it would be against the interests of recruiting, which the House has so much at heart, if it were felt that we were trying to hold a man to the forces against his will by making the price of purchasing out prohibitive. Anyway, if a man has made a genuine mistake in coming into the forces, I am not sure that it is not far better to let him go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 1209.]
    We do not want reluctant soldiers.
    I am happy to say that the Select Committee endorsed this view. It came to the conclusion that an increase in the purchase price from £20 to, say, £50, would be unfair to the recruit whose means, or family means, were inadequate, despite the fact, and I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley, that £50 could probably be raised today much more easily than could the £10 required in 1881, or the £20 in 1920.
    The Select Committee endorsed the view that the publicity given to any change in the sum might have—and I think that it probably would have—an adverse effect on recruitment. I am sure that this must be the case, and I do not think that we should substitute for the old system of what might be called press-ganging some new system which one might call tele-ganging because, once having brought them in, we have to make them stick there.
    The hon. Member for Dudley has made it clear that he wants this to be only a permissive power, but I think that

    79
    it might make just that difference to many would-be recruits who were genuinely uncertain about the step they were about to take if we introduced the possibility of an upward variation in purchase money at any moment that I or the Army Council might decide.
    Of course, if we were starting anew, and fixing the price from scratch, and if the need to attract recruits were not of such over-riding importance, these psychological considerations might not arise. I might then well have found myself in the company of the hon. Member for Dudley in thinking that some figure higher than £20 was right to start at, but I am sure that the key to the problem is to give the recruit a proper chance to settle down. That is the object of our taking power to impose the ban. It will provide a means of ensuring that a recruit does give the Army or the Air Force a fair trial before exercising his statutory right—which, I take it, Parliament still wishes him to have—to buy himself out.
    In the Army, we are still losing a lot of recruits, and most of those who buy their discharge do so in the first month. I am told that many of those who do so would become good and contented soldiers if they persevered just long enough to get over the first unsettled weeks, and I believe that a maximum ban of two months from joining is adequate for the purpose. That now leaves only one month during which the recruit can buy himself out for a reasonable sum.
    I was particularly interested in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) had to say on the subject. If I may say so, his tenure of office in the War Office is still regarded with the greatest possible admiration and respect by all the soldiers I have come across. I should tell the Committee that I am making special arrangements to look after new recruits, and I can refer to that, if the Committee wishes me to do so, when we debate the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Perhaps the strongest reason for rejecting the Amendment is that its object is to enable the Army and Air Councils to raise the cost of the purchase of discharge to a level which will hold more
    80
    recruits in the Army against their will. This would be clearly contrary to the intention of Parliament, enshrined in the Act, that recruits shall have an escape route if they find that they have made a genuine mistake.
    We must also bear in mind what goes on today in life outside the Armed Forces. Many firms have apprenticeship schemes, and spend sometimes hundreds of pounds on young men as apprentices. But those young men can walk out; the firms have no hold on them at all. I do not think that it would be right to say that just because we in the Army and the Royal Air Force have to spend some money on these young men, they must stay. If they find that they are not fitted or not suited to the life, or that they have made a genuine mistake, we must let them take this step. Apart from this, I consider that the Amendment is undesirable, because I believe that it would have a bad effect on recruiting, and because we do not want reluctant warriors in the Army or the Air Force. For those reasons, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: If I had any doubts as to how I should vote on this Amendment I have certainly been convinced by the absolutely logical arguments of the Secretary of State. I would say, without embarrassing him, that it is the most sensible speech I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make since he became Secretary of State for War. If he has to lead his troops into the Lobby against the Amendment, I shall follow him, not as a reluctant recruit but as an enthusiastic supporter.
    I am also glad on this occasion to be able to support my own Front Bench, and I do so because I think that there is something very insidious in this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) collects his facts with amazing industry and I am always impressed by them and glad to have them, but I am always very doubtful when he starts drawing conclusions from those facts. He and I then sometimes part company, and I have to part from him on this occasion.
    There are some words that very often take the trick in arguments in this Committee, and one of them is this blessed

    81
    word "flexibility". What can that word mean? If it were flexibility from £20 down to 10s. I should agree with it, but when the flexibility means a sum from £20 upwards it is obvious, for the very convincing arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), that we cannot agree. This Amendment means "All power to the Army Council," and I would not for a moment subscribe to that slogan.
    What is the background to all this? Naturally, we have wastage figures, because when a recruit gets into the Army he sometimes finds it very different from the way it was advertised on the television screen or the recruiting posters. When, in my part of the country, it looked as though there were no prospects of greater employment in the mining industry, some of the miners joined the Army. They then found that there was a good deal of the shouting and the bawling and bullying to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—
    Mr. Shinwell: Not gallant.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: My right hon. Friend is gallant. I use the word, not in the accepted Parliamentary sense because, even though he was not in the Army, he is certainly a very gallant Parliamentary fighter.
    My right hon. Friend certainly struck the nail on the head. I do not see this wastage problem getting any better. When a recruit enters the Army, for the first three months—or at least for the first 24 hours—he might be treated with a certain amount of civility but then, after that initial period, the Army goes back to bawling and shouting. In any case, I do not see how one can run an Army without all the shouting and the bawling that goes on. It cannot be run like a Sunday school. It is obvious that a number of recruits, after their first three months, will want to leave and. if so, I agree with the principle that was outlined by the Secretary of State.
    We should consider how the present system compares with other organisations and industries. Would anyone suggest that a recruit to the coal mining industry, if he does not like the job after the first three months, should have to pay the Coal Board £20? I fail to see
    82
    why the Army should not be able to compete with coal mining. After all, coal mining is not on industry. It is an atrocity.
    Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend may be interested in evidence that was given to the Select Committee, which showed that the rate of wastage in the first three months in coal mining was greater than in the first three months in the Army.
    Mr. Hughes: That is what I am arguing about. But I do not think that the Select Committee advanced the proposal to encourage men to go into the coal mines—to work a 4 ft. seam—and then, if they do not like it after three months, to pay £20 to leave. If those sort of principles were laid down, how many recruits would the coal mining industry get?
    The Army must compete with industry. I have been arguing for many years that this is rather an insoluable problem; that in times of full employment the Army is not likely to get the recruits it requires—and that is a problem that the Secretary of State will have to tackle. I am glad to agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is better not to have reluctant soldiers. But perhaps the greatest form of compulsion is monetary compulsion. If one relies on monetary penalties, then that reliance acts as a compulsion. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley that if he attempts to try to take this matter into the Division Lobby, I shall support the Government.
    Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has taken the line he has. He has certainly shown himself to be original, but that is not saying that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has not acted with sincerity, for we know that he always does that.
    Recruitment into the Army today is an important matter. Times have changed and the Army and Air Force have got to keep in line with other institutions. The Secretary of State referred to this, to other industries and to apprenticeships. But the wastage happens in many other institutions, for instance, in universities, where there it is tremendous. Time and money are spent on training young people and then they decide to change their minds. I suppose that it is their prerogative to

    83
    have a passion for something, and then change their minds about it, and there seems no reason why, as in other fields, they should not do the same in the Army.
    Many young people today go out and, in the light of the experience so gained, change their ideas and do something else. I consider that the three months' period should be raised to six months to keep recruits in the two Services. Although it might be argued that to keep them longer would be more costly, that object might be achieved if they had a longer period in which to get used to the atmosphere. Perhaps a spell overseas might help them to make up their minds within the initial nine or ten weeks.
    I am sure that the general feeling of the Committee is right, that the amount of £20 should not be increased beyond that figure and that recruits should be looked upon in an entirely new light. The matter cannot be approached as it was forty years ago. Even if the men can raise this money, it is not always convenient to raise £20, let alone £50, and we must consider this from the point of view of people living near the breadline, even though wages today are reasonably good. Therefore, while it might be easy for some men to raise the money, it might be difficult for a few and I hope that the line adopted by the Secretary of State will be accepted by all hon. Members.
    Mr. Wigg: I will not press this Amendment to a Division. While I assure my hon. Friend that there is an insidious purpose behind it, in that I want to see an official, all-Regular Army, if I am in a minority in that quest, then I do not want to waste the time of the Committee.
    I must, first, deal with the "liberality" of the Secretary of State. A few weeks ago a young soldier joined the Regular Army and, shortly afterwards, his father died in tragic circumstances. I wanted to get the boy out. "Yes," I was told, "He can purchase his discharge for £200." Meanwhile, the Secretary of State today tells us that in civilian life apprentices do not walk out.
    Mr. M. Foot: That is a case for bringing down the £200 figure, and not for pushing up the £20 one.
    Mr. Wigg: That is all right on the front page of the Tribune, but it will not do here.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Or on the back page.
    Mr. Wigg: Or on an inside page, I suppose. But the Secretary of State is turning this Amendment down on the ground of liberality concerning this concession.
    Mr. Foot: Extend the liberality.
    Mr. Wigg: If my hon. Friend has something to say, will he get to his feet?
    Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend complained about my previous interruption and said that it was not relevant. But it was my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who talked about liberality. His cure for the illiberality of the Secretary of State is to introduce more illiberality and a figure higher than £20.
    Mr. Wigg: On the contrary. It is to keep it to as narrow a period as possible.
    Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
    Mr. Wigg: Do not interrupt.
    What is the main point of the figures? I predict that the wastage will go on and that it will get worse. It seems common sense that if one turns round and says, "You cannot do it during the first eight weeks of the grievances", one narrows the period during which they can take action.
    I am prepared and content to rest on my judgment, as I was with regard to the three-year engagement. I am used to being in a minority of one in this House, but I urge the Secretary of State that before making a comparison of what happens in civilian and Army life he should read Army Council Instruction No. 58, of 1958. He will see that there are 90 trades in the Army, but that there is complete restriction. These are the simple facts.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but in a year or so I will put down a couple of Questions to the Secretary of State to see just who was right.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that there has been sufficient discussion on the principle of the next Amendment, in page 15, line 21.
    Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert:
    (a) the right conferred by this section shall not be exerciseable by a recruit before the expiration of two months beginning with the date of his attestation.
    I should like to put one or two questions to the Secretary of State, Sit William. In resisting the last Amendment the Minister took credit for himself for resisting a suggestion that he should be given greater powers, compared with Parliament. He and the Army Council, he said, should not be left to decide this matter; Parliament should.
    The effect of this Amendment is that Parliament, and not the Secretary of State and the Army Council, should decide on the two months' ban. It seems to me that the same arguments apply in both cases. It seems more suitable that the question of two months should be decided by this House, rather than by the Army Council and the Secretary of State—for exactly the same reasons the Secretary of State advanced on the last Amendment.
    Parliament should be the judge of this. Hon. Members should be the ones to decide whether or not the two months' suggestion is a good idea. As the Bill stands, the two months is only permissive. We give the Army Council only the right to insist on the recruit staying for two months. We should decide whether that should be so in the Bill, because that would seem to be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with it. Everything that has been said about the importance of wastage in our discussion on the previous Amendment seems to me to support what I am now saying. Parliament must take an active and keen interest in the whole question of wastage. It is not something that we can push on to the Army Council to solve in their own way.
    The Secretary of State, I believe, used the expression "tele-ganging". I regret that he used such an awful phrase, but I think I know what he has in mind. Since March he has been advertising on
    86
    television for recruits, and he has decided that he cannot allow a situation to exist whereby a man is persuaded by a television commercial feature to join the Army and then he clamps down on the man once he is in the Army. That is "tele-ganging" instead of press-ganging.
    I should like to ask the Minister, though, what are the facts behind this phrase. What is the rate of discharge of those who have been recruited as a result of his television drive? May I draw his attention to the figures for recruiting in March and April which he stated to me, in a Written Answer, are 24 per cent. up on March and April last year? One might, therefore, have expected that the rate of increase in the Regular Army during the same two months this year would have been 24 per cent. up on the rate of increase in the Regular Army for those two months last year. There are, of course, other factors to be taken into account, but it would be reasonable to expect that.
    I have taken the trouble to look at the figures, and I find that the rate of increase during these two months in the Regular Army for March and April, 1960 was 981—that is, for the long-term engagement other ranks, the key figure. We ought to expect that the rate of increase for these two months this year would be 24 per cent. higher. Instead of being 240 more, as it should be, it is only 37 more. The rate of increase was 1,018. What do these figures mean? It seems to me that there has been a much greater rate of wastage during these two months than in the previous year.
    Will the Secretary of State let us know the facts? It bears out what I feel should be our view, that Parliament must take a keen and intimate interest in this question of wastage. After all, it is not only useless recruiting people if the rate of wastage keeps pace; it is positively harmful and costly. The expense of training a man for the two or three months that he is a recruit is considerable. In the Select Committee we were given a figure of £150 for six weeks' training only. When we multiply that by many hundreds it comes to a very considerable amount of money. Parliament should keep in close touch with this whole problem, and for that reason my Amendment, which takes this issue out of the discretion of

    87
    the Army Council and places it in the hands of Parliament, should commend itself to the Minister.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Shinwell: The only difference between the Amendment and the Section that is under review is that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) wants to deny the Army Council the prerogative of prescribing regulations. The period of two months remains. I cannot see any reason in logic why we should prevent the Army Council from having the prerogative. After all, they are the people who have to deal with this matter of wastage. They are the best judges of whether the wastage can be corrected in some form or other. If it is to be corrected they are not only to be the judges of how it is to be done, but they are to be responsible for the administration that arises from their judgment.
    Therefore, it seems to me that there is no particular virtue in this Amendment. It may have been put down for some other reason, perhaps to raise the whole question of wastage and its corollary, the matter of recruitment, but I do not see that there is any other virtue in it. The Secretary of State might say something about whether it is possible for him to devise some means of stepping up recruitment. I do not believe it is possible for him to do very much about wastage, beyond what has already been said about it, namely, the possibility of providing some welfare administration on an expanding and extended scale in order to keep the men from leaving the Service, Beyond that, I do not think much can be done.
    When replying to my hon. Friend's question about the figures of recruitment, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he sees any likelihood of being able to increase the number of recruits before the termination of the National Service Acts? If he is not so able, has he any alternative suggestions to make?
    When my hon. Friends constantly referred to this matter of diminished recruiting and, at the same time, to the other side of the picture, namely, the increased wastage, the question might properly be posed to them, "If we are not able to secure the appropriate num-
    88
    ber of men, say the number of men required to meet our commitments, what are you proposing?"
    Mr. Mayhew: Cut the commitments.
    Mr. Shinwell: Now we have it. My hon. Friend says, "Cut the commitments." I must say that I detect a difficulty about this. I should like to cut all our commitments, but it seems to me that in the present state of the world, commitments are increasing all the time. For example, we have been informed about the possibility of trouble in Kuwait.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am most reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that this is a small Amendment.
    Mr. Shinwell: It was quite proper for you to attempt to rebuke me, Sir William, as you were about to do, and I deserve it. I was merely using the reference as an illustration of the fact that we hear about tension here and there and it is increasing all the while. It is no use talking about cutting commitments. I have thought about this many a time in relation to Malaya, the Middle East and Germany. Field Marshal Montgomery suggested the other day in an article that he wrote for one of the Sunday newspapers that we ought to withdraw our troops from Germany.
    There are several hon. Members who would probably support Field Marshal Montgomery, but I do not believe at the moment that that is practical politics, and I do not think it is related to the foreign policy of the Labour Party. It is certainly not related to the policy of Western European Union. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), who was a very important member of the Assembly. Indeed, on one occasion he was a rapporteur.
    Mr. Mayhew: To avoid possible misunderstanding, perhaps my right hon. Friend should be reminded that we have constantly said that our commitments in Europe should not only be maintained, but strengthened.
    Mr. Shinwell: That reinforces what I have been saying. It is no use talking about cutting commitments. A few moments ago my hon. Friend said that we should cut our commitments. Now

    89
    he says we have got to strengthen our forces.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We are getting worse, and not better. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep to the Amendment.
    Mr. Shinwell: I hope that the Secretary of State will not accept this Amendment, because there is no virtue in it. The Army Council may make mistakes—there are errors of judgment in all quarters—and no doubt occasional blunders, but the Council is a responsible body of men with vast experience, headed by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. I am quite sure that they are able to exercise right judgment and decide the matter in the best interests of the Service and of the recruits.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to tell the Committee which commitments the Opposition would cut?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be led into replying to that question.
    Mr. Wigg: I am interested in the way this discussion has turned to recruitment, and in what my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) said about the increase in recruiting during March and April. I think that he has overlooked the influence which the boys have on figures, because, of course, they are not included in the target figures which he has in mind, and their effect is seasonal.
    We find in the Air Force, for instance, a tremendous spurt at the end of each term. I have the corrected figures for April. I always correct them for that error which is introduced by the figures for boys. It seems to me that the figures for April, when making the comparison between 1960 and 1961, have to be corrected by something approaching 500. I think that a total of 500 boys included in April, 1961, was not included in April, 1960, and an adjustment must be made on that account.
    I turn now to the problem of wastage, a problem which is growing all the time both in terms of purchase and in terms of discharge on medical grounds. It is bedevilling the War Office all the time.
    90
    In my opinion—again, I am quite prepared to be in my usual minority—the wastage we now witness arises because Gresham's Law applies not only to financial matters in the sixteenth century, but also to Army matters and recruiting in the twentieth century. If the Secretary of State goes all out with a "hotted-up" programme of recruitment to get in recruits at all costs irrespective of standards, what does he expect to happen? Exactly what has happened.
    We need not look much further than what was said in an article which appeared in The Times early this year and a subsequent article by its defence correspondent, published on 13th March, giving an account of a visit he made to the Green Jackets depôt at Winchester.
    Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) wish to intervene? It is very difficult to make speeches when there is the constant sound of interruptions.
    Mr. M. Foot: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I was merely suggesting that perhaps the defence correspondent of The Times might have got his figures from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Wigg: If my hon. Friend wants to interrupt, I do not mind in the least, but constant distraction by asinine noises puts me off when I am trying to advance a reasonable argument. If my hon. Friend does not want to listen, he need not.
    The point I was making was that the experience recounted by the defence correspondent of The Times, when he visited the Green Jackets depôt, was an indication of the shape of things to come. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East that, in his researches, he should bear in mind that, for example, the wastage which occurs when a soldier is discharged because his services are no longer required, or because he is medically unfit, does not really take effect in the same month as he enlists. Thus, if there is an increase in April and then a run-down, it will come about three months later rather than in the month in which the men came in.
    There is undoubtedly a very serious wastage problem. For that reason, if for no other, it is absolutely certain that the Secretary of State will not get his

    91
    165,000 men. There is no question whatever about that. But that in itself is not important. What is important to both the Secretary of State and the nation is not the figure of 165,000, but that the training should be right. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the 165,000 is a bogus figure. The real target figure must be 182,000 if we are to discharge our commitments and the present order of battle is to be carried.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) constantly talks about welfare. This is a very important factor, but, again, one must consider the matter with care. I ask hon. Members to think back to what were called the Hore-Belisha reforms before the war, when everything conceivable was done to step up recruiting. Men of a lower educational and mental standard were to be taken on. A special depot was established where the men were given increased rations and extra milk. They were even encouraged to undergo minor operations to fit themselves for Army life. Increased ration allowances were given and walking out uniform was provided. Everything conceivable was done, but there was no effect on recruiting at all.
    The only thing which brought about an increase in recruiting was the advent of Munich. When it became clear to the young men where their duty lay, they responded. I have noted before the interesting fact that in post-war years the only real impetus in the recruiting figures came after Suez. This is why I have said on many occasions—I apologise for boring hon. Members with it again—that, if their duty is pointed out to the young men of this country, they will do as their forefathers did; but if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, if we are forced to listen to the kind of soft options offered today, who can wonder that the young men do not come in, or that those who do are not the ones we want?
    Dr. Alan Glyn: We are all very concerned about recruiting and wastage but, quite frankly, I cannot see how the Amendment would affect the problem in any way. We must face the fact that, after a man joins the Army, he does not really appreciate the benefits
    92
    of Army life until he has become a trained soldier. I should have liked to have gone very much further and made the period six months, with a sliding scale of payment for discharge. When a man joins the Army, the time he finds most unpleasant, I think, is the first few months, when he is subject to the various restrictions which he must undergo. It takes him four, five or six months before he realises that he is enjoying the Army and benefiting from it. Two months is all too short a period.
    Before we leave the subject of recruiting and wastage, I should like to say to my right hon. Friend—he may well be aware of it already—that it is most important that conditions in the first three months should be good. I do not say that they should be soft, but I feel that conditions in the Army should be improved, as I know that my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to improve them. I hope I shall not be ruled out of order if I say that I regard one of the principal requirements during the first three months of Service life is the provision of married quarters. Many young men who join the Army at the age of 18 are already married or are about to marry. Whether we like it or not, we must accept the fact that in the modern world people marry very much earlier than they used to do. The lack of married quarters will be one of the principal factors causing men to leave within the first three months.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I cannot quite follow the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). He wants the period raised from two months to six months, under the impression that the longer a soldier stays in the Army the more acclimatised he becomes and the more likely he is to enjoy it. I think that that is the argument.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: To settle down.
    Mr. Hughes: Exactly. How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that National Service has not made soldiers who have been in the Army for two years like the Army? The figures are in no doubt. Only a very small percentage of National Service soldiers who had been in for two years stayed because they had got to like the Army as time went on. I fail to see how that argument applies.
    Dr. Glyn: Those figures are difficult to interpret because a large number of men did join for three years.
    Mr. Hughes: If that were so, and if sufficient had joined for three years, the problem would not have arisen. We should not have been here today discussing it. The plain fact is that the more most people see of the Army the less they like it.
    6.30 p.m.
    Sir O. Prior-Palmer: Reverting to the question of the six months or two months, there is one comment I wish to make in case my right hon. Friend does not make it when he replies. Many members of the Select Committee, of which I had the great pleasure of being Chairman, wanted to increase the period to six months. It was pointed out in the evidence, and those who have read the evidence will have seen the arguments perfectly clearly set out, that the advisers for the War Office said that it was an impracticable suggestion, for the very simple reason that a very large number of these recruits would go abroad before that period of six months was ended, and possibly would be there for only six weeks before they would have to make up their minds to come home again, causing disruption to the Army as a whole, which would not be acceptable. That was the reason why we did not press our idea of extending this period to six months.
    Mr. Profumo: In the course of the discussion which we have had on this Amendment, I have been asked to say something about what we are trying to do to help recruits, and also to say something about the effect which the television advertising campaign has had or has not had on the wastage figures. I had thought that I could do that better in our debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I do it now, so perhaps hon. Members will forgive me if I take a little longer than I would otherwise have done.
    First, I must address myself to the Amendment. It may seem a bit of a volte face that I was arguing on the last Amendment that we did not want flexibility and that on this one I am saying that I should like to retain it, but I think that it is reasonably logical. Clause 17 gives both the Army and Air
    94
    Councils the power to make regulations having exactly the same effect as the Amendment. Therefore, presumably, the only purpose of the Amendment is to take away the power to make amendments and include it as a statutory provision in the Bill, which cannot be altered except by Act of Parliament.
    We must remember that the word "recruit", as used in Clause 17, is defined to include women and boys as well as adult males. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Grigg Committee that women joining the Services should have a period of probation during which they can leave if they want to. The Select Committee expressly drafted Clause 17 in permissive terms, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, so that the conditions for boys and women might be varied. At present, a woman recruit can purchase her discharge by paying £3 during the first month after recruitment and £15 thereafter up to three months. The Amendment would not permit this, and, on that account alone, I suggest, would be wrong.
    I do not like the Amendment for another reason. It is too rigid. There is something to be said for a period of six weeks and not two months, and, without wearying the Committee, I will give only one reason. For instance, it keeps in the Army no longer than is absolutely necessary a man who considers that he has made a genuine mistake, and such people can have a disruptive effect if they are kept on in the Army if they are no good as soldiers. I am sure that the same applies to the Royal Air Force.
    The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Select Committee was told by Army witnesses that "six to eight weeks" was judged to be the most suitable period to stipulate before the right to claim discharge could be exercised. The two months' provision in Clause 17 is a maximum limit, and I should wish to be able to vary that downwards if it were thought advisable at a later date. There might well come a time when it would be judged better for recruiting to have either no ban at all, or a ban of one month only. I do not know, but I do know that no one can forecast accurately the success of a ban of six weeks or two months. There must be room for manœuvre in the light of

    95
    experience and when the comprehensive study being produced by the Army Operational Research Group becomes available.
    There is one other point. Although we are dealing with the Army and Air Force Bill, there is a difference between the two Services, which is another reason why I should like some latitude. The Royal Air Force does not operate this Clause in the same way as the Army. It has not so much reason to do so, but the position may be reversed later. If we make it statutory and do not allow the Army Council or the Air Council the manœuverability for which I ask on this occasion—and it is only for that reason—I believe that we shall defeat our own end.
    So much for the guts of the Amendment. When we are talking about a wider aspect—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has had to leave, because this is something in which he is interested—unfortunately, the Select Committee was right to share my concern at the high loss of recruits. As hon. Members will have seen, in Appendix 8 to the Report, the percentage of recruits buying their discharge more than quadrupled in the four years 1957–60.
    There are two aspects to recruiting, to both of which the hon. Member for Dudley referred—the tap and the plug. By and large, I am glad to tell the Committee that the flow from the tap is fairly satisfactory. It is the plug which we have to take care of; we simply have got to do something about the wastage of recruits. Some go for medical reasons, and some because they are hopelessly unsuited to the military life. There is not much that we can do about this, but the men who are buying themselves out, in the main, as I have said, are those we want to keep, and we must lose no chance of stopping this leakage down the waste-pipe.
    As I think the Committee knows, I am making strenuous efforts to see that recruits are introduced into the Army in a modern and sensible way. I am not now referring to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the shouting of N.C.O.s. We cannot have a whispering Army. I do not think that the men mind being shouted at by N.C.O.s. I went to a
    96
    camp last weekend with the Territorial Army, and I found that the regimental sergeant-major shouted just as much at Territorials as at the Regular men. I asked whether the men minded being shouted at, and the answer was, "They do not mind it at all, as long as they respect the man who is shouting." I think that the whole point of this is respect, rather than bad language.
    Mr. Shinwell: The impression I got when I was going round was that they probably did not mind being shouted at when engaged in ordinary parades and drills, or whatever it may be, but they did not like being shouted at in the presence of visitors. I feel that way myself. One does not mind being shouted at, or castigated, but one does mind being shouted at or castigated in the present of other people.
    Mr. Profumo: The right hon. Gentleman has been shouted at in the presence of other people far more than anybody else in this House, and he has not taken it in bad part. This is an occupational hazard which soldiers and politicians share alike.
    There are some sensible arrangements that we can make. The Committee might like to know that selected officers with previous training establishment experience have now undergone special "job-introduction training" in the sphere of civil industry. They have spent a month visiting the training establishments of all arms and services in Home Commands, and as a result of what they have learned and found, I have already arranged to make certain changes.
    In particular, we will now concentrate on seeing that the new recruit is properly welcomed into the Army and made to feel part of it straight away. We shall have an officer in every squad who will be responsible—in most cases, this is going on already—for individual recruits, dealing with his welfare, keeping in touch with his family and seeing generally how he is getting on. I think that this is what the right hon. Gentleman and most hon. Members of the Committee were getting at. It is not a question of how long we have or how much we pay, but of what we can do in introducing the recruits in a sensible and modern manner.
    Mr. Paget: The Royal Navy has worked this system in the form of individual officers for years, and perhaps that may be the reason why naval recruiting is so much more satisfactory.
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot agree to that at all. What we are trying to do as a result of people going through civilian "job-introduction courses" is to ensure that things are done for the Army on a sensible and modern basis. I think that the Navy is rather different. They shove the men off to sea, and they cannot get away. They put them in a boat, and there they are.
    Mr. Mayhew: What the Minister says is very much in line with the views expressed strongly on this side of the Committee, but could he say whether these "job-introduction officers" will study not only civilian industries which have had success, but those units of the Army which have had success in maintaining recruits far the first three months? The problem is not to bring them up to the civilian standard, but to bring up the standard of the least successful units to the standard of the best. Are they training in that matter?
    Mr. Profumo: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop this point, because I think that it is relevant. The job-introduction units are doing everything possible to pull the strings together and to ensure that where things are going well it is widely applied. In this day and age we must ensure as far as possible that the Armed Forces are wholly in line with what has been learned in civil life and industry. By and large, I think that this is happening. I hope that the Committee will not take what I have been saying as a criticism of what has been going on in the Armed Forces. We are constantly trying to make things better.
    The way to plug the hole is to be sure that we are doing everything we can to introduce people in a sensible way. To this end, the new recruit will receive more guidance than in the past. Lectures and early instruction will be designed to arouse his interest and appreciation of the aim and purpose of the Army as such. More films, interesting training, handling of weapons from the start, visits to other Army units, demonstrations, regular games periods
    98
    and similar activities will be fitted into a reasonable working week. Periods for cleaning equipment will be included in working programmes.
    Many other steps are being taken to encourage and guide the new recruit and to ensure that interest and purpose are the keynotes of his introduction to the Army, not boredom and hours spent on unnecessary petty chores. My aim is to ensure that this interest and purpose are kept up throughout his Army career so that, if possible, the soldier will decide to stay in the Army when his enlistment as such comes to an end. That is the other end—the prolongation. This is important. The human element will sometimes mean that we fall short of the ideal, but I am satisfied that all in positions of authority in the Regular Army are striving towards this end.
    Besides these efforts, it seems to me that we need to make sure that the recruit gives the Army a fair trial and sees its advantages. That is why we want the eight weeks, and I want the right to be able to bring it back to six weeks, if necessary, to see that all recruits give the Army a fair trial and get over the teething troubles and difficulties of transition from the Welfare State, civilian life, to Army life, and that, later, they will be proud to be members of the Armed Forces.
    I have been asked to give the effect of the television recruiting campaign. I am glad to say that there is nothing that suggests that this is a matter of easy come, easy go, as some hon. Members might think would be the case. It is too early yet for me to be definite, but, wherever we tried television advertising, recruiting went up by about 20 per cent. for some time during the campaign and for some time after it. If we were losing large numbers of people recruited through television, which might be thought to be the case if we were inducing into the Army more people than might normally have come into it, surely our wastage figures would be going up by leaps and bounds, commensurate with the 20 per cent. increase.
    During the first four months of this year we have lost rather fewer recruits than we did in a similar period in 1960. One of the troubles is that we cannot recognise a television recruit. He has not square eyes, or a cathode tube nose. It is not possible to tell exactly what

    99
    sort of man he is. One thing, however, is clear, and that is that it is a most important factor in attracting men into the Army. The extra recruits are not leaving in large numbers when the novelty of the advertised brand has worn off.
    Perhaps the Committee will forgive me for having digressed, but in discussing a small point—whether I should be allowed the opportunity of varying the eight weeks to six weeks or whether, as on the last Amendment, the figure should be more than £20—we must do it against the general background of how we are to deal with the wastage. I have tried to give the Committee some of the ways in which my colleagues on the Army Council and I are trying to deal with this important point so that we can keep the recruits because they want to be soldiers rather than that we should in some other way force them to stay.
    For the reasons which I have given, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question on married accommodation. He is approaching the Army in a modern way, but often men join the Army thinking that they will have married accommodation. When they find that this is not so, they decide that the Army is not the career for them.
    Mr. Profumo: I am sorry that I did not deal with that point. This is a very difficult matter which is tied up with the modern Welfare State. Before we know where we are, we shall have to provide married quarters in the schools, because people are getting married younger and younger.
    The difficulty is to keep up with the building programme. The Army has embarked on the greatest building programme in the whole of its history, but, even though we are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds, it is bound to be some years before we can catch up. I am sure that our first interest must be with the men who have already become soldiers and are in fighting units serving outside this country. We are providing very many more married quarters titan ever before. I hope that in two years in B.A.O.R. and England alone there will be no waiting list.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: I was interested in the remarks of the Secretary of State about wastage. Unfortunately, they do not tally with the statistical breakdown. There is no doubt that there is a direct relationship between wastage and the sort of quality of recruit that one gets. To take the wastage among the Foot Guards, it is 2·9 per cent. for purchase, 2·6 per cent. for medical reasons and 2·9 per cent. for other reasons, a total of 8·4 per cent. If one goes to the other end of the scale—I do not say that in an unkindly way—for the Royal Pioneer Corps the figures are 1·3 per cent. for purchase, 4·8 per cent. for medical reasons and 10·3 per cent. for other reasons, making a total of 16·4 per cent. There is no doubt that there is a correlation between wastage and the quality of the recruit.
    I think that there is also no doubt that, whether deliberately or otherwise, the Army has lowered its standard, both educationally and medically. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that in his speech on the Estimates he threatened this, and I asked him one or two questions about it. I believe that he has done it. Unfortunately, if this becomes widely accepted there is no way back. That is one of the reasons why I think that the Government should seriously consider the manpower problems, because they may, for political reasons, take a step which, at the end of the day, may prove disastrous.
    Mr. Profumo: First, let me deal with what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) calls my threat that we would lower standards. What I was doing was to try to tell the House that there were means other than that of selective service that we should have to examine. I gave this as an example.
    I take the opportunity now of assuring hon. Members that I have done no such thing. I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply devoted to the Army. I hope that he will not give credence to this belief. I am sure that he will welcome the opportunity of being able to say to those people who suggest that this is what I have done that I have not, in fact, done it.
    All that I was attempting to do in my speech was to try to show that, whereas we have had an increase of about 20 per cent. in recruits, directly

    101
    attributable, I think, to television, if they had all been recruits who were going to be no good as soldiers, and that they were merely lured into the Army by advertising, we would expect to see a high increase in the number of purchasers out.
    I said that in the first quarter of this year, which was the time of the television campaign, the number of people who purchased themselves out was fractionally less than the number in the same period in 1960. To that extent, it must show that a large number of the television recruits are good and will stick. I was making only that point.
    Mr. Paget: Is it not a slightly alarming prospect to have an Army of people so feckless that they allow their career to be settled by a goggle-box?
    Mr. Profumo: I did not say that either. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member has not looked at the Army recruiting films on television. We are not seeking to engage in pressure television advertising. All we are doing is to call attention to the life of service which the Army provides, and that, I believe, is why many more people who have service at heart are deciding to come forward. They are not feckless. They will make good soldiers.
    Mr. Mayhew: If, as the Secretary of State indicates, we have a 20 per cent. increase in recruiting without a significant rise in wastage, that is encouraging. When did the national television coverage begin? My impression is that it was towards the end of February. The figures quoted to us by the right hon. Gentleman were for the first quarter of the year. To me, they do not seem to be so reassuring. If the television recruiting began at the end of February, the rate of purchase of discharge for the first quarter of this year would not be relevant. Perhaps the Minister was in error.
    The figures I quoted—I agree that it is difficult to make them clear—about the increase in the strength of the Regular Army tended to show precisely the opposite, namely, that when television recruiting increased in March and April the strength of the Regular Army did not increase in parallel. Therefore, we should regard these facts for the time being as provisional.
    102
    There were a number of points in the Minister's speech which will give pleasure on both sides of the Committee. The approach to the necessity for acclimatising recruits is a point which was made several times on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about married quarters were not so encouraging. A recent visit to Germany convinced me that the failure to provide married quarters is by far the most important obstacle to recruiting.
    The striking fact is, not so much that we have a great building programme in hand, but that fifteen years after the end of the war we should still not be able to provide married quarters for every one of our soldiers serving overseas and at home. In view, however, of the more constructive parts of the Secretary of State's statement, I do not think that my hon. Friend's would wish me to press the Amendment at this time.
    Mr. Wigg: The Secretary of State's figures concerning purchase are not borne out by the facts. It is true that discharges by purchase under Section 14 have tended to tail off this year, having gone from 1,650 in 1958–59 to 2,208 and, now, to 2,056; but discharges by purchase other than under Section 14 have increased during the same period from 567 to 676 and to 1,093. In the course of two years, therefore, they have almost doubled. That is why the right hon. Gentleman cannot find any direct correlation between the increase and the rising strength of the Army. The figures are on a different basis. One figure includes boys, the other figures do not.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Secretary of State give us any information about the trades and industries from which the increased number of recruits for the Army has been obtained? For example, are we recruiting from vital national industries which are essential for the production of goods for the world market? In some areas, we still need more miners. While we need more miners for the mines, are we attracting them into the Army by television and, consequently, getting less coal? Are we depleting skilled labour and intelligent people from industries which most need them?
    Perhaps it will be possible for the Minister to give us information about the industries from which these additional recruits have been attracted. If

    103
    they have been obtained from vital national industries, the Secretary of State is weakening the national economy and there is no gain at all.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 15, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    "but the period of the Proclamation shall not count as part of the three months commencing at the date of attestation, and the recruit shall be entitled to 'exercise' the right conferred by this section during the first three months of his service during which the proclamation under section ten of this Act shall not he in force".
    This Amendment is designed to clarify a point which is not clear. If a man joins the Army and, on the second day of his service, the Government decide that an operation of a Suez nature is necessary and a proclamation is issued which lasts three months, and at the end of that proclamation period the man decides that he is in the wrong job, does he get out for £20 or does he have to pay £250? In other words, is a proclamation a mere suspension of the three-month period, which will begin to run again at the end of the proclamation, or is the proclamation period a cancellation of the three-month period?
    The acceptance of my Amendment would make it clear that the proclamation is a mere suspension and that when the proclamation period had concluded, the man who had not been in the Army for three months at the beginning of the proclamation would have the time that he had lost available to him at the end of the proclamation period.
    Mr. Wigg: The Amendment certainly would have some odd effects. Had it been operative at the outbreak of war and a soldier had joined in July, 1939, and the proclamation had then been made, it would still have been operative when he was time-expired six years later. In those circumstances, the precedent is a dangerous one. Let us go back to the previous war, which lasted four years. If the whole of the Army had enlisted in the months preceding the war, on payment of a given sum they would have been able to get themselves out during the demobilisation period when the Regular troops were wanted.
    It would seem to me, therefore—this is just the luck of the draw, as it were—
    104
    that the three months should be three months from the date of enlistment. God forbid that we should envisage a third world war, but it could happen in a limited way—for example, during a war like the Korean War. Particularly with short-service men on three-year engagements in the Guards and special units, a most difficult administrative problem might be created by the Amendment.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Profumo: I hope that I may answer fairly quickly. The provision in subsection (1, b) states that if a soldier claims his discharge under Section 14 of the 1955 Act within his first three months, and there is a proclamation under Section 10, he must wait until the soldiers kept with the colours by the proclamation are transferred to the Reserve before he can actually be discharged. This rule is already in the Acts and has been in force, as far as I know, ever since there has been statutory provision for discharge by purchase.
    I am not introducing a new proviso. The Clause merely repeats what exists now under the law. If a man joins up, he has three months during which he can purchase his release. If, during those three months, however, there is a proclamation, wholly or in part, and during that three months' period he makes up his mind that he wants to leave, he is not allowed to go until the proclamation comes to an end. He still gets his three months in which to make up his mind. It would be wrong to start the period again after the end of three months, however.
    Mr. Paget: This explanation satisfies me entirely. I understand that during the period of a proclamation a man might give his notice, but that it is not operable during that period. It is a little obscure, but I am entirely satisfied, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 19.—(FORFEITURE OF SUMS FROM PAY BY WAY OF PUNISHMENT.)
    Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 17, line 38, at the end to insert:
    (2) Section sixty-nine of each of the Acts (conduct to prejudice of military discipline)

    105
    (conduct to prejudice of air-force discipline) shall be amended by the addition at the end of the section of the words "except that punishment imposed under this section shall not include forfeiture of sums from pay".
    This Amendment would widen a provision that the Royal Air Force has had for a long time and which it has sought to extend. I can understand why the R.A.F. wants to do it. It wants to substitute a fine for major punishment instead of detention which might deprive it of a man's service. I pointed out to the 1955 Select Committee that I understood why the R.A.F. needed the power, but that it was clear that the breaches of discipline with which it was concerned were of a rather different form from those in the Army, and that already the Army had very considerable punitive powers.
    I set out to make a list of deductions, which is repeated in Appendix 2 on page 71 of the Select Committee's Report. That list is comprehensive, but there are one or two additions, such as the maintenance deductions under Sections 150 and 151 of the 1955 Army Act. There are also circumstances in which a prisoner of war can forfeit his pay. There are deductions which are not penal deductions, since, under the Pay Warrant and the allowance regulations, public debts can be recovered from soldiers. In addition, Sections 147 and 148 of the Army Act give a list of regulations under which a soldier can be fined.
    I do not raise my voice against the reform by which a fine may be imposed for the same kind of offence and at the same rate as that which would be imposed in a civil court, and my Amendment does not seek to limit that reform. In the Rhine Army, many soldiers have cars or motor cycles and find themselves before the courts for breach of traffic regulations. If this happened at home, they would be fined, and I have no objection to military courts fining them in the same way. It is perfectly true that the proposals in Clause 19 are modest in character. They propose only to fine up to a period of fourteen days pay, and then the soldier, quite rightly, will have the right to elect. It is equally clear that the Army Council has sought to be sure that no soldier or officer should be put in a position of being without money because of deductions for a fine.
    106
    The provisions in that respect are contained in Army Order No. 109 of 1956, made under virtue of powers conferred on the Army Council by Section 144 of the Amy Act, but it is worth noting that the rates contained in Army Order 109 were about three increases of pay back. I should have thought that, as increases of pay are given, the amounts of money levied in fines on officers, warrant officers, N.C.O.s and other ranks should rise as well, so as to be related to pay. If pay is 6d. a day and a man is left with 2d. in his pocket, then he is well off, but if the pay is £1 a day and he still has only 2d. he will be very poor.
    The Secretary of State should look at the figures contained in Order 109. The Select Committee was given these rates as a safeguard to ensure that a soldier would not sink below a certain minimum. There is one very curious thing about the rates. I mention it because we are to have a battalion of Gurkhas, or part of a brigade—a composite unit—coming to this country.
    Mr. Paget: May I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) what Amendment he is moving?
    Mr. Wigg: I am seeking to limit the imposition of fines. I am dealing with the background to fines and with the point made to the Select Committee concerning the minimum pay laid down in Army Order No. 109, of 1956.
    Mr. Paget: It has certainly appeared to me that the question of fines generally, and of what should be left to a man in the Army, comes under a later Amendment, to line 42. The question under the Amendment which is being moved by my hon. Friend—to which I have also attached my name—is whether fines are an appropriate punishment to one form of Army crime—"conduct to the prejudice".
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Godfrey Nicholson): I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). If it is agreeable to the Committee, we might perhaps consider the other two Amendments to Clause 19, in page 19, line 8, to leave out paragraph (b), and in line 42, at end to add:
    Provided always that in no circumstances shall fines, stoppages and forfeitures of pay be

    107
    so operated as to leave a soldier or airman with less than four shillings per day
    and also the Amendment to Clause 27, in page 23, line 12, at end to insert:
    Provided always that such person shall receive a minimum of four shillings per day.
    That would put the hon. Member for Dudley's speech in order.
    Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. The Amendment I have moved raises quite a different point, Sir Godfrey. The minimum amount of cash which is left to a man at the moment is laid down by the Army Council under Section 144 of the Act. It is not limited to a particular amount per day. What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) wants to do in the Amendment to Clause 27 is to lay down that a man who has been fined shall still receive a minimum of 4s. per day.
    The Temporary Chairman: It would clearly be out of order to discuss that on this Amendment. The Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member deals only with the principle of punishment imposed, It does not include the quantities.
    Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order, Sir Godfrey. Your suggestion that these other Amendment should be discussed at the same time as the one moved by my hon. Friend is a good idea, particularly in view of the general line taken by my hon. Friend. The others fit in perfectly well with our discussion.
    The Temporary Chairman: Then, if it is agreeable to the Committee, we shall also discuss the Amendments I have mentioned. I suggest that the hon. Member for Dudley now continues his speech.
    Mr. Wigg: I was dealing with the point that a brigade group of Gurkhas is coming to this country during this year and that the minimum rates of pay left to them are not unimportant. Under Army Order 109 of 1956, they would be left with 3d. a day. The Royal Warrant of 1940 and the A.C.I. to Article 952 laid down that the minimum which could be left to a non-European soldier was to be 4d. a day, so that the minimum rates of pay which can be left to a non-European soldier are now less than they were before the war.
    108
    I do not want to stress this too much, but I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to indicate that the Army Council would consider the rates of pay to be left to a soldier who was fined. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will accept the proposal for 4s. a day, but the position of the Gurkhas should be considered.
    A charge brought under Section 69 is of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. That is one of the vaguest and most often prayed in aid that the Army knows. It is a portmanteau charge, and when there is nothing else, it is always in the background. It is one of the mainstays of discipline and fines under it should not be imposed by the Army for purely disciplinary reasons.
    Army experience of handling young men compares very favourably with what happens in civilian life. In a good regiment—one has had the privilege of serving in them—there is practically no crime, but there is the sanction of discipline which makes it a good regiment and which has the effect of preventing crime. If crime occurs, it is dealt with fairly and in a way which all men can see, with the result that there is not much crime.
    In other words, a young man doing his C.B.—the name is now changed to restriction of privileges—for a breach of discipline has broken what is probably the first rule of the military code—he has been caught. He stands there as a warning to others. If on charges of this nature the Army starts to impose fines merely because the Royal Air Force does so and because the Army has been pressured into accepting something which was resisted by the 1955 Select Committee, a serious backdoor breach will have been made into Army discipline.
    There is no doubt that the discipline which the Army requires—certainly in combatant units—is very different from that which the Air Force wants, or which the Services want. A future writer, probably from Peking, on the decline and fall of the British Empire, when dealing in his military section with the weakening of the discipline of the British Armed Forces, may put his finger on this as one of the methods which led

    109
    seriously to a weakening of discipline—if he is a good enough researcher.
    There was an event this week which provoked no response at all. On the front page of the Daily Mirror, which, as everyone knows, is always concerned with the public good, there was a photograph of a young soldier of the Household Cavalry with a very attractive young lady by his side. He had been put on a charge under Section 69. So little was thought of the fact that a leading article said that the charge was rubbish that no one said a word. I should have thought that it was contempt of court and that charges and punishments framed under the authority of the Army Council were just as serious and just as much part of the process of law as a charge heard in a court of summary jurisdiction, or at a court-martial or High Court.
    If in the exercise of his authority an officer decides that a matter needs to be investigated, it should be treated seriously and handled in such a way as not merely to inflict a wound or punishment on the individual concerned, but also to set an example. The Army Act is not merely a code of discipline, but a way of life. The way it is framed and the whole purpose of framing it and its very being is to buttress men and give them strength of character, perhaps strength in their weaknesses, at moments when they are faced with terror. If it does not do that and is not recognised as that, it is nothing. The problem of the Air Force is completely different. It has to keep aircraft in the air. If a man has been on the binge, the Air Force does not want to stop him flying and so a fine is appropriate, but that will not do for the Brigade of Guards, or the crack infantry regiments.
    Dr. Alan Glyn: In the case the hon. Gentleman has quoted it was a technical offence and the man was charged so that he could have an opportunity to state his case and say exactly what happened.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: I do not know anything about the circumstances. All I know is that it is not good for the discipline of the Army that the matter should be treated in this way. I am saying that it is not good for the Army that disciplinary offences should be treated lightly
    110
    or dealt with merely by stinging a fellow 5s. and charging it against his account. That has no effect. The short, sharp punishment which is necessary to produce discipline is quite different.
    The line has to be drawn somewhere. I can understand fines being imposed for civil offences, or for the kind of offence for which a man might appear before a civil court, but I do not want fines to be a punishment for offences concerned solely with a man's behaviour and with his discipline and with the whole tone of the unit of which he is a part. I draw the line at Section 69, because the offences which that covers are purely disciplinary. With the Secretary of State in his present mood, I do not expect to make much progress with my Amendment, but I hope that future reformers will take a little more care than the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Paget: I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that while fines are a valuable and even useful addition to available punishments, they are not in general appropriate to strictly disciplinary offences such as those normally covered by Section 69.
    The case my hon. Friend has mentioned concerned a horse, Alexander the Great, and his photograph with an attractive young lady. I hope that that sort of matter is not dealt with by Section 69. This was a breach of orders. Merely because an act may affect the sense of dignity of an officer is no reason for making it an offence punishable by a fine or anything else.
    Fines are not a suitable penalty under Section 69. I did not think of it when I was on the Select Committee considering fines generally, but, having discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley since, I feel that that was an omission on our part. Fines are not a suitable punishment for offences under that Section.
    I now deal with the Amendment and this question of not allowing deductions. Whether they be fines or affiliation orders or anything else, it is wrong to leave a man without any money, because when that happens the trouble starts. He starts by "flogging" his own kit, and moves on to "flogging" his

    111
    comrades' kit. All kinds of trouble arise because a situation has been created in which life has become intolerable for him. A minimum which enables a man to live a military life in tolerable conditions should always be reserved for him. That is important to the discipline of the Army.
    My Amendment cannot, of course, be accepted. I never for a moment thought that it could. One cannot put in a vague figure like this. There must be qualifications and various other things, but I want an assurance put into the Bill that the first consideration will be the discipline of the Army, and the discipline of the Army requires that once a man is in the Army life for him is tolerable. This involves having some level of spending power. I make no point about what the level should be, but the principle behind my Amendment is that life should be tolerable for him. I leave it to the Secretary of State to decide what form the Amendment should take, but I think that he should accept the principle of my Amendment.
    Mr. Cronin: I propose to confine myself to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). All who have had any responsibility for the discipline of troops or airmen will agree that the charge of conduct to the prejudice of military discipline, or conduct to the prejudice of Air Force discipline, is a valuable form of charge in maintaining units at a high level of efficiency and dealing with various matters which are obviously prejudicial to the state of the unit but which cannot be framed as a specific charge.
    This form of charge, although it may be valuable from a military point of view, is unsatisfactory from the point of view of justice and equity. The charge is often too vague. The evidence is often of a subjective nature. An officer may feel that some act or form of conduct is prejudicial to military discipline when he is in one mood, but may not consider it to be a breach of discipline when he is in a different mood. This variation of mood may occur in the tropics or under conditions which lead to a certain irascibility on the part of the officer who makes the charge.
    112
    If one considers the type of offence being used for this purpose, they seem of a vague nature. For instance, page 314 of the Manual of Air Force Law says that
    "being in improper possession of Public or service property or of property belonging to an officer or comrade where there is no evidence of actual theft,"
    is an offence. Someone who had not stolen anythng could be charged wth being in possession of property.
    Again
    "A person who drives a service vehicle without authority or, while on an authorised journey, improperly deviates from his authorised route, or, where no route has been laid down, from the shortest and most direct route, commits an offence against this section."
    Another common offence under this Section is
    "behaving with undue familiarity towards an airman subject to the accused's authority."
    All those are somewhat vague charges. It would be better if they were framed as charges of a specific nature, but under this umbrella they no longer hold the precision which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There is a possibility of injustice when this form of charge is used. I have no doubt that the injustice is kept to a minimum, but it is the responsibility of those who are concerned with the welfare of soldiers and airmen to ensure that this injustice is kept to the minimum possible, and that if it occurs the effects are very slight.
    It is important that the penalties for the charge of conduct to the prejudice of military discipline should be kept to the minimum. It might be argued that under Section 69 of the Army Act a court martial can impose a heavy penalty for this charge—up to two years' imprisonment—but I think it will be found that they rarely use this penalty unless it is an offence of a heinous nature. The tendency is to impose the lesser penalty. For officers it is usually a severe reprimand instead of a loss of seniority, and a lesser penalty instead of detention for soldiers.
    The Amendment will therefore have the effect of more leniency being exercised by courts martial when dealing with for this charge. It will also prevent sums of money being forfeited in expiation of an offence tried summarily at unit level, because such a procedure is subject to the accused person being

    113
    able to be tried by court martial if he so wishes. The general effect of the Amendment will be to decrease the penalty for conduct to the prejudice of military or Air Force discipline.
    Another aspect is that if it were permissible to use the forfeiture of a sum of money as a penalty for conduct to the prejudice of Air Force or military discipline, there would be a tendency to use this charge more frequently instead of a more specific and carefully defined charge. The Amendment will lead to a more liberal attitude towards this form of charge which most of us find rather unpalatable from the point of view of pure justice.
    Mr. Mayhew: As nothing has been said in explanation of the Amendment in page 19, line 8, perhaps I might briefly explain that as the Bill stands it makes it impossible for an officer to forfeit, say, both seniority and pay as an alternative to dismissal. I have no doubt that the thought behind it is that loss of seniority involves financial loss—sometimes quite serious and continuing.
    Nevertheless, in the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State said that if it is wished this punishment may be awarded in conjunction with other punishments, and that the Bill gives powers to courts-martial to award forfeiture of pay and a reprimand or a severe reprimand. We do not think that this kind of combination of the two punishments would be used frequently, but we see no reason for tying the hands of the judicial authorities in this way. We suggest that this option should be left open to them.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Profumo: I will try to deal one by one with the various Amendments which are being taken together. I start with that in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). This proposal is not satisfactory. The main object of the introduction of the new punishments is to bridge a gap in the present scale of punishments—a gap which extends between forfeiture of seniority and severe reprimand in the case of officers, warrant-officers and non-commissioned officers, and detention and minor punishments, such as the restriction of privileges and extra guard
    114
    duties, in the case of soldiers. That gap is too wide, and it applies in case of offences under Section 69 and military offences in general, in exactly the same way as in the case of offences, including civil offences, under any other Section.
    The most frequent use of Section 69 is made in respect of charges which allege the improper possession of another soldier's property and the misuse of Service transport. Both offences qualify for the title of civil rather than military. The hon. Member's assumption that Section 69 caters for military offences only is, with respect, incorrect. Charges are sometimes laid under that Section that could be laid under other Sections, and it would be wrong if the type of punishment resulting were to depend on the wording of the charge. I consider that the forfeiture of sums from pay—or fines—will be a useful punishment for first offences under Section 69 that require more than the award of ordinary punishments, even when the offences are of a military nature.
    I realise that some offences, including those charged under Section 69, will deserve a military punishment, such as detention, rather than a civil punishment, such as the forfeiture of a sum from pay, but I consider that commanding officers must be left to work out these problems for themselves as individual cases arise. I intend to issue administrative instructions drawing attention to the point, and those instructions will emphasise that the new punishment must be imposed with discretion, and that it is not a suitable method of dealing with serious breaches of military discipline.
    Although, logically, it is possible to try to draw a distinction between civil and military offences, I find it difficult to see any reason why Section 69 should be separated from all the other Sections dealing with military offences. For example, mutiny and the incorrect wearing of headdress—the latter of which would be charged under Section 69—are both military offences, although they differ greatly in their seriousness. Those are the reasons why I cannot accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
    In the course of what he was saying he drew attention to something upon which I ought to comment. I agree with him in what he said about the very trivial

    115
    case that arose a weekend ago, concerning a guardsman and his horse—including the vital statistics of the horse—and their being photographed with a young lady. The triviality of the case was blown up because a newspaper story was made out of it. I am not trying to say what newspapers should do or should not do. I am all for their criticising. In fact, in the same edition of that newspaper there was a very fair account of life in the modern Army.
    Nevertheless, I agree that controversial comment at that stage is as undesirable and reprehensible as similar comment made during a trial by court-martial. A commanding officer will have to decide whether to deal with a case summarily or to remand it for court-martial, and comments such as this might cause unfair pressure to be brought to bear upon him. In my view, it might even be not without danger to the author. I am happy to say that the case referred to was dismissed, as it probably should have been. I do not think that it should ever have caught the public eye. But the point of principle with which the hon. Member dealt required some comment from me.
    I turn now to the Amendment in page 19, line 8, to leave out paragraph (b). This would give power to an appropriate superior authority to award the punishment of forfeiture of seniority of rank and forfeiture of a sum from pay together. As drafted, the Bill does not provide this power. The powers of punishment it provides are, first, forfeiture of seniority, secondly, forfeiture of a sum from pay, thirdly, severe reprimand or reprimand, and, fourthly, stoppages. The superior authority may award one or more of those punishments—that is the point to which I was referring in the Second Reading debate—but he is not allowed to award forfeiture of seniority and forfeiture of a sum from pay together. I consider that appropriate superior authorities—that is to say, officers of the rank of brigadier or above and air commodore or above—already possess sufficient maximum powers of punishment.
    Forfeiture of seniority may be a very severe punishment, which can affect the career of an officer or warrant officer, and can also have a severe financial effect later. It may even affect a man's
    116
    pension. No limit is placed by the Acts on the amount of seniority that is to be forfeited, though, in practice, a maximum award of one year is normal for an appropriate superior authority. There is no necessity for both punishments to be awarded together in order to produce the required degree of flexibility to which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) referred. It is the punishment of severe reprimand or reprimand which provides the necessary flexibility.
    For example, the appropriate superior authority can choose between forfeiture of seniority and forfeiture of a sum from pay together with a severe reprimand. If he wishes, he can award forfeiture of seniority and a severe reprimand. Courts-martial have no power to award forfeiture of seniority and forfeiture of a sum from pay together, and I am sure that there should not be greater power in this respect for appropriate superior authorities than is given to courts-martial.
    The last Amendment concerns the sum which we should be able to take from a man's total emoluments by way of fines or forfeiture of sums from pay. This question was discussed by the Select Committee, and the present situation was accepted. The Amendment seeks to lay down a minimum rate for soldiers and airmen in the Act itself, and to increase the minimum rate at present prescribed. I was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) say that he did not expect his Amendment to be accepted in this form. Nevertheless, I have every sympathy with the principle behind the Amendment, and am prepared to accept that principle. I undertake here and now—and I wish to put it on record—that a soldier or airman on a Regular engagement shall receive a minimum of 4s. a day.
    But I do not think that 4s. can be the minimum rate for everybody. Even apart from National Service men there are certain categories of men and women—Gurkhas, locally enlisted personnel and boys—whose rates of pay are lower than those of ordinary soldiers. It will, therefore, be necessary to make special arrangements for them which will ensure that each is treated fairly in relation to others. In the end, we shall have to specify a number of rates in considerable detail.

    117
    I do not think that an Act of Parliament of five years' duration is the right place in which to lay down details about rates of pay. The Act does not deal with rates of pay anywhere else. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will continue to leave the formulation of the detailed regulations and rates to the Army Council and myself, subject to the undertaking that the soldier or airman on a Regular engagement shall receive not less than 4s. a day.
    Having said that, I hope that the hon. and learned Member will feel that his principle is satisfied and will understand why I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: What the right hon. Gentleman has said is entirely satisfactory to me, subject to this. I was a little anxious about the reference to National Service men. The National Service man in the Army has to live with Regulars at the moment. What we are concerned with, from a disciplinary point of view, is that men should not be in a position which makes life intolerable for them. Personally, I feel that if we impose fines on, or make deductions of pay from, National Service men, the same minimum limit should apply to them as to Regulars. As to the position of Gurkhas, boys, and people like that, I entirely agree about the need for a schedule. I merely enter this caveat in regard to National Service men.
    Mr. Wigg: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to retain the existing procedure, that is to say, power vested under Section 144, but will produce another Army Order which will amend the Army Order 109/56?
    Mr. Profumo Mr. Profumo indicated assent.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 21.—(PENALISATION OF RECEIVING PROCEEDS OF STOLEN, &C., PROPERTY.)
    Mr. Paget: I beg to move, in page 20, line 19, to leave out from "include" to the end of the Clause and to add:
    "any property into or for which that property, to the knowledge of such person subject to military law has been converted or exchanged and the proceeds of any unlawful or fraudulent sale of that, property".
    118
    The Clause seems to me to be rather wide. I think that this Clause applies only to paragraph (b) of Section 44 of the Army Act, that is to say, to the man who receives any public or Service property knowing it to have been stolen. That is to be extended to anything that it is converted into.
    If some one steals money from the Army, buys a car with it, sells the car and then stands somebody a drink out of the proceeds of the sale of the car, is that man to be held guilty, even if he knew, or had reason to suspect, that his friend was up to some monkey business? It seems to me that the words used in section 44 are too wide:
    "… shall include not only a reference to such property as has been originally in the possession or control of any person, but also any property into or for which that property has been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by a conversion or exchange of that property, whether immediately or otherwise."
    We are dealing with a very serious offence indeed. If one takes it to the third remove, any exchange of property—and this is the assumption in the example I gave—even if the person who had a drink knew that his friend had been up to monkey business and that the money with which he was standing his friend drinks was probably the proceeds of some sort of villainy, I do not think that is enough to make a man a receiver of stolen goods It certainly would not in civil law, and I do not see why it should in Army law.
    I have suggested words which seem to me to be about wide enough. They may not be suitable, but I should be grateful if the Minister would say that he will have another look at this. The words I suggest are:
    "any property into or for which that property, to the knowledge of such person subject to military law has been converted or exchanged and the proceeds of any unlawful or fraudulent sale of that property."
    These words seem to me to take in the larger transaction while cutting out the more minor and distant participants. I am simply asking that the right hon. Gentleman should look at this point.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ramsden: The idea of this Clause is to effect another amendment which experience of the working of the 1955 Act has shown, to our way of thinking,

    119
    to be desirable. Supposing that a soldier or airman stole a truck—the hon. and learned Gentleman gave a rather more recondite instance—sold it while it was in his charge and divided the proceeds among his comrades, under the present provisions of the Act charges could be preferred in those circumstances only under Section 69, or possibly Section 70. This Clause will enable charges to be brought under the appropriate Section of the 1955 Act, that is Section 44 cited by the hon. and learned Gentleman, provided that those who have received and shared the money can be proved to have known in what way it was obtained. The effect is to bring in the proceeds of the stolen property as well as the property itself.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the way in which we are proposing to do this, because he thought that it was unnecessarily wide. In fact, we are proposing to do it by using almost exactly the words in the definition of property under Section 46 of the Larceny Act, 1916, which I have here, and with which I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman is much more familiar than I am. I must confess that I looked at this with great care, knowing that this Amendment was to be moved, but I have been unable to convince myself that there is any great advantage in having different wording in the two cases, when, in this context, both are intended to fulfil very much the same purpose.
    I imagined at one moment that the hon. and learned Gentleman might have been worried in case a charge could lie against a man who might receive the proceeds of some stolen property in ignorance of the fact that it was stolen, or in ignorance of its origin altogether. He got near that position when he talked about the man who might be bought a drink by someone who got the money from selling stolen property. I can reassure the hon. and learned Member, but to do so I must stick out my neck to the extent of quoting a learned authority, something which I have never done before and which I do only with great timidity. It is the case of Regina v. Cugullere, which was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal on 17th April, 1961. It makes clear, I think, that the onus of proof of knowledge in the mind of the man accused is firmly on the prosecution. In that case, the court held that a charge
    120
    failed because the prosecution had not established knowledge.
    The main point of the hon. and learned Member's argument was that we are casting the net too wide by using this wording. I hope that he will agree that in following almost exactly the wording of the Larceny Act we are doing nothing very remarkable and are in line with the civil law. I hope that, on reflection, he will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. Paget: I confess that my knowledge of the criminal law was never very profound and that I did not recognise where these words came from. If they come from the Larceny Act, that is a very effective answer to my objection. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 22 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 26.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO PERSONS QUALIFIED TO HOLD INQUIRIES.)
    Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 21, line 25, to leave out subsection (1).
    The Clause deals with a change in the regulations which, in my judgment, needs to be considered with great care. Until recently it was the practice that courts of inquiry—the term is now obsolete—or, as they are now, boards of inquiry and regimental inquiries should be composed of officers. The Clause proposes that in future it will be possible for civilians to be included in those boards. I have no objection to civilians sitting as members of regimental inquiries. I appreciate the need for it. The Army is being civilianised, and before very long there will be about 50,000 more civilians employed in the Army than there are serving personnel. It follows that in small detachments, for example, small detachments of the R.A.O.C., it may be difficult to find within easy reach officers to serve on inquiries which, after all, may be concerned with minor matters.
    When the Select Committee considered the point it thought that they might be trivial matters. One member of the Select Committee suggested that the matters concerned were equivalent to the loss of a pair of field marshal's boots

    121
    That might be so if the provision were confined to regimental inquiries, but boards of inquiry could deal with matters of great importance. There is a very great difference between a civilian and an officer in these matters. The officer is subject to military law. He has to accept a code which requires him to be personally responsible for the stores placed in his charge. Indeed, he can be held to account in a financial sense for any shortcomings. But the civilian is under no such restriction.
    If these powers are granted, therefore, a civilian could sit on a board of inquiry deciding matters which might subsequently be the basis of disciplinary action under the Army Act—and yet the men who comprised the board of inquiry might be actuated and trained in two different ways. We must bear in mind that an officer of the rank of captain, with which these executive officers are said to equate, would have attended courses of instruction in military law. He would have been brought up to understand and to administer military procedure. For that matter, so would the civilian. But there would be a difference; the officer, by the nature of his calling and training, would be required to take responsibility, to welcome the exercise of responsibility and to understand what it involved in taking responsible decisions for which he could afterward be brought to account.
    While I accept the civilianisation of the Army, the existence of small detachments and the certainty that petty matters will from time to time arise, when serving officers will not be available, and while I accept that in minor matters such as come before a regimental inquiry civilian membership must be accepted as one of the needs of the times, it ought to stop there. Membership of boards of inquiry concerned with more important matters should be restricted to those who are themselves subject to military law—in other words, to serving officers.
    My Amendment is not ideal and I am not sure that it would be acceptable in this form. If the Minister will tell me that, although he cannot accept it in this form, he agrees that there is some force in my argument for restricting civilian members to regimental inquiry,
    122
    I shall be happy to accept such an assurance and to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Frederick Mulley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has raised a very important point to which we should be given a clear answer. The matter was considered by the Select Committee, and it was understood that by administrative machinery the kind of difficulties which are envisaged would not be allowed to arise. But it raises the point of to what extent we try to provide within the Act itself for the conduct of the Army and the Air Force and to what extent we rely on the Army Council and the officers concerned.
    We were never very clear about the exact functions of a board of inquiry as distinct from the much smaller regimental inquiry. While I wish to do nothing to retard the civilianisation of our forces, because it is clearly in the interests of all of us to have work done by civilians wherever possible, before we make what I think is a new departure in this way we should have a clear statement from the Under-Secretary of State about it.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is not able to be present at the moment. However, if the Government are prepared to accept them, I am willing to move the subsequent Amendments standing in his name, in page 21, lines 25 and 26, and his Amendment to leave out lines 28 to 44. They are purely drafting Amendments.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir O. Prior-Palmer: We had considerable discussion in the Select Committee about this. Like the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I did not like the idea of civilians serving on boards, particularly boards at a higher level than a regimental inquiry. However, if the hon. Member for Dudley reads the evidence again, he will be convinced, as we were, that today this is essential. The Army Fire Service, for example, is entirely civilianised. It can be argued that the evidence given by witnesses could be adequately assessed by serving soldiers, but because of the technical advance in the Services I am

    123
    not at all convinced, although I say this reluctantly, that it is not necessary for fairly high level civilians, who know their job inside and out, to be on the board to assist the president and other members of the board to assess the evidence.
    Mr. Ramsden: The Amendment deals with a change of substance. In reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and other hon. Members who have drawn attention to this, I should like the opportunity of saying a few words in explanation of what the Government have in mind. Under Section 135 (2) of the Army Act, 1955, and the Air Force Act, 1955, membership of a board of inquiry is at present limited to persons subject to military or Air Force law or to the Naval Discipline Act. The purpose of subsection (1), which the hon. Member seeks to delete, is to supplement these persons with civilians in the service of the Crown, for reasons which have been touched on.
    There is more civilianisation going on all the time in the Army. There are certain Army and Air Force units—for example, weekend training centres and married quarters administration units—where civilianisation has resulted in only one or two serving officers being available, the remainder of the senior staff consisting of civilians. There are occasions when boards of inquiry concern such units and have to be manned with officers from outside, as things are at present. This for obvious reasons is undesirable.
    Further, there can be cases where civilians have particular qualifications which make it desirable that they be allowed to serve on boards of inquiry, as for example, where their use would relieve part of the heavy administrative burden on military officers, or where they might through specialist knowledge or knowledge of a foreign language assist the board in its work. I have not formed the impression from the speeches made this evening that the general principle of allowing civilians to sit on boards following the Report of the Select Committee is called into question. I realise that the hon. Member for Dudley, and perhaps others who share his apprehensions, feel that as drafted the Clause opens the door rather too wide.
    124
    However, the Government feel that it is essential to have the new power. I should like to try to persuade the hon. Member for Dudley that to some extent his apprehensions may be unjustified. First, as he knows, but I stress this, a board of inquiry is a purely domestic investigation held to assist authority, by establishing the facts of a case, to determine whether there has been negligence in complying with Service regulations or, for example, whether Service procedure and so forth should be improved. Upon the facts so discovered a decision will be made as to whether to institute judicial proceedings in a disciplinary case.
    If the trial is by court martial, the court will probably never see the report or the findings of the board of inquiry. If there is a summary trial, it is true that the commanding officer may be aware of the proceedings, but judicial proceedings of this kind start from scratch and no civilian can take part in them. Civilians will have no opportunity to cause prejudice to the interests of a man who may be concerned later in a disciplinary case. The whole point of this argument is that, as soon as discipline begins to come into question, the civilian element drops out and the military element stands alone. Any action taken as the result of the holding of a board of inquiry will he initiated by a military authority who will invariably have assessed the evidence before initiating his action.
    The hon. Member for Dudley said that there was a distinction between civilians and officers. He said that officers, through their training, were used to cases involving discipline and, through long habit, to a sense of responsibility. It is relevant to remind the hon. Gentleman that, even if during the proceedings of a board of inquiry it appears that some injustice may be done to a soldier or an officer, the matter can be put right at once. If the president, who must still be a military officer, begins to think at any time that things are going wrong, or that an injustice may be done to any individual, or that an invidious position may arise because an officer senior to himself is likely to be affected, he can always adjourn the board of inquiry under Rule 9 of the board of inquiry rules and report to the authority who convened the board. If this were to happen and the convening authority were

    125
    satisfied that there was any substance in the president's fears, he could under Rule 6 (ii, d) revoke the order convening the board and convene a fresh board suitably constituted.
    My final point, which from the common sense point of view is the point in which there seems to me to be most substance, is that since a board of inquiry can be convened only by either the Army Council or by a military officer they can be relied on to use their discretion in deciding how a board shall be constituted so as to ensure that justice will be done to any individual concerned. I was satisfied during the Select Committee proceedings, and I find no reason to change my mind, that in practice this will work without injustice to anyone concerned.
    However, I recognise that this is a change of substance. I recognise the strength of the feelings of the hon. Member for Dudley. Therefore, I am prepared to give him an undertaking that we will endeavour to issue administrative instructions to the effect that a board of inquiry should, if practicable, be composed of Service personnel, or at least a majority of Service personnel, particularly where it seems likely that its report or opinions on questions of fact may lead to disciplinary or financial consequences for officers or other ranks. We will certainly try to do something along those lines. I hope that that will be satisfactory to the Committee and will at any rate go some way to meet the points made by the hon. Member for Dudley.
    Mr. Mulley: I take it that the assurance given by the Under-Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will also cover the Under-Secretary of State for Air. The two Services are equally affected by this point, so the undertaking for the Army will apply also to the Air Force. Will it be possible at a subsequent stage to consider whether something to meet my hon. Friend's point can be written into the Bill? While we have every reason to accept that the administrative arrangements will be as the Under-Secretary said, it is nonsense for there to be a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and so on, if the real substance is to be done afterwards in regulations in which the House of Commons can play no part.
    Mr. Ramsden: On the first point, I think that I can give that assurance on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under. Secretary of State for Air. As to the second point, my undertaking was really on the lines of a recommendation to be laid down by some form of administrative instruction. I do not think that we could write this principle into the Bill. Had that been possible in any satisfactory way, I think that the Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) and I were members, would have devised it, but I hope that in this case he will agree that an administrative instruction is the appropriate means of dealing with this point of difficulty.
    Although, formally, it is possible to answer the arguments and doubts expressed by hon. Members, there is need, perhaps, in future practice to emphasise the point that is at the back of their minds, and to make sure that attention is drawn to it in the course of administration. I feel that such an instruction would go a long way to meet the point, and make sure that future practice conformed with the spirit of what I think the whole Committee wishes to see.
    Mr. Wigg: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his undertaking, which meets my point of view. In changing circumstances, this is a difficult matter. The civilianisation of the Army, as it were, forces some such conclusion upon the War Office, and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that our rule is common sense. If he will be good enough to give the instructions, the desired result depends on the common sense with which they are carried out.
    8.15 p.m.
    There is one question of fact, however. By what may have been a slip of the tongue, the Under-Secretary said that a civilian could not be a president of a board of inquiry, but paragraph I of Appendix 3 of the Special Report states:
    "Clause 25 is drafted in broad terms to enable a civilian in the service of the Crown to be a member of a Board of Inquiry and to be a President or member of a Regimental or Unit inquiry."
    A civilian can, therefore, be president. I do not make a great point of this, but as the hon. Gentleman's words will be on the record I thought we should get it right.
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has brought forward a very important point. As I understand it, a civilian cannot be president of a board of inquiry. Subsection (2) makes it clear that
    "A board of inquiry shall consist of a president, who shall he an officer not below the rank of captain or corresponding rank and be subject to military law …"
    On the other hand, a civilian can, of course, be the sole member, if necessary, of a one-man regimental inquiry.
    Mr. Wigg: A civilian can be a member of a board of inquiry, and as he can be a president or member of a regimental inquiry, he can be president of a regimental inquiry.
    Mr. Ramsden: I intended to refer to boards of inquiry, of which there must be a military president. If I accidentally brought in regimental or unit inquiries, and said that civilians could not be presidents of those, I was wrong.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, in page 21, line 25, to leave out "subsection" and to insert "subsections".
    The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we took those in page 21, line 25, leave Gut "section" and insert "sections"; in line 26, after "1955", to insert:
    "and of the Air Force Act, 1955"
    and in page 21, to leave out lines 28 to 44 and to insert:
    (2) A board of inquiry shall consist of a president and not less than two other members who shall be persons in the service of the Crown.
    Mr. Mulley: Yes, Dr. King.
    These are purely drafting Amendments. It seemed to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and I agree with him, that they put the necessary requirements in rather simpler language than does the original. I commend them to the Committee
    Mr. Ramsden: I realised that the Amendment that suggests using the phrase
    "… persons in the service of the Crown"
    128
    was another attempt, presumably devised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), to shorten the Bill, and that it was designed to attract by its brevity. This phrase is much shorter than the longer and clumsier one we have included in the Bill, but I must advise the Committee that it would have two effects that hon. Members may not have foreseen, and which would prejudice the Bill's intention.
    In the first place, we should get a position where the president of a board of inquiry could be a civilian. I cannot think that this would be the intention of the Committee, especially in view of the remarks made in the debate that we have just finished. It is not intended, and I do not think that it has ever been contemplated, that a civilian should act as president of a board of inquiry. For civilians to do so would be to alter the Service character of these boards, and that character is desirable because boards of inquiry will always be concerned with Service matters.
    There is the further objection that the suggested phrase does not cover all persons subject to military law. For example, I am advised that under Section 260 of the Army and Air Force Act, Commonwealth officers attached to our forces, whose countries are republics, are subject to military law though they are not in the service of the Crown.
    I think that the Committee will agree that there is no real reason for their being made ineligible to sit on boards of inquiry. In fact, on occasion it might be very desirable for a Commonwealth officer to be a member of a board of inquiry where, for instance, the inquiry was into the absence of a soldier or airman from the Commonwealth who was attached to our forces.
    Therefore, in spite of the superficial attraction of the more elegant form of words, I must advise the Committee that our own more cumbersome effort is necessary to achieve what we have in mind. I hope that the Committee will, even if regretfully, accept this advice.
    Turning now to those Amendments that suggest the form of words "British subject"—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are not taking those.
    Mr. Ramsden: In that case, Dr. King, I have concluded my reply, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will be convinced by it.
    Mr. Mulley: I am sure that had my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) been present, he would have been convinced as I am, by the argument of the Under-Secretary. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 21, line 32, to leave out "person" and to insert "British subject".
    The Temporary Chairman: It would, I think, be obvious common sense to take with this Amendment that in page 21, line 43, leave out "person" and insert "British subject"; that in page 22, line 4, after "persons", insert "being British subjects", and that in line 15, after "persons", insert "being British subjects".
    Mr. Willis: Yes, Dr. King, that is obviously quite convenient. As the object of the Amendment is quite clear, I do not need to say much about it. Its object is to ensure that the other persons referred to shall be British subjects. I assume from the Under-Secretary's earlier remarks that it is not the Government's intention to accept this Amendment, but we will be glad to hear the reasons why, because it seems to us to be a sensible, reasonable and assuring Amendment.
    Mr. Mulley: We need not take long over the Amendment, but it raises a point of some substance which, the Under-Secretary will recall, was discussed by the Select Committee and also was the subject of an additional document prepared by his Department—Appendix III to the Select Committee's Report.
    As I understand the position, it is already the case that persons subject to military law, although they may be aliens, are entitled to be members of a board of inquiry or a regimental inquiry and, in that sense, it seems unreasonable to make a distinction between aliens and British citizens both in the service of the Crown. Considerable attention was given to this matter, because it is the practice in overseas stations for a number of
    130
    foreign nationals to he recruited into the service of the Crown in a civilian capacity. Doubt was expressed as to whether or not it would be appropriate for them to be called on to be members of a board of inquiry or, even worse, to conduct a regimental inquiry which might have some disciplinary effect on individual British soldiers.
    The same point is at stake as in our previous discussion about the element of civilian membership on boards of inquiry. As I understand the reply of the Under-Secretary, the whole object was to deal with rather unusual circumstances and to use civilians where their use was particularly appropriate, but it was not contemplated that this would be a regular practice. I imagine that the Committee would not be too alarmed if the Bill took power to include alien civilians on boards of inquiry, or to use them on regimental inquiries, only in special circumstances. But if it is contemplated that this will become a regular practice, then it ties in with the previous discussion and we should be failing in our duty if we did not require an explanation from the Government as to why the Government are now seeking these additional powers.
    Mr. Ramsden: I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) because, when he interrupted me before, I was not at the point of saying that I could accept the Amendment but I was beginning an argument to try to convince the Committee why we should allow the Bill to remain as it stands.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard what I said. I am not so much disappointed that he has not found it possible to accept this series of Amendments, for I said that I did not expect him to accept them in view of the final words of his previous speech.
    Mr. Ramsden: In that case, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman will not be disappointed. I believe that these Amendments reflect a certain disquiet which was evident during our proceedings on the Select Committee, when the possibility of people who were not British subjects being members of boards of inquiry arose. My impression, after the Committee had reported, was that, having looked at this question in

    131
    detail, we were satisfied that what we are proposing reinforces the arguments used before and should satisfy the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. Incidentally, I believe that as drafted the Amendments do not quite achieve what hon. Gentlemen opposite want, since we should still be left with officers who are not British subjects in the position of being able to convene boards of inquiry and regimental or unit inquiries.
    Mr. Mulley: That is so at present. That is the case at present with aliens subject to military law under the original 1955 Act, as I understand it.
    Mr. Ramsden: That is the case at the moment and it would still be the case if the Government were to accept the Amendments as drafted. I am merely drawing attention to this to try to show that the Amendments are technically defective as they stand. No doubt, if the Government accepted them in principle, they could be put right. However, I am afraid that we cannot accept, or are so far unconvinced that it is right to accept, even the principle involved.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that, for example, Gurkhas serving with the British Army—and this point has been mentioned this afternoon—are technically aliens and it does not sound sensible to exclude them from boards of inquiry which may well be concerned with the affairs of their own units. Secondly there may be—as I have mentioned in another connection—occasions when alien civilians may be employed on boards of inquiry with positive advantage. One can think of cases where experts on some relevant subject might benefit and give valuable help to boards of inquiry, such as in the case of getting over difficulties of language.
    There is a third consideration; alien officers may be employed in large numbers in war time—as, indeed, they were during the last war—and it might cause difficulty if they were to be excluded from boards of inquiry which might be concerned with incidents affecting their own nationals. I hope that, on reflection—and bearing in mind the discretion which lies with the convening authority on which a certain amount of reliance must, and can, be rightly placed—the
    132
    Committee will feel that there are practical reasons why the Clause should be allowed to stand as at present and that, after this explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Mulley: I do not want to make a lot of this point, but I think that the Under-Secretary must not be allowed to answer the Amendments of my hon. Friend by reading into them words which are not there. They are not, as he conceded, meant to deal with aliens who are actually subject to military law, and there is considerable distinction between them. This was recognised in 1955 because, I understand, without any amendment to the present law, a person who is an alien subject to military law can be a member of a board of inquiry and there is no need for an Amendment to deal with that.
    There is a difference, however, with regard to an alien who has the Queen's Commission and who is a member of the Armed Forces. If an alien has a commission in the Services he is obviously considered to be a suitable person to administer discipline. It was, therefore, irrelevant for the Under-Secretary to have brought in the position of Gurkhas, for this subject is very much tied up with the use of civilians. It is, I imagine, much more likely that foreign nationals will be employed in the service of the Crown in a civilian capacity than they will be subject to military law. We are not talking about aliens who may be in the Armed Forces, but civilian aliens. We therefore wanted a much better explanation for the reasons for this proviso.
    Finally, I am a little alarmed by the Under-Secretary's repetition of the argument that it may be necessary to have someone on the board who can assist with the language. That seems to me to be a very odd way of conducting an inquiry, to have a board of inquiry consisting of three persons, where evidence will be taken in a foreign language and where only one member of the board will be able to follow the language. If there is a board of inquiry at which witnesses give evidence in a language which is not understood by all the members of the board, surely it should not be left to a member of the board to act as interpreter. It has been said that it might be desirable to have alien civilians on the board because of their knowledge

    133
    of the language, but surely one would not want them to be on a board of this sort merely to act as interpreters.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) has said some of the things that I wanted to say. The Under-Secretary did not convince me of his case. He said that the Amendments might be technically defective, but that is never a good argument to apply against an Amendment. We are considering the principle of the matter, and not the wording. Provided the Government accept the principle, they can always incorporate the Amendment on Report.
    Then the Under-Secretary referred to the Gurkhas. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we are surely dealing with officers who are already subject to military law.
    Mr. Ramsden: I am advised that as it stands, the Amendment covers military aliens—aliens who are subject to military discipline. That is why, in replying to the hon. Gentleman. I felt obliged to introduce the point about the Gurkhas.
    Mr. Willis: If that is the case, it eliminates two of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave for not accepting the Amendment. The first dealt with the Gurkhas and the second dealt with the fact that during a war we might have working with us a number of aliens, most of whom I should have thought would have been subject to military law, and as such could already be included in such boards of inquiry by the present wording.
    That left only one reason, which was a very poor reason, namely, that these people might be helpful as interpreters. In the memorandum submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State for War to the Select Committee we are told that there may be occasions when the circumstances of an inquiry would be such as to make it undesirable for an alien to be associated with it. The undesirability on a number of occasions is recognised. If it is undesirable for aliens to sit on a board of inquiry, I should have thought that we ought to have taken cognisance of that fact and put it in the Bill. But on the question of language, surely the point is that one
    134
    should engage an interpreter. As my hon. Friend says, if only one person on the board knows the language we should think in terms of an inquiry being conducted with the aid of an interpreter, and if that is so, the interpreter should be present as an interpreter and not as a member of the board.
    Therefore, I can find very little substance in any of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave for resisting this Amendment. We have already discussed the Gurkhas and the fact that they are already subject to military law. That eliminates two of the reasons.
    The third reason seemed pretty poor. I should have thought it would have been a good thing to have incorporated this Amendment, or an Amendment with a similar purpose, in the Bill. Certainly anybody whose conduct was being inquired into would like this Amendment to be incorporated. It would give a certain assurance and would make the innovation which is introduced in this Clause much more acceptable.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: One reason for the Government not accepting the Amendment, so it was said, was that the Gurkhas should be included. Is it not covered by the words
    "who is in the service of the Crown"?
    If the Gurkhas are here, they will be in the service of the Crown.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 27 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 37.—(AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON CREATION OF RANK OF LANCE CORPORAL AND LANCE-BOMBARDIER.)
    Mr. Profumo: I beg to move, in page 26, line 4, at the end to insert:
    (b) in subsection (6) of section seventy-eight, for the words "the three last foregoing subsections" there shall be substituted the words "the four last foregoing subsections";.
    This is a drafting Amendment. Subsections (3) to (5) of Section 78 of the Army Act, 1955, set out punishments which a commanding officer may award in summary proceedings and lay down that, if he intends to award certain punishments, the accused must be given the opportunity to elect trial by court-martial. Subsection (6) provides that, if

    135
    the commanding officer has referred a charge to higher authority with a view to trial by court-martial and higher authority refers it back to be dealt with summarily, he should deal with the accused in the way set out in subsections (3) to (5).
    Clause 37 inserts a new subsection (3A) to enable the commanding Officer to reduce a lance-corporal in rank summarily. It is necessary, therefore, to amend the reference in subsection (6) to
    "the three last foregoing subsections"
    to read:
    "the four last foregoing subsections"
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(MAXIMUM SENTENCE OF DETENTION.)
    In section seventy-two of the Army Act, 1955, and section seventy-two of the Air Force Act, 1955, for the words "two years" there shall be substituted the words "three months".—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I hold that three months' detention is a sufficiently severe sentence for any man. I see that the Secretary of State for War has recently been spending some time in a camp. He seems to have had a very pleasant time, and to have come away with very agreeable impressions. I do not know whether he has ever spent any time in a detention camp, or whether he has ever gone there in the same circumstances as I did, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be quite a good thing for him to see the inside of a detention camp or a military prison from the soldiers' point of view. I can assure him that if he goes there disguised as a private soldier, and stays there for a few days, he will realise that military detention is one of the severest sentences that can be imposed upon a soldier.
    The idea that detention is not imprisonment is one which gives us a sense of illusion. I was unfortunate, in my Army career, to be sentenced to two years' detention. I was taken to what was then
    136
    called the "glasshouse". I do not know whether it has been re-christened now, but I rather fancy that the "glasshouse" is still an institution To the severity of civilian imprisonment there is added the harshness of military discipline and I can imagine no worse sentence for any man than that of two years in what is called the "glasshouse". I do not know how much these "glasshouses" have been reformed in recent years, but, certainly, they combined brutality with severity and harshness in a very bad way indeed. I would not like to see anyone sentenced to more than three months in a detention camp.
    Therefore, my new Clause would make the maximum sentence not two years, but three months. If a soldier is sentenced to a long term of military detention, I submit that, after that, he is not very much use to the Army. He is not the sort of man whom the Secretary of State for War wants to retain in the Army. As far as I can gather from the right hon. Gentleman's very enlightened speech on a previous Amendment, he does not want to have reluctant soldiers in the Army, but the unfortunate soldier sentenced to detention goes to the military prison and, at the end of his sentence, is brought back again.
    I cannot conceive of anyone who has spent any amount of time in a detention barracks being enthusiastic about the Army after he has served that sentence. I suggest that the maximum sentence should be three months, and that that kind of soldier should be discharged from the Army and not kept there, if we want soldiers who really believe in the Army and in serving on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman outlined in his previous speech.
    8.45 p.m.
    There are various views of people who are sentenced to military imprisonment. There are various degrees of punishment for the infringement of military discipline. One day last week during the early morning I heard an account on the wireless of the discipline which prevailed at the time of the Napoleonic wars and of the Battle of Waterloo. We heard that General Picton and another general imposed discipline by flogging, and very severe flogging. Soldiers were flogged until they died. I do not suggest that this sort of punishment exists today, but

    137
    I have a shrewd idea that there is brutality in the military prison. I know that there was in my time.
    I believe that it is possible to run a military prison without extreme brutality. I remember the very pleasant reception which I had the first time that I was taken, with others, to the "glasshouse" in Devizes. They said, "They tame lions here". We were the kind of people who could not be tamed by military discipline, but there were other soldiers in the Devizes military gaol at that time, Australians, South Africans and New Zealanders, who believed that that detention camp was a hell on earth; and so it was.
    I therefore suggest that three months is a sufficient time to sentence anyone to military detention. If the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary of State, wish to make investigations, let them go disguised as soldiers, so that no one will know who they really are, to one of these "glasshouses", to see what happens there.
    Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has raised an interesting subject. The conditions which prevail in military detention centres are never discussed in this Committee. From my Service experience, conditions in detention centres are awful.
    Has there been any change in the treatment of military offenders during the past few years? We should be told something about the attitude of mind of the War Office in dealing with men sentenced to detention, particularly those sentenced to long periods of detention. In civilian life a great deal of consideration is given to what is the correct treatment of offenders and what should be done with them. Very considerable changes have been made both in their treatment and in the conditions in which they serve their sentences.
    There are possibly very good reasons for considering the question of Service prisons. It seems to me that the old type of detention should be a thing of the past. Years ago we were countenancing a form of deterrent which I do not think many people would accept today. We were countenancing a very severe form of deterrent because we were training a type of man who, by and large, did what he was told. In other words, he
    138
    was a bit of an automatom. The discipline of the Army depended to a great extent on reducing people to a state in which they made automatic responses to certain commands. That might have been necessary; I am not arguing the merits or demerits today. Punishment during detention was often along those lines, with the aim of trying to make a man like that.
    I suggest that the Army of today, or, for that matter, any Service, is quite different. We are not wanting that type of man so much as a man with rather different characteristics, who has not only courage, but initiative, and who is willing to take risks and all sorts of other things. When we bear all that in mind, it seems to me that we must look at the methods of punishment and consider whether the system of punishment which we are authorising is calculated to achieve the results we want today.
    I therefore suggest to the Under-Secretary that the results we want are different from those which we set out to achieve twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. If the results we want are different, the methods of obtaining them probably must be different. If that is so, it is time we were told something about this. I have taken a great interest in Service matters in the House of Commons for the past fifteen years and this is one of the aspects about which I have heard little for any Service. Therefore, we should he told what changes are being made and in what directions they are tending. What are the aims of the Army now in inflicting this type of punishment?
    Mr. Mayhew: I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that this is a subject about which we hear little. I have warned the Minister that in connection with this new Clause and the next, I should be asking a number of questions which it would be of great interest to have answered. One does not have to agree with the suggestions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to be profoundly interested in the subject. I therefore ask the Minister not only to reply to the questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has just put to him about what changes have taken place in the Army detention

    139
    centres, but to reply to one or two questions of my own.
    I should like to ask the Minister more specifically what is the average length of sentence, what sentences are served and how many soldiers are at present in detention. What proportion does this number of people in detention bear to the strength of the Army? How has this percentage gone up or down in recent years?
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee if other hon. Members are talking too loudly.
    Sir O. Prior-Palmer: I apologise, Dr. King.
    Mr. Mayhew: The figures for which I have asked are easily available for civilian prisons. We should like to know what evidence the Minister has of the effectiveness of detention as measured, for instance, by the subsequent careers of the soldiers who have been in detention centres. How many of them go through their subsequent military career without further offences for which detention is given or without offences for which they are discharged? These are sometimes useful and significant statistics to have.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire used the word "brutality" although I missed any evidence later than his own experience in an Army prison to justify that accusation of brutality. Nevertheless, I should like to know from the Minister what are the inspection arrangements at the detention centres, who carries out the inspections, how often are they carried out and what reports are made. It would be of interest to the Committee to have answers to these questions.
    Mr. Ramsden: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has raised an important matter on which, in my recollection, there has been little discussion in recent years, and the Committee should be grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to review the question of detention in the Army. I understand that he intends to move the next new Clause—(Option to serve sentence of detention in a civil prison)—and, as that also deals with the subject, the most helpful thing that I can do now
    140
    is to address myself to the narrow point which arises from the Clause which he has moved and then, when he moves the other Clause, to try to cover some of the points which have been made by Members opposite, particularly by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). By that time, some of the answers to the questions which he asked may become available. I have not all the answers by me just now.
    The hon. Member for South Ayrshire's main point was whether the maximum sentence of detention should be three months instead of two years. The Committee should consider the implications of what such a change would mean for soldiers who incur this punishment. I have considered what the situation might be. I do not believe that the change would be altogether to the advantage of the soldiers concerned.
    The award of detention for periods up to two years—and detention may be awarded for almost any period, from one day to two years—covers a very wide range of offences for which, in the light of practical experience, it has been found by the Army to be the most appropriate sentence. If we made three months the limit, there would at once be numerous offences, now dealt with by detention centres, for which detention could no longer be given, and we should have to look for an alternative penalty higher up the scale of punishments.
    In many instances, the most appropriate punishment would be imprisonment. If we accepted the Clause, there is no doubt that, without a sufficient range of punishments at our disposal, we should have to give more men sentences of imprisonment. There are a number of reasons why we do not want to do this, and I do not think that the Committee, on reflection, would want to do it either. All these reasons are fundamentally in the interests of the men concerned.
    The debate on the next Clause will give me an opportunity to enlarge on the whole system of detention and its administration, but there can be no doubt that, if one were obliged to commit to prison some of the men who now undergo sentences of detention, they would be at a disadvantage, in that imprisonment usually leads to dishonourable discharge from the Army. It certainly leaves a man with a stigma of a

    141
    kind that detention does not leave, and it might well bring him into contact with hardened criminals, associations with whom might well have an unfortunate effect on his character.
    Again—although I will say more about this later—there is the rehabilitative aspect to detention which confinement in prison cannot match, and is not intended to match, from the point of view of the Army. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not press this new Clause, because, as I have tried to explain, it would not be in the best interests of the soldiers.
    Question put and negatived.

    New Clause.—(OPTION TO SERVE SENTENCE OF DETENTION IN A CIVIL PRISON.)
    Where any soldier or airman is sentenced to detention under the Army Act, 1955, or the Air Force Act, 1955, he may elect to serve his sentence in a civil prison.—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read Second time.
    The remarks which the Minister has already made seem to be a justification for this Clause. While, in these days, considerable light has been thrown on conditions in civil prisons, not so much light has been thrown on military prisons. As one who has had experience of both kinds of prison, from the inside, I hope that conditions have changed since I was in the "glasshouse" on Salisbury Plain. If they have not changed, it is time that those prisons were shut.
    I do not know whether the Minister would go so far as to welcome an inspection of military detention centres by hon. Members. I followed with great interest the investigation of civil prisons by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), especially some of the interviews which he had with prisoners, notably those at Dartmoor. I afterwards followed him on visits of my own. As a result of investigations of that kind, even with a television camera—a complete innovation—public interest was focussed on life in prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East did a great public service.
    Mr. Mayhew: I appreciate very much what my hon. Friend is saying, but noth-
    142
    ing of those programmes was conveyed to him if he now introduces a Clause to say that soldiers should go to our overcrowded local prisons.
    Mr. Hughes: I suggest that my hon. Friend knows a good deal as a result of his experience of civil prisons, but that I have a shrewd suspicion that he does not know much about military prisons. To clear their good name, the Army authorities should allow my hon. Friend, with his television camera, to examine conditions in military prisons and to talk to some of the soldiers there. If that were done, there would be some interesting revelations which would prove what I am saying up to the hilt.
    The punishment of a soldier is very severe, and detention, even in an ordinary barracks, can be very severe. I remember that when I was a soldier in the guardroom, soldiers who had absconded, or who were late returning from leave, were sentenced to a few days' imprisonment and were treated very brutally. I do not know whether that still goes on, but I knew of a regimental guardroom where the sergeant-major was a heavyweight boxer. Prisoners who escaped from that guardroom and who were subsequently returned to it were taken back to the guardroom, handcuffed and knocked unconscious.
    I do not know whether that goes on today. I would be glad to know that the Army has become more human, but I have a suspicion that there is a seamy side to Army life. If I am wrong I would welcome the opportunity of being proved wrong, but I have an uneasy feeling about this aspect of Army life. We have devoted a good deal of time to reforming civil prisons, and the routine in them is nothing like as bad as it was a generation ago, but military prisons have not been so considered, and a public investigation would be all to the good. If the Minister is unable to accept my suggestion, I hope that he will accept my advice that he should personally investigate the position in military prisons and not be satisfied with a superficial examination of what goes on in them.
    What inspection is there of military prisons? A civil prisoner can appeal to the visiting magistrates. Inspections of military prisons are carried out by officers from the War Office; officers whose natural instincts lead them to

    143
    support discipline; officers whose natural inclinations lead them to support the officer in charge of the military prison against the person who is in it. As I say, a civil prisoner can appeal to the visiting magistrates, but a soldier has no opportunity of appeal. Even though a soldier may have committed an offence against military law, surely he is entitled to consideration as a human being. I have a suspicion that that is not what happens at the moment.
    The new Clause would give a prisoner the opportunity to serve his sentence in a civil prison instead of in a military one. What kind of rehabilitation goes on in military prisons? How does one rehabilitate a soldier who has been sentenced to six months' detention and who hates the very name of the Army? How does one rehabilitate that kind of soldier? I cannot believe that he is the kind of person whom the Secretary of State for War wants in the modern Army.
    Certain sentences are, of course, necessary if discipline is to be maintained. If a soldier gets drunk, or commits certain offences, and is sentenced to a period of, say, six months' imprisonment, he should have the option of serving that sentence in a civil prison. The Minister says that that would be a disgrace. I do not know whether it is a disgrace to be discharged from the Army for bad conduct. I know that I was, but other soldiers might regard it in a different light. If a soldier says, "I prefer to serve my time in a civil prison; I prefer to serve my time associating with people who have broken the civil law", I do not see why he should not have the option of doing so.
    I know that these ideas are strange and novel to people who think in terms of military law and discipline, but they should be seriously considered by hon. Members. The kind of Army to which the Minister referred must consist not of reluctant heroes, but of men who have the will to serve. Men of that type will not be found among those who have been sentenced to military detention and have a grievance against the old routine.
    I suggest that this is a sensible new Clause. It has probably never been moved before, and I do not think that
    144
    it will get the slightest sympathy from people who are used to administer discipline for the War Office, but I am glad that I have moved it, even if it has resulted only in light being thrown on a subject about which more should be known by the House and the people of this country.
    Mr. Wigg: As I understand, the control of detention barracks and military prisons is vested in the Army Council, and they are under the command of the general officers in command of the areas in which they are situated. I do not believe that all these men are sadists, crooks, vampires and brutes. Most of those whom I have met seem to be kindly men. If my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) dressed himself in uniform he could almost be taken for one of them. I do not believe for a second that they would commit the kind of brutalities which my hon. Friend fought against years ago.
    I can well imagine that when my hon. Friend was a young man he was very sure of himself and of the world about him, and that when he joined the Welsh Fusiliers and was sent to detention for refusing to obey an order he was a little awkward. If, at the same time, he had come my way, and I had been a lance-corporal I am sure that for the rest of his days he would have described me as a brute. Knowing him, I am sure that after a day or two we would have got very "fed up" with each other, and as it would not have been me who asked the hon. Member to come inside, he might well have regarded the results of his meeting me as brutality.
    I repudiate my hon. Friend's allegations—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend has never been in a military prison.
    Mr. Wigg: No. I had the good fortune never to be caught. My hon. Friend has retained his sense of humour, but he does not always retain his sense of proportion. He says that he does not wish to denigrate the Army, but he says things about it which are horrible—horrible because they are said responsibly—but which relate to an experience which is no doubt fresh in his mind even after forty years. They are not true today. The fact that the Army controls these institutions and that

    145
    the G.O.C. is responsible for them means that they are visited and inspected.
    The other thing that my hon. Friend should remember is that when a man is given detention he remains a soldier. He goes there because he is still a soldier, and when his sentence is finished he will soldier on. That is one reason why he should continue to go to detention barracks rather than to a civil prison. If he is subjected to brutality, the ordinary procedures of complaint are open to him. He can complain to the visiting officer when he is in, and he can write to my hon. Friend when he is out.
    I probably have as much correspondence as any other Member on military matters, but I have no complaints of this kind. I have friends who, have, unfortunately, been caught, like my hon. Friend, but I have never had this kind of complaint from them. I do not believe that my hon. Friend's allegations are true, and the suggestion contained in his proposed new Clause is a thoroughly reactionary one. I take great exception to it.
    The fact that a man is sent to detention barracks means that the Army still wants him, and sees some good in him. It means that the Army is taking the trouble to try to make him a good soldier. Above all, it tries to keep from him the stain of becoming a convict and so coming into contact, often during his most impressionable years, with people who will lead him into ways from which the hopes of reform are not very good. For those reasons I hope that detention barracks will continue to operate. If facilities are granted I would welcome the opportunity to visit these institutions with my hon. Friend. I am sure that we should not find the kind of things he suggested if we did so.
    I now turn to something said earlier tonight which rather amused me. Hon. Members may take what I am about to say as a sign of my getting old. When we were discussing the Army code of discipline it was suggested that the young men of today want a different sort of discipline, and that those who joined the Army as volunteers and Regulars forty years ago, and liked it, were suffering from a softening of the brain, if they had any brain. I repudiate that. When I look round and think of the friends who served with me, and I hear it sug-
    146
    gested that, as it were, they were a group of soft-brained scallywags, I must say that that is just not true. The quality of the old Regular Army was very good and I hope that it is so at the present day. It certainly does not fit in with the picture given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.
    Mr. Ramsden: I am glad that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has answered his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on some of the hon. Member's more extravagant speculations about conditions in military prisons. I could not possibly have accepted what he said. It would have been an unjustified reflection on the devoted service of the military prison staff corps and indeed on the administration of the Army Council and my right hon. Friend had there been any verisimilitude in the kind of conditions he purported to describe. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dudley, from his own side, replied to him in objective terms.
    9.15 p.m.
    It might help the Committee to be clearer about the general position as regards military prisons if I tried to explain the situation today and how it relates to what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire wants, that is the option for soldiers to choose a civilian rather than a military prison. Men who are sentenced to short periods of detention up to fourteen days spend their time in unit detention rooms. It is normal for men sentenced to periods between 14 and 28 days also to serve their sentences with their units. While in the unit detention rooms they continue their military training and are directed to such fatigue work as is suitable for the station that they are in.
    Men sentenced to longer periods of detention, who are to return to normal duties with their units after release from detention, serve their sentences in military corrective training centres. That is quite a different thing from what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire referred to earlier as a "glasshouse". They are specifically designed to provide corrective treatment combined with military training. Their object is to return the men who come to them to their units as better soldiers. The emphasis is on education, physical training and other forms of training appropriate to a

    147
    soldier. It would be clearly impracticable to try to give the men such training in a civil prison. That is the first reason why the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is no good.
    I must emphasise the corrective and rehabilitation aspect of the training provided in military corrective training centres. There are men who are not likely to respond to treatment in such a centre or whom it is intended should be discharged during their sentence or on completion of it. They are sent to military detention barracks and given physical training and other training of a rehabilitary nature, but this is directed not towards making them into better soldiers, because it has been decided that they are probably not fitted to be soldiers, but towards fitting them for civilian life. Their education is improved and they are taught a trade.
    The hon. Member may say that these men should be in civil prisons, but this would be worse for them, first because they would come out with a stigma which does not attach to them from having been in a military detention barracks and, secondly, because the type of men with whom they are likely to have to associate in a civil prison will be different from those with whom they are likely to be associated in a military prison. There are people who cannot put up with the Army and who are perhaps driven by this inability to adjust themselves to a life of Army crime, but they are often quite different from the type of man found in a criminal prison.
    In the old Army Act of 1881 there was some doubt about the length of time a soldier sentenced to detention should be required to serve in a civil prison under certain conditions. The Committee of 1952–54 bearing in mind the stigma attached to being in prison, formed the view that there should be no doubt at all on this point, and Section 124 of the Army Act, 1955, lays it down that detention may not be served in a military or civil prison, and for the reasons given that is sensible.
    What the hon. Member proposes from the point of view of Army penal practice would be putting the clock back ever a hundred years. In 1836 a commission of investigation was appointed which recommended that separate places
    148
    of confinement should be provided for soldiers. The reasons given for this recommendation were that
    "a soldier, though under punishment"—
    I am quoting from the Committee; it is rather good—
    "should not lose sight of the profession against the rules of which he has offended, nor should he be placed where he is in contact with men whose notions of crime are not very strict and who have none whatever of the nature of a military offence"
    From 1844, when changes consequent upon that Report were made, right up to 1941 there is a steady history of development in the penal philosophy and the penal practice of the Army. I think that if the hon. Member studies it in detail he will admit that it is a not-discreditable story. I will not rehearse all these changes before the Committee tonight, because it would take some time, but before I try to answer some of the specific questions put by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) I should mention one development which is planned to take place in the near future. The military prison and detention barracks at Shepton Mallett—
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I know it.
    Mr. Ramsden: —at present houses soldiers under sentence of imprisonment by courts martial and soldiers under detention—
    Mr. Hughes: Is this the old prison at Shepton Mallett or is it a new prison?
    Mr. Ramsden: As far as I am aware it is the only prison at Shepton Mallett. I have not seen it. I am sure that it has evolved since the hon. Member's day, in conformity with the principles of evolution in our penal practice which I have described. Those who are there are under sentence of imprisonment or soldiers under detention for whom rehabilitation as soldiers is not considered a possibility.
    Shepton Mallett is due to be closed—the hon. Member will be interested to hear—in 1963. It will be handed back to the Prison Commission, and thereafter the Prison Commission, which I believe I should technically call the Home Office since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, has agreed to take all those who are subject to sentences of imprisonment.

    149
    For those under long sentences of detention a new wing will be built at Colchester alongside the military corrective training centre there. Shepton Mallett for Army purposes will come to an end probably in 1963.
    I hope that, having heard my explanation, the hon. Member will agree that there is some justification for our view that detention is in many ways better for most soldiers under sentence than a term in a civilian prison. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman of the merits of the system which has grown up over the years.
    The hon. Member for Woolwich, East asked me some specific questions. One was about the effectiveness of our system as shown by results. The best figure I can give him is that 76 per cent. of one year's intake into the Corrective Training Centre at Colchester, where most people subject to all but the longest sentences of detention go, were first offenders, 21 per cent. were second offenders, and 3 per cent. were offenders for the third time. That indicates quite a successful rate of non-return, though it is not as precise a statistic as I would have wished to give. If 76 per cent. of all those who go in a year to the main corrective training centre in the United Kingdom are first offenders, it must be evidence that we are successful in seeing that the rate of recidivism is not unduly high.
    Hon. Members asked about the numbers in detention and the average length of the sentence. The average length of sentence is three and a half months. There are at present 400 in detention at Colchester. This does not include those at Shepton Mallet. This represents 0·16 per cent. of Army strength. I have not available the comparison with earlier years. I will try to find it and write to the hon. Member about that and any other specific question raised by him which I have not covered.
    Hon. Members will probably agree that this has been a useful little debate. I hope that for the reasons I have given, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will not press the Clause. I hope that, having heard my explanation, he will be good enough to withdraw it.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have certainly broken new ground by moving the Clause.
    150
    I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken were quite honest in expressing their point of view, but it is not the point of view of the man who has been inside. The attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley is understandable: he knows an enormous amount about the Army. He does not know the inside of a "glasshouse". He knows only the point of view of the man who has sent somebody there. That is true of Ministers reading out their briefs. They are doing their duty in their own way. I should welcome any investigation. I know that I shall not get any support for the Clause, but I hope that as a result of what the Under-Secretary has called a useful little debate this will not be the last we shall hear of what I think is a rather important subject.
    The Temporary Chairman: Does the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) wish to withdraw the Clause?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.
    Question put and negatived.

    New Clause,—(AMENDMENT OF S. 24 OF ARMY ACT, 1955, AND S. 24 OF AIR FORCE, ACT, 1955.)
    In section twenty-four of the Army Act, 1955, and in section twenty-four of the Air Force Act, 1955 (which relate to aiding the enemy), for the words "international usage" there shall he substituted the words "any international convention or rule of law for the time being in force".—[Mr. Elwyn Jones.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    I endeavoured to raise the point to which this Clause relates when the 1955 Army Act was being considered in the House, and I think that, now resurrected, it has some substance and, admittedly, a good deal of difficulty, Section 24 of the Army Act, deals with offences relating to aiding the enemy, and specifies five types of such aid. The important thing to realise is that each type of such crime is capable of carrying the death penalty, and this would therefore seem to be a section of the criminal military law needing as much precision as the draftsman cam bring to bear on his task.

    151
    The matter with which the new Clause deals arises from the words of Section 24 (1) of the 1955 Act, which says:
    "Any person subject to military law who with intent to assist the enemy … (c) having been made a prisoner of war, serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities or of measures calculated to influence morale, or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage —"
    I submit that those last ten words and, in particular, the words "international usage" are so vague as to be almost meaningless. International usage is not law or international law, and a usage of war, as I understand the authorities on the matter, is in no way legally binding. The laws of war have been defined in the following terms:
    "The laws of war consist … partly of customary rules which have grown up in practice, and partly of written rules, that is to say, rules which have been expressly agreed upon by governments in international treaties and conventions."
    That is the range of the laws of war, and it is to be noted that that definition does not include international usage.
    What I find surprising is that this matter is now dealt with with some precision in Chapter 1 of the Manual of Military Law where, in paragraph 2, there is the following note:
    "Usages of war which exist side by side with the customary and the written law of war, are not legally binding. They can, for sufficient reasons, be disregarded by a belligerent. Usages of war have. however, a tendency to harden into legal rules of warfare; a large part of the modern law of war has grown up in that way."
    That, of course, is true. Nevertheless, as the authors of Part III of the Manual said—and I think that they have taken the content of their conclusion from Oppenheim, usages of war are not legally binding. It seems, therefore, that to place a prisoner of war in peril of the death penalty for doing something that is not authorised by international usage is subjecting him to considerable danger.
    When the words which are to be found in the Army Act were founded—presumably some time in 1955—the draftsman was then in the difficulty that the Government had not at that stage ratified the 1949 Geneva Prisoners of War Convention, which deals in great particularity with the rights and obligations of the prisoner of war. That Convention was made part of the law of this land by the
    152
    1957 Geneva Conventions Act. That Act has had the effect of making duties of the prisoner of war to be decided in the matter of the work that he can be compelled to do.
    Article 50 of the 1949 Prisoner of War Convention deals with the matter explicitly, and states:
    "Besides work connected with camp administration, installation or maintenance, prisoners of war may be compelled to do only such work as is included in the fallowing classes:"
    Then there follow the classes of work: agriculture, certain industries connected with the production or extraction of raw materials, transport and handling of stores, commercial business, arts and crafts, domestic services and public utility services having no military character or purpose. Thus, that article sets out clearly the nature of the work that a prisoner of war may be compelled to do.
    It would, therefore, seem to be important for the protection of the prisoner of war, so that he may know what are his rights of refusal and, on the other hand, what are his obligations, that the Army Act should be more precise than it is at present by more than this reference to the "international usage for the time being in force."
    I do not claim any very great merit for the words I have suggested. Indeed, since thinking about the matter further, it may be that more specific and satisfactory words could be used. I am glad that the Attorney-General is here, because he will, no doubt, be able to give the Committee some guidance on the matter. I have thought that perhaps words other than those I have suggested in the Amendment might be better, words like "not required by any international convention or other rule of international law for the time being in force." Those words might be a better text than those contained in the Amendment.
    I submit, in any event, that the existing words are unsatisfactory. They are dangerously vague in regard to a penal matter which can carry the death penalty. The problems and difficulties of the prisoner of war are likely to be heavy and it is, in all conscience, our duty to qualify this matter to the best of our ability.
    Mr. Mulley: I hesitate to interpose myself between my distinguished hon.

    153
    and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) and the Attorney-General, but I thought that it might be of some advantage to give the consumer's point of view. Having been a prisoner of war myself during the last war I certainly would have been alarmed if I had known that I was liable to so wide a provision as this.
    In 1939, no doubt, the law was very different. I think it is typical that, here and there, there creeps into the Army and Air Force Acts the idea that having got fifteen different ways in which to catch an offender, nevertheless, it is thought that there may be some way in which he may slip out of the net, and, therefore, some additional words of an all-embracing character are included.
    As we all know, there is a good deal of international discussion on the assumption that there is a war of ideologies, and that to use a phrase like "international usage" is to assume that all the people with whom we might be having hostilities subscribe to the same doctrines, whereas, I believe, a considerable number of countries have not become parties to any of the prisoner of war conventions.
    It seems to me that the words in the Act, that a prisoner of war who
    "serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities or of measures calculated to influence morale …".
    are all-embracing in themselves. Having been a prisoner of war, I cannot think of anything that anyone could have done that would not have been caught by the first part of subsection (1, c). Therefore, it seems to me that there is no need for these additional words.
    If, however, it is thought that something further is required, I strongly support the attempt of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South to get it in a more precise form. Since the whole of the international law concerning the conduct, custody and treatment of prisoners of war is the subject of international convention, it would seem much more logical and fairer to use words of this sort. It may be that my hon. and learned Friend has not got the precise phrase of the Attorney-General would approve, but I hope that he will not resist the Clause. At least, if he is not
    154
    prepared to accept it at the moment, I trust that he will accept the principle, and will be prepared at a subsequent stage to meet this point, because it seems to me to be going far beyond what is recognised as reasonable to use vague and all-embracing words of this sort.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I have listened with interest to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) and the hon. Member for Sheffield Park (Mr. Mulley). I think that they have misunderstood this Section and in particular the effect of the words which they have criticised. If we were to accept either of the formulae put forward, it would enlarge the penal scope of this provision and perhaps bring within it some soldiers who would not be within it as the Section now stands.
    If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Section again, he will see that it is really a matter of defence which the last few words of Section 24 (1, c) provide. That is to say, if his act is authorised by international usage, the person who has been charged with an offence under Section 24 (1, c) should not be convicted.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised quite rightly the distinction between international usage, international law and conventions, and rules of law. He made it quite clear that international law is a more precise conception than international usage and so, of course, are conventions. But international usages go beyond international law and conventions. Therefore, to adopt either of the formulae which he put forward would be to enlarge the scope of this Section by reducing the grounds of defence which could be advanced by an accused person. It would, in fact, operate in a way exactly opposite to that which the hon. and learned Member would desire.
    I know that the phrase "international usage" lacks a certain precision. I think that there is no formula which can give the same protection to the defence, which is what we want to give, and at the same time give more precision.
    The hon. and learned Member said that he endeavoured to raise the matter in 1955. He gave notice of it then and serious consideration was given to it in

    155
    an endeavour to meet his wishes, if that could be done. Serious consideration has again been given to it since he tabled the new Clause. However, the conclusion we have come to is that, if one put more precision into the Section by adopting a formula such as he suggests, one would be reducing the opportunities of defence of an accused person under the Section, because international law and rules of law and rights under conventions are included in international usage but are of less scope than international usage.
    9.45 p.m.
    I hope that I have made that clear to the hon. and learned Member and his hon. Friend and I hope also that I have made clear that, although I have dealt with the matter quite shortly now, we have considered it very carefully. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of these words in the subsection as exposing an accused soldier to considerable danger. I think that that is a complete misconception of how the wording operates. It really would not do to provide as an alternative to a "convention". For instance, the convention of which he spoke, which had not been ratified when the Acts were passed in 1955, does not do much in the way of saying what a prisoner may or may not lawfully do. What it does is to say what the detaining power may lawfully do. It may be said that that implies that it is lawful for the prisoner to do what he can be compelled to do; but we want the Section to go further than that for the protection of the accused soldier and give a defence not only in respect of what he may be compelled by virtue of a convention to do but also in respect of any acts which are authorised by recognised international usage. By keeping the words as they are we enlarge the area of defence.
    For that reason, I ask the Committee to reject the new Clause.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I appreciate the difficulties, but I am still impenitent at least about the wholly unsatisfactory meaning and significance of the phrase "international usage". I can see very great difficulties occurring at some future time—which I hope may never arise—
    156
    when the construction of those words may call for decision in a court martial. I think that the learned Attorney-General might yet have another look at the matter. However, I appreciate the difficulty and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) agrees with me, I am sufficiently aware of them not to press the matter to a Division now.
    Mr. Mulley: Will my hon. and learned Friend assist me? I am unconvinced by both his argument and the argument of the Attorney-General to this extent, that I do not see why the words are required at all. Speaking for myself, as someone who for five years was a prisoner of war, I cannot think of anything I could have done which would have been detrimental to this country which would not have been caught by the preceding words. First, we have
    "serves with or aids the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities".
    That is a very wide provision to begin with. To that one adds
    "or measures calculated to influence morale".
    The word is "influence" morale, not change morale.
    Can the Attorney-General, who is quite rightly concerned with the scope of the defence which a prisoner of war can offer and how best his defence can be conducted, explain why it need be taken any further? Can he give us any instance where the third phrase would need to be brought in, from the point of view of defence? Can he tell us if any crime could be committed by a prisoner which would not have fallen within the two preceding phrases?
    The Attorney-General: My imagination does not enable me to answer that question, but that is not any reason for not including these words. I think that the addition of these words provides ground for defence which, if this particular passage was left out, would not be open to the accused person.
    Mr. Mulley: These words can only have been included for the purpose of the prosecution having a wider field in which to base a charge, but that does not apply, as I understand it, to the other case at all. The words "international usage" do not get people out of a charge of "serving with or aiding the enemy". It is wholly for the benefit of

    157
    charging people, and not for permitting them to defend themselves.
    Question put and negatived.
    Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Select Committee and on recommittal), considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    9.52 p.m.
    Sir O. Prior-Palmer: I will not detain the House for more than one minute, but as Chairman of the Select Committee I want to say that I think the Bill as we now see it is a tribute to the Committee and the work which it did. I believe that the alterations which we have seen fit to introduce will reinforce the dis. cipline of the Army, without which no Army can be a fighting machine; in other words, to enable a man to control his body with his mind in exceptional and difficult circumstances.
    To refer to wastage, as we all know, there is no such thing as a bad regiment, but only bad officers. I ask my right hon. Friend to have a good look at the officers, particularly the commanding officers, of some of these units with a high wastage record, and particularly the Green Jackets Brigade.
    Finally, I should like to express my thanks to the members of the Select Committee for their co-operation and help in getting the Bill through.
    9.53 p.m.
    Mr. Cronin: I believe that the Bill will be extremely helpful, and will improve recruitment. I think that we ought to express our gratitude to the members of the Select Committee and to the hon. Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer), who so admirably presided over its labours.
    I am sorry that the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary could not find themselves able to accept more of the very helpful Amendments and new Clauses which we have put forward. Perhaps, in some ways, the Bill has some blemishes on it, rather like a wart on the Mona Lisa's nose. Nevertheless, as it is at present, it is a quite praiseworthy piece of prospective legislation and we wish it godspeed.
    9.54 p.m.
    Mr. Profumo: I find myself in the happy position of being able to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir O. Prior-Palmer) and, to a great extent, with those of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), without the Mona Lisa smile which he had on his face. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air and myself wish the Bill well and thank very much those who took part in the proceedings of the Select Committee. I am sure that the Bill will be for the benefit of the Armed Forces, which is what we all have in mind.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  INDONESIA
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
  9.55 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to raise on the Adjournment a very important subject, namely, the future relations between this country and the great Republic of Indonesia.
  My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in answer to a Question:
  "In the interests of Europe and the world, it is better that we should seek to maintain relations with countries whether they be of extreme Right wing character or whether they be Communist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1961; Vol. 642, c. 944.]
  Indonesia is a neutralist country, and I consider that as such it is of vital importance to Great Britain in the Far East.
  This Republic is formed of over 7,000 islands, more than 3,000 of which are well-populated. It stretches from the south of Singapore in a half-moon shape to the north of Australia and is inhabited by 90 million people. It is a country of great beauty and riches and as a neutralist country this is an area denied to the Communists in the Far East.

  159
  Recently thousands of Chinese were sent back to China. They were for the most part living in the villages and might have had the power to influence people to Communist ideas. The Government is what is known as a guided democracy. The people are a tolerent race and religious tolerance is practised.
  I understand that at present there are eight political parties, including a Nationalist party, Moslem Scholars, and Catholic parties. They are based on Pantja Sila ideals. They are, as I under-stand it, in five particular parts—a belief in God, democracy, nationalisation, internationalisation and social justice. We have had many ties with Indonesia in the past; I think that it will be recalled that Raffles was the ruler of Java for four years. In recent years the Indonesians have taken English as their second language. It is remarkable how well they speak it, because they have only started learning it since 1950.
  On 1st March, together with nine other people who were interested in Indonesia, I had an interview with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. On 1st April, the Foreign Office, having, I hope, duly considered the views put forward by this delegation, sent an invitation to President Sukarno to visit this country. Unfortunately, his plans were already made for his overseas programme, which included an interview with President Kennedy. I hope that tonight my hon. Friend will be able to tell me that arrangements are in hand for a visit of President Sukarno to this country in 1962. I believe that General Nasution will arrive here in a few days' time, and we shall be pleased to welcome him. I hope that this will be one of many visits by distinguished people from the Republic of Indonesia. I believe that General Nasution is to see our Prime Minister. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes to the Far East he will find time to visit Jakarta. I understand, too, that the general is giving a talk at the Imperial Defence College.
  I should like to mention particularly the question of trade relations with Indonesia. I did not suggest that the Board of Trade might answer this debate, because I think that trade with Indonesia depends on our Foreign Office and on our diplomatic relations with that coun-
  160
  try. I hope that the Government will come to a definite decision in regard to trading policy with Indonesia. For some years, we looked upon Indonesia as, perhaps, a nation that was not very satisfactory financially, but I should like to point out that in 1958, the foreign exchange was £31 million—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]
  Miss Vickers: In 1958, the foreign exchange totalled £31 million and in 1960, £114 million. Under President Sukarno, despite a great many difficulties, there has not been economic collapse, and the present régime has shown itself in a quite remarkable way able to maintain law and order. As I mentioned at the beginning, there are numerous islands and in some cases the distances by sea are great. So, all things taken into consideration, it has been remarkable how peace and order have been preserved.
  It is not generally realised how interested we are as a country in Indonesia. Since the departure of the Dutch when Indonesia was declared a Republic, we have greater trading interests with Indonesia than has any other foreign country. The British rubber estates alone comprise over 298,000 acres, or 24 per cent. of the whole. This represents an investment of £45 million. In 1960, the production of rubber totalled 200,000 tons, the British share being 50,000 tons, representing £13 million from the British rubber estates for foreign exchange earnings. We also have great shipping interests. Our shipping companies undertake the majority of shipping between the islands and from this country and Europe to Indonesia. Shell has oil interests there.
  The leader of a recent British trade delegation to Indonesia stated in Jakarta that after studying projects under the Indonesian eight-year development programme, he was confident that there could be close co-operation between the two countries which could begin in the fields of transport, textiles, paper processing and chemicals. He described his delegation as one of high importance and a great success.

  161
  The delegation was also impressed, I understand, by the fact of East-West credits. A multiple-purpose dam is being financed by France and Italy, the Hotel Indonesia by the Japanese reparations, the Asian Games Stadium by the U.S.S.R. and the Buket Asam coal mines by the Federal Republic of Germany. Unfortunately, the list includes nothing from Britain. I should therefore like the Government to make a decision in regard to their future policy, particularly concerning credits.
  In what I say now, I am not advocating that we should necessarily sell arms to Indonesia, but I should like to mention two transactions which, perhaps, have not been very satisfactory. I understand that we have sold some armoured cars to Indonesia and that we could secure a far greater order. The problem is that the Government will not give a reasonable delivery date. Although the Alvis Company could begin delivery, I understand, within ten months of signature of contract, there is delay concerning the Government-manufactured parts. As yet, only 100 rounds of ammunition have been delivered for the armoured cars although 300 tons was ordered.
  Similar trouble occurred previously concerning torpedoes. Although permission to supply them was granted by the Admiralty, permission to ship them was refused by the Foreign Office.
  I said at the beginning that I am not necessarily advocating the selling of arms, but I am using this example to show that the same policy should be followed by the Admiralty, the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. We lose overseas orders and good will by this present method. A Government policy is essential. We must also remember that the United States has granted credits of between 500 million and 600 million dollars and that the Soviet Union has granted credits of up to 800 million dollars.
  When we are considering future relations with Indonesia, I am aware of the fact that we are N.A.T.O. allies of the Dutch. It is fair to say that the Dutch, by the loss of the Indies, have not lost their material prosperity and it has not been very much impaired. Individuals have, perhaps, lost everything and have suffered greatly, but the nation
  162
  as a whole has not had its material prosperity impaired.
  We can no longer be of real use to the Dutch in Indonesia, because, on 10th March, Indonesia withdrew her approval of the United Kingdom looking after Dutch interests there and so deprived the few remaining Dutch citizens of all diplomatic protection. In 1633, when the English traders were murdered in Amboina, the Dutch historian, Vlekke, said that this was "only one of the many bloody episodes in the history of ruthless commercial competition." I do not want to suggest that we can go to any of these lengths and use any of these methods, but Britain should act in her own best interests and those of Indonesia.
  In The Hague in 1949 a treaty was signed which said that:
  "The Kingdom of the Netherlands unconditionally and irrevocably transfers complete sovereignty over Indonesia to the Republic of Indonesia."
  That was done with the exception of West Irian, or New Guinea. One of our main difficulties between Indonesia and ourselves arose because of our attitude over West Irian. Here, however, I believe that the feelings of the Dutch are changing. On has only to read the articles in "New Guinea" signed by over ninety Dutchmen including Professor Röliag and also the Rijkeas group and the activities in which they are indulging, the articles in our own Economist, and recent articles in de Telegraaf, and the Algemeen Handelsblad, which are Dutch papers, to see that people are trying to find a solution.
  It is essential that some solution should be found in the not-too-distant future. I believe that the Indonesians are the last people to want to go to war over this problem, and I suggest that Her Majesty's Government might propose that the United States, Australia, Indonesia and Holland, with ourselves, should reopen the matter and have a discussion to see if we could not get some solution that would again give the Indonesians what they want and open up trade possibilities to the Dutch.
  Then, just as our Queen—perhaps unexpectedly to many of us—went to India, we might then see the Queen of the Netherlands going to Indonesia. But this cannot be done until both sides get what they find is a solution.

  163
  If West Irian could go back to Indonesia and the Dutch could begin their trade again we might have a happy solution. Should this not be possible, however, I ask my hon. Friend whether we will in future remain neutral, as is indicated by President Kennedy that the United States will do.
  I hope that we shall be able to take more students here to improve direct relations. As I said originally, the Indonesians have taken English as their second language, but too many students still have to go to Germany and other countries. The daughters of the distinguished Indonesian Ambassador to this country have themselves had to go to Germany for their education. There is a, too, great need for technical education, and in this Shell is playing a great part.
  Training is also needed in the civil service and local government, and in this country we could offer a great many places in our Civil Service and local government services to trainees. We have recently had an excellent trainee in Plymouth, and in a country of many islands like Indonesia one of the things which is needed is more trained personnel.
  Friends of Indonesia, mostly business people in this country, have contributed £17,000 so far to form a centre for Indonesian students, and an Anglo-Indonesian Society, formed to improve cultural relations and to help students, has been running well for several years now, thanks to the very energetic voluntary officers. The British Council in Indonesia is doing a splendid job, although it is handicapped by lack of money and lack of accommodation, particularly in Jakarta.
  I hope that with all this good will it will be possible for Her Majesty's Government in the near future to put our relations on the firmest diplomatic and trading basis and that through these means we will have a very firm friend in the Far East. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has a very great interest in the Far East and, as I learned when I was in Geneva, has a particularly sympathetic understanding of people. I hope that he will be ready to give all the assistance he can in helping the future relations between Great
  164
  Britain and a country which will become of growing importance in the world of the future.
  10.12 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I want quickly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) has said. She is a great authority on Indonesia, having frequently visited it and knowing the country very well. Unfortunately, although I know that part of the world fairly well, I have never been to Indonesia, although I know of the great trade which this country has done with Indonesia over very many years. I have participated in that trade, to the mutual benefit of that country and Lancashire.
  In recent years, we have seen a great falling off of that trade, which has been a great loss to us both. Many of us feel that the time is ripe for closer working with Indonesia and that we can help that country and it can help us. We know that the Indonesians have many difficulties, just as we have difficulties in reopening this trade, but it will be an enormous advantage to both countries if we can do so. We know that they have their difficulties with exchange control and such things, but, with real effort on both sides, those difficulties can be overcome.
  It is encouraging that within the past few months it has been arranged that a very large textile factory shall be built in Indonesia, largely by a consortium of British firms. That may be a valuable beginning to the reopening of trade between the two countries. We all know of the vast amount of rubber and tea and other tropical products of that country, and if there is good will on both sides the Indonesians can help us and we can help them, to our mutual advantage. For that reason, I hope that the Under-Secretary will throw some encouraging light on the matter.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) for raising this important subject of the relations between this country and Indonesia and I assure her and my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and

  165
  Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), at the outset of my remarks, that Her Majesty's Government intend to do all they can to foster those relations. I was very grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend raised this matter, and for the many and very sensible things that she said.
  In my view, and in the view of the Government, the long-term aims of the United Kingdom and Indonesia in the political field are essentially the same. We both need peace and stability in South-East Asia, and in the world at large, but, in particular, in this area, so that plans for the general improvement of living conditions can go forward unhindered.
  Indonesia has declared her foreign policy to be neutral and independent. This is entirely acceptable to us. As Her Majesty's Government have so often made clear, we are always ready fully to respect a genuine neutrality which avoids taking sides in the disputes which, unfortunately, exist in the world today. I wish that all other countries were equally so ready.
  I agree that this basic harmony of interest needs to be developed by a regular interchange of views on practical issues. For this reason, we are always very happy to welcome Indonesian leaders to Britain for such discussions. Next month, for instance, as my hon. Friend reminded us, the Indonesian Minister of National Security, General Nasution, who is also Chief of Staff of the Army, is visiting this country as the official guest of Her Majesty's Government.
  Besides showing him something of this country, we are looking forward to a useful exchange of views. General Nasution will be seeing the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary as well as the Minister of Defence and the Service Chiefs. We hope that other members of the Indonesian Government will accept invitations to visit this country in the near future.
  My hon. Friend referred to the invitation which Her Majesty's Government extended earlier this year to President Sukarno to pay an official visit to this country. The invitation was extended, as I think my hon. Friend said, at the beginning of April. Unfortunately, although the President was not due to come to Europe until the second half
  166
  of May, he had already arranged to leave during April, and he apparently found it difficult to fit in a visit to us at this time. It was, of course, for him to decide whether he could include such a visit this year, but we were, naturally, disappointed to learn that he was not able to do so.
  In replying to our invitation, the President said that, in principle, he gladly accepted it, and we hope, as my hon. Friend hopes, that he will be able to come here in the near future. These sentiments found renewed expression in the friendly messages exchanged by President Sukarno and the Prime Minister when the President's aircraft flew over this country on its way to Dublin. It is clear that we are anxious that these visits should take place, and should continue to take place. We believe that they can play a valuable part in making for mutual understanding between our two countries.
  Before coming to the question of trade, I should like to touch on one other point which my hon. Friend rightly brought to our notice, one problem which confronts us, and I say this having said that our long-term aims and those of Indonesia are essentially the same. There is this one qualification which affects our relations with Indonesia, and that is the Indonesian claim to West New Guinea.
  I listened with care to what my hon. Friend said about this, but I must remind the House that as the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Commander Noble, made clear when he was speaking at the United Nations in November, 1957, Her Majesty's Government regard the Netherlands as the sovereign Power in that territory. But Her Majesty's Government have no direct interest in this question beyond our general interest in the preservation of peace and stability in South-East Asia. We certainly would not oppose any peacefully negotiated settlement for West New Guinea.
  My hon. Friend said that the Indonesians would be the last people who would want to go to war. I am very glad to know that, and that conforms with what they told us—I think that it was Dr. Subandrio, in 1959—that the Indonesian Government would not use force to prosecute their claims.

  167
  I welcome that as being their attitude, as do the Government. In so far as they are able to make arrangements for any changes, we would certainly not wish to stand in the way of any arrangement freely entered into by both sides which was acceptable to all concerned. But this is a matter on which we have to state clearly where we stand at present.
  I now turn to the question of trade. Both my hon. Friends have made out a good case for the continuation of trade and its advancement and expansion, but our relations with Indonesia in this connection are already good, and it is fair to say that they are improving the whole time. Indonesia is a large and growing market for our exports. My hon. Friend referred to the total foreign exchange earnings of Indonesia. These are striking figures. It is significant that its trade with this country in terms of exports from the United Kingdom, has risen since 1958 from £7½ million to just over £11 million in 1959, and, in 1960, to £19 million. The House will agree that this is a very substantial rate of increase. Indeed, if we could carry on in that way with the whole world our present problems would be very much minimised. It is encouraging that this trade is increasing in this way.
  Her Majesty's Government are doing their best to ensure that this trend continues. My hon. Friend referred to the British trade mission which visited Indonesia earlier this year, under the joint sponsorship of the Board of Trade and the Federation of British industries, and which included representatives of engineering, mining machinery, shipbuilding and motor vehicle manufacturing interests. From all I hear the mission's visit to Indonesia was an outstanding success, and I am glad to see that manufacturers in this country are taking a great deal of interest in the trading opportunities which Indonesia offers. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are keenly interested in this subject, and eager to do all they can to help.
  I was interested in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich about the new textile factory, which, I understand, is to be built by British firms. This is a welcome development. I am sure that there are
  168
  many further opportunities in the various fields in which we have a close identity of interest, and I welcome any developments in this sphere and hope that we can see an expansion in every way. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to expand and encourage this trade.
  Trade, however, is not a one-sided process. The figures for the United Kingdom imports from Indonesia during the past few years have been generally lower than those for exports to Indonesia. The discussions which the trade mission had with the authorities in Indonesia naturally dealt with the possibilities of increasing Indonesian exports to the United Kingdom as well as with the flow of goods in the opposite direction. I am sure that there are many opportunities.
  Another way in which we are able to give the Indonesian Government some help with their development schemes is in the field of technical assistance. There are now about 30 Indonesian students following courses in the United Kingdom under the Colombo Plan. Equipment, films and books have been presented to a number of educational establishments in Indonesia, and five experts in such subjects as town planning and English language teaching are now serving in Indonesia. I was very glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port said about the work of the British Council in that respect. I am sure that there is a great deal of scope there, and I am glad to know that my hon. Friend feels that the British Council is doing such a good job in this way.
  A number of British firms have been established in Indonesia for a long time, and are still operating in the fields mentioned by my hon. Friends and in others as well. We hope that these concerns will be able for a long time to come to continue making their useful contributions to the total of Indonesia's economic activity, and, I hope, help in raising the standard of living of the people of that country to the mutual benefit of the trade which they can help to encourage.
  My hon. Friend touched on the question of armaments. This is a difficult subject, as I am sure she realises. The export of arms to any part of the world is bound to be wrapped up with other

  169
  aspects which have to be taken into consideration. All individual items, whether to Indonesia or anywhere else, are carefully examined on their individual merits by Her Majesty's Government in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
  This principle has to be applied universally, but, in general, it has not prevented the supply in a good many cases of the things which Indonesia has sought. There is also the problem of some purchases which the E.C.G.D. cover. That point has to be borne in mind. But we continue to do what we can in that sphere. Obviously, there are limitations to the total amount which can be approved. I hope that what I have said shows the House that the Government are very conscious of the need both politically to encourage closer understanding in every way possible and also to build up this trade as a valuable part of our overseas trade, and as a way of stimulating greater contact with this important country—and I accept my hon. Friend's description—which can only he of mutual advantage to both countries.
  170
  I therefore hope that the House accepts my assurance that the Government are fully conscious of the importance of Anglo-Indonesian relations. Good relations with Indonesia matter greatly to us now and they will matter still more in the future. This populous and fertile country is certain to go on developing rapidly. Her market for British goods will grow. Her political influence will increase. Her Majesty's Government look forward to seeing a strong and prosperous Indonesia, which will help to bring peace and stability to South-East Asia.
  For that reason I have welcomed the debate tonight and the opportunity which it has given me to state this on behalf of the Government and to assure the House that we shall seek to ensure the full and friendly co-operation of the United Kingdom in promoting Indonesia's future development.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Salmon (Drift Netting)
  Salmon (Drift Netting)
  Swine Fever
  Swine Fever
  River Hull
  River Hull
  Dumping
  Dumping
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES
  Low-Priced Books
  Low-Priced Books
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Widows
  Widows
  Hospital Treatment
  Hospital Treatment
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Skybolt
  Skybolt
  Helicopters (Cross-Channel Services)
  Helicopters (Cross-Channel Services)
  North Atlantic Routes (Cunard Eagle Airways)
  North Atlantic Routes (Cunard Eagle Airways)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Prescriptions (Form E.C. 57 /4)
  Prescriptions (Form E.C. 57 /4)
  Group Practice Loans
  Group Practice Loans
  Cancer, Wales
  Cancer, Wales
  Durham, Northumberland and Cumberland
  Durham, Northumberland and Cumberland
  Sedgefield
  Sedgefield
HOSPITALS
  Old People, Birmingham Region (Report)
  Old People, Birmingham Region (Report)
SCIENCE
  Euratom
  Euratom
SHIPPING
  Oil Discharge, Bristol
  Oil Discharge, Bristol
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Excise Licences)
  Motor Vehicles (Excise Licences)
ROYAL NAVY
  Disabled Persons, Pinner (Employment)
  Disabled Persons, Pinner (Employment)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Revaluations, Northumberland
  Revaluations, Northumberland
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Heroin and Cocaine
  Heroin and Cocaine
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Officers (Retired Pay)
  Officers (Retired Pay)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rate-deficiency Grants, Northumberland
  Rate-deficiency Grants, Northumberland
  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS FORCE)
  CONGO (UNITED NATIONS FORCE)

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

PRISON CHAPELS
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: 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:

(a) how many of Her Majesty's prisons contain no assembly or concert hall with the result that the prison chapel has to be used for entertainment purposes; and

(b) whether, in the building of new prisons, it is now an accepted principle to include a building set aside solely and wholly for religious purposes; and if not, why not.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, in 26 of the 50 prisons in England and Wales the chapel is used for secular as well as religious purposes. At Everthorpe and Hindley a site has been reserved for the building of chapels solely for religious use, and these are included in the design of the new type of prison, of which Blundeston is the first.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the courtesy of that Answer.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether the phrasing of this Question is a new and welcome example of the Church militant?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I think it is borrowing from the legal profession.

SHORTAGE OF HOSPITAL PHARMACISTS
2.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 they are aware that, owing to the acute shortage of pharmacists, hospitals throughout the country are unable to dispense prescriptions for a large proportion of patients; that, in particular, St. Thomas's Hospital has had to suspend dispensing for outpatients, and, since this involves a considerable increased cost to the Exchequer, what steps they are taking to improve the recruitment of hospital pharmacists.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, only a small minority of hospital out-patient prescriptions are dispensed by retail chemists, and this is rarely because of staff shortage. St. Thomas's Hospital has temporarily closed its out-patient dispensary because several of the staff happened to leave simultaneously. The Board of Governors have been asked to reopen it as soon as possible. The shortage of pharmacists throughout the country affects retail business and industry as well as the Hospital Service. The salaries of hospital pharmacists were increased with effect from January 1, 1960, by about 14 per cent. and during 1960 the number of pharmacists in National Health Service hospitals increased from 1,348 to 1,444, the largest increase in a single year for several years.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that kind of "stone-walling" Answer would have been more useful to-day at Lord's than here? Is he further aware that at St. Thomas's 15,000 prescriptions per month will have to be sent to chemists, which will mean an extra cost to the Exchequer at the rate of £30,000 a year? Would it not be much better and much cheaper to pay hospital pharmacists salaries comparable to those paid by retail chemists, so that we can have pharmacists in hospitals?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think that my Answer was a "stonewalling" Answer at all. I was trying to give a factual Answer to the noble Lord's Question. As I said, only a small minority of hospital out-patient prescriptions are dispensed by retail chemists. To go into greater detail, about 188 hospital authorities resort regularly to retail prescriptions, but in many cases only in detached clinics, such as child guidance clinics, or in evening clinics where it would be inconvenient for patients to attend the hospital dispensary. About 700,000 retail prescription forms are used each year. This is a very small proportion of the total number dispensed.
As regards salaries, the new scales which were introduced with effect from January 1, 1960, range from £690 to £1,560 at the maximum, and many chief pharmacists receive additional allowances. There are now posts in the Hospital Pharmaceutical Service which carry a total remuneration rising to £2,000 or more a year. A claim submitted in May of this year to the appropriate Whitley Council For increases ranging from 14 to 42 per cent. on the present salary scales is now being considered by the management side.
Lotto STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his fuller answer. But would he convey to his right honourable friend that there is general uneasiness throughout the hospital world on this subject? With regard to St. Thomas's, their pharmaceutical department is working at half-strength and they may have to close some departments. It is no use building a £7 million hospital if you have not the staff to service the departments.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think it is quite true to say that St. Thomas's is now working at half-strength. What happened was that 5 out of 8 pharmacists in the basic grade left simultaneously at the beginning of June. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we fully discussed this question of the remuneration of all the professional staffs in hospitals during our debate in your Lordships' House on April 26.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION ON ANGOLA
2.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: 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 to give their reasons for not supporting the resolution adopted on June 9 by the Security Council on the situation in Portuguese Angola.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the United Kingdom delegate to the Security Council made clear in his speech on June 9 why he could not support the resolution on Angola. His main reason was that the resolution before the Council contained a reference to General Assembly Resolution No. 1514 of December 15, 1960, which calls for immediate steps to be taken to make non-self-governing territories independent. A part of that resolution reads as follows:
"that inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence and that immediate steps shall be taken in trust and non-self-governing countries or all other territories, which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories without any conditions or reservations".
I could not advise the House that the United Kingdom's vote should be cast in favour of such proposals which are quite impractical and very dangerous.
Secondly, we must always be careful of clauses in resolutions which infringe Article 2 (7) of the Charter. If we are not prepared for the United Nations Assembly to act in our colonial territories without our consent, we can hardly vote that they should do so in other cases.
It would make the orderly attainment of independence in territories for which we are responsible, at the pace calculated to serve the best interests of the inhabitants, quite impossible. However, now that our position has been established, and as abstention on all resolutions containing the clause to which I have referred leads to misunderstanding of Britain's attitude on colonial

811
matters, I think another procedure would be better. I am instructing Her Majesty's representative in the United Nations to ignore this clause whenever it appears in any preamble to a resolution, and on every occasion to make it clear that he does so. He will thereafter direct his vote to the substance of the matter which is being discussed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary for his Answer. I am glad to think that at last, in face of the terrible situation in Angola, some steps are being taken to alter the impression which has been gained in the world that we have been, if not on the wrong side, at least completely neutral in face of these atrocities. The British Press, the British people, the Baptist Missionary Society, and the British branch of the World Council of Churches, with its great programme this weekend on the wireless, have all come down in full condemnation of the Government's attitude in this matter. In view of the horrors that are going on in Angola, I hope that some immediate steps may be taken and that the Government will make a public statement in condemnation of the pursuit of these atrocities.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not know why anybody should assume that the Government are in favour of any country pursuing policies in its colonial territories of the nature which the noble Viscount has described. Certainly neither I nor any other Minister of the Government has given any impression that we condone any policy which leads to atrocities. Of course, we never do. I made it quite clear when I was in Lisbon that the colonial policy of Her Majesty's Government was quite different from that of the Portuguese Government. Before I make an absolute assessment I want to know the facts, and therefore I am sending the Consul General, and another member of Her Majesty's Embassy in Lisbon to see for themselves what is going on; and the Portuguese Government have consented to that. I think that now that certain journalists are also going to Angola we shall probably hear what are the true facts. I am also seeing the Council of Churches, of course, in order to hear what news they have to give. But if the noble
812
Viscount will read the part of the resolution which I have quoted in my Answer he will see what complete nonsense it would be for the United Kingdom representative to vote for anything like that. But I think the new procedure will result in this: that we make quite clear that we cannot ever vote for a resolution which contains that kind of operative clause, but we will vote on other resolutions according to their merits.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am still a little disturbed about that, although we will carefully study the facts which the Foreign Secretary has included in his Answer. But when the United States and other well-known Powers vote for the resolution, and there are only two abstentions, France and Britain, it does make people think very greatly. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he has seen the speech made in the Ghana Parliament by Dr. Nkrumah on a similar position on May 30. Has he seen that speech?—because that is what is making us anxious about the effect of the Government's policy, or lack of it, on the rest of Africa, in this very difficult time for Africa.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, it is because I realise that that I have altered the procedure; and I think that the noble Viscount, on looking at it, will see that it is satisfactory. But I do not care who votes for a clause which contains the words:
"That immediate steps shall be taken in trust and non-self-governing countries or all other territories, which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories without any conditions or reservations"—
I do not care who votes for it, the United Kingdom Government is not going to do so as long as I am Foreign Secretary.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that his statement about the alteration of procedure will give very great satisfaction to all who deeply deplore these policies which differ from Her Majesty's Government's colonial policy, and which the world condemns? May I also ask the noble Earl whether, after the diplomatic mission which he is sending to Angola to ascertain the facts has reported, he will place a copy of the report in the Library of your Lordships' House in order that these facts

813
may be available for any noble Lord who wishes to study them? May I finally ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that Portuguese policy in Angola is having the same effect on world opinion as the policy of apartheid in the Union of South. Africa had?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, so far as the report I get from the members of the Embassy is concerned, those are reports to the Foreign Secretary which are confidential; but it will enable me to assess the facts and I will give what facts I have to the House after hearing their report. In answer to the noble Earl's last question, these matters are still, in a way, before the United Nations. Of course world opinion is gravely disturbed by them; there is no use disguising that. There has, of course, been a great deal of interference in Angola from outside; a great many terrorists have come from outside, so the parallel with South Africa is not exact. But the noble Earl is quite right in drawing the parallel between the anxiety these matters cause to world opinion.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there is not the slightest resemblance between the policy of apartheid and the policy alleged to be pursued in Angola? The two things have not the same origin or the same pattern, and it is a gratuitous insult to a friendly country to suggest that they are anything like the same. May I finally ask my noble friend whether he is aware that neither Ghana nor the United States have any colonies and have not any experience in this matter?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl if it is not a fact that the final resolution of the United Nations is taken as a whole and delegates vote as a whole; and in view of the fact that it would be undesirable to vote for a preamble of that kind, how in fact is he going to register this objection to the preamble without voting as a whole on something which includes the preamble?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the procedure varies. Sometimes you can vote for a resolution as a whole; sometimes you can vote paragraph by para-
814
graph; and we shall probably have to do that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I ask the noble Earl, with reference to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, whether the British Press has not already described the action of the Portuguese in Angola as worse than that of South Africa?
THE EARL OF HOME: I understood my noble friend to say that there is no parallel, so far as apartheid is concerned. It is well known that there is a great deal of inter-marriage in Portuguese Angola, and, so far as the policy of apartheid is concerned, there is therefore no parallel.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then it is worse.

NEWSPAPER MERGERS
2.52 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: 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, in any future case of newspapers "merging", they will take steps to ensure that readers are protected from having alternative productions foisted upon them, and that time is given between the announcement and the merger to allow readers the opportunity of ordering newspapers of their own free choice.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no power to prevent a newspaper proprietor, or anyone whom he may depute to distribute his publications, delivering them to someone 'who may not, in fact, be willing to receive them. The noble Lord, like anyone else, is entitled to refuse to receive a newspaper that he has not ordered. I am advised that in the circumstances envisaged by the noble Lord, he would not be liable for payment if he notified the distributor at the earliest opportunity. On the facts at present before me, I do not think that it would be right for Her Majesty's Government to seek to assume powers to hold up newspaper mergers for the purpose suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a newspaper I did not want was put into my letter box; that I had no opportunity whatever of getting another paper in its place, and that I am not concerned about the three-pence I lost?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I were in the noble Lord's place I should put the newspaper in the wastepaper basket, and would not pay the threepence.
LORD AMWELL: But I had no newspaper.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BARRISTERS (QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
HIGHWAYS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MOCK AUCTIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (ALLOWANCES) BILL
Brought from the Commons: read 1a, and to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that there will be a statement at some suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. on Northern Rhodesia.

CEREALS (PROTECTION OF GUARANTEES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1961
2.55 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, there are two Orders here which I beg to ask your Lordships to approve, and it may be convenient if we take them together. There is the Cereals (Deficiency Payments) (Amendment) Order, 1961, which is numbered 1072, and the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, 1961, which is numbered 1071. Both of these Orders apply essentially to barley, whereas the main Orders, which they amend, contain provisions for all the cereals on which guarantee is paid—that is, wheat, rye, oats and barley.
My Lords, these Orders give statutory powers to the agricultural Ministers in the United Kingdom to bring into effect the proposals for adjusting deficiency payments on barley which were announced by my right honourable friend on May 17 last. The general intentions of this new scheme are, I believe, understood and approved on both sides of the House. We are providing growers here with an incentive to reduce the proportion of the barley crop which they market early in the season and to spread marketings over the remaining months. This is to be achieved by varying the rate of deficiency payments according to the time of year in which the grower delivers his barley to the buyer. In this way we hope to reduce pressure on the market at harvest time, when heavy sales usually lead to a fall in prices. The details of the scheme have been worked out in consultation with representatives of the growers and the main users of barley, and I should like to express my appreciation of the help they have given us in working out these arrangements.
I will take first the Order numbered 1072. Under the main Order, the Cereals (Deficiency Payments) Order, 1955, Ministers are empowered, with the consent of the Treasury, to make deficiency payments on an acreage basis on barley, harvested as grain. In this amending Order, under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 2, authority is given to make deductions from the acreage payment of

817
any grower who delivers barley off his farm, after sale, in any period which may be prescribed, and to make additional payments for deliveries in other prescribed periods. This power will be used in such a way that deliveries of barley made to another farmer who uses the barley on his own holding will not attract deduction or qualify for premiums. Similarly, growers who retain their barley, or part of it, for use on their own holdings will not have their deficiency payments adjusted in respect of such retentions.
The Order itself does not lay down either the periods or the rates of deduction and addition to be applied: it merely gives Ministers authority to determine these periods and rates as necessary. The adjustments for the 1961–62 season and the periods in which they will apply have already been announced, but they can be changed in subsequent years in the light of experience. It may interest your Lordships to know what are the rates and periods for this season, as announced 'by my right honourable friend on May 17. In July, August, September and October there will be a deduction of ninepence per cwt.; in November and December there will be no deduction or premium; in January and February there will be a shilling per cwt, premium; and in March, April, May or June there will be a premium of 1s. 6d. per cwt.
My Lards, it is a fundamental principle of these new arrangements that the total sum payable by the Exchequer as deficiency payments on the barley crop shall continue to be determined by the method laid down in the main 1955 Order—i.e., the difference between the average realised price and the guaranteed price. The amending Order therefore provides, really, for a redistribution of the deficiency funds, and not for any change in the amount of the Government's liability under the guarantee. With the help of the Advisory Committee, we have fixed the rates for the 1961 crop so that the totals of the deductions and the additions should balance, provided the barley comes on to the market at the rate forecast. But this Order, in subparagraph (b) of the proviso set out in Article 2, makes provision for Ministers to take account of any difference between the total deductions and the additions when deciding the basic rate of acreage
818
payment. For instance, if at the end of the season the total additions exceed the deductions, the basic rate of acreage payment to all growers will be reduced. Conversely, if the total deductions are more than the additional payments, then the basic rate of acreage payment to all growers will be increased. It is intended to make the deductions when making the advance payments to the growers concerned, and every effort will be made, even though there is this new arrangement, to issue these advance payments as early as possible. Additions for barley delivered later in the cereal year will have to be made at the end of the cereal year.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, do I understand from that that the advance payments for this year, because of the new arrangements, are likely to be much earlier than the advance payments on oats and barley have been in previous years?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords; I do not think it will be much earlier or much later. I hope the advance payments will be made at about the same time. We generally get most of then paid in January.
To turn for a moment to the second Order (which rather confusingly has the first number on it, Order 1071—that is, the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order) this introduces the amendments necessary to the main 1958 Order to protect the administration of the new arrangements by enabling Ministers to obtain from growers and buyers of barley the information on which to adjust the acreage payments to individual growers.
The most important change is that every person who, for re-sale or in the course of a trade or business other than farming, buys barley from a registered grower, has to be registered by or on behalf of the Minister before buying. A farmer who buys barley from growers for use on his own holding need not be registered, of course, as a buyer. The Amending Order also provides for the keeping of records and the furnishing of returns by growers and buyers, and I will not weary your Lordships with the details of those returns. We have done tour best to make these requirements as simple as possible, to keep them to

819
the minimum necessary to operate the scheme effectively, and to safeguard the interests of the Exchequer.
This is a new scheme, and it is designed to contribute to the orderly marketing of the home barley crop. In the White Paper which followed this year's agreed Price Review, it was stated that new arrangement for barley marketing would be introduced. The arrangements have now been worked out and agreed with the farmers and the corn trade, and these Orders, therefore, give effect to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, 1961, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.4 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the two Orders we have just heard the noble Earl discuss are of great interest. Before I say anything about what I call the "main Order" may I say, in regard to Order 1071, that there cannot be any possible disagreement in regard to that. It is helpful to the producer in the fact that he does not have to submit such comprehensive returns as he did in the past; but there is an obligation on the purchaser to forward additional information to the Ministry which I think will be helpful to the Ministry in deciding what should happen later on. Order 1072 will probably arouse more interest and discussion than the agricultural Orders which we discussed last week. It looks simple on the face of it, but it should be considered in the light of present and future trends in the barley market, and in prices.
I say this because I noticed a few days ago that the Minister himself expressed concern in another place at the barley market at the present time. Reading from the Commons Hansard of June 12th [col. 52], I find that, among other things, the Minister said:
"But, since the Review the barley market has taken a hard knock which, if it continues, would nullify our efforts to bring about a more orderly marketing of the crop. Nobody can be complacent about the present state and prospects of the barley market. I certainly view with great concern a price for barley of around £15 and £16 per ton. These very low prices nut a serious strain on our whole system of support.…"
It is agreed that this Order is the outcome of the alteration in the barley
820
subsidy envisaged in the Price Review for this year. It is due to come into operation next week, and covers not only the barley of this year's harvest which still remains unsold, but also the barley of last year's harvest which remains unsold. At the end of last month, this unsold barley reached a figure of 5 per cent. of the total of the 1960 harvested crop, and totalled 190,000 tons—a very considerable quantity to have in hand at this period of the year. At the end of May, 1960, the percentage was 13 per cent. of a lower harvested quantity, against 5 per cent. this year of a greater quantity. On the basis of 9d. per cwt. for what is left in the stores of the farmers or others at the beginning of July, that runs into several thousand pounds. This arose, I expect, owing to the difficulty in finding, customers for barley after harvest, and much of the crop had to be stored on the farms. Merchants should not, or would not, take delivery after harvest. Since then prices have dropped considerably, and those farmers who could not sell at harvest or soon afterwards have had to face difficult markets, imports from other countries, and lower prices.
The present Order seeks to remedy this state of affairs. But will it? The prospects of the effectiveness of the Order appear to me to be very uncertain. It starts on its course at a difficult time in agriculture. Many factors will find its possible success, and these cannot be ignored in our consideration. So far as prospects go at the moment, we are likely to be in for an early harvest. Winter-sown barley will soon be on the market. The lowering of the guaranteed price, as agreed to in the Review of Prices, provides no incentive for the farmer to keep the crop. What is gained by keeping it is lost by the lower guarantee. A shortage of money and curtailment of credit in agriculture are also likely to affect the situation. We may have to meet an additional bank rate. We have to meet a new credit squeeze and we do meet the higher cost of borrowing. There is also the farmer's necessity to sell at harvest. He becomes short of money; he owes a considerable amount to the merchants; and it is necessary, therefore, for him to find a ready market as soon as possible.

821
At the moment, too, we are in competition with imported barley, and the farmers who kept their barley last year and were not able to sell it are not likely to want to keep it this year for the very small—in fact, I would say niggardly—increase in price which the Government have outlined. In addition, there are the rising costs and overheads which we have to meet. If the Government wish the farmer to keep his barley, he would have to stack it and bear the cost of threshing, which cannot be met out the 1s. 6d. per cwt. increase in price that he is likely to get.
In spite of the lowering of the guaranteed price, it is foreshadowed that the cost to the taxpayer of the subsidy may rise to no less than £40 million. Two years ago, it was £25 million, and last year,—133 million. This further increase seems probable by reason of the additional acreage and the competition with imported barley and its effect upon the price of our homegrown crop. The question of importation, apart from its bearing on our exports, warrants our attention. Why cannot the Government devise and operate some new scheme to curtail foreign importation and afford some protection for the home producer? Why should the producer always suffer, if he is in farming? Who is responsible for the present situation of low price and importation of foreign barley? Can we lay it at the door of the brewers, of the merchants or of the commodity speculators? If an import restriction scheme cannot be operated, is the British taxpayer to be faced with a rising bill for subsidies, while the British farmer is denied a fair price for his products and is dependent upon subsidies to enable him to live sand to farm? Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to throw the burden of a fair price upon the purchaser or, in default, to ensure that the deficiency payment comes from him.
By this Order, the Government are seeking to regulate the farmers' date of sale. I suggest that some regulation of the operation of purchase would be to the advantage of producer and consumer. It is a queer state of affairs when a subsidy may be half the price at which the product is sold. Recent events in regard to barley point in that direction. Can anyone envisage a better outlook for the future, if present con-
822
ditions prevail? In the speech which I have mentioned, the Minister suggested that negotiations were taking place with the National Farmers' Union in regard to the "dumping" (as it is described) of barley from Russia, France and elsewhere. Possibly the noble Earl may be able to tell us that these negotiations have reached their finality. This Order is part of the Price Review and I know of no precedent for holding it up; but I thought that discussion—and I hope that discussion will take place—would be beneficial to consideration of the Order.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Wise for having made his comments in such quiet and comprehensive terms. However we may look at it, and however it may be argued that the central body representative of farmers have more or less agreed with the Government on this scheme, it seems to me to contain great injustices. In the new treatment proposed for barley offered on the market in the early part of the marketing season, the scheme deliberately imposes, in the interests of so-called better marketing, a severe penalty on the farmer who puts his barley on the market then. As my noble friend Lord Wise said, this is necessitated by his lack of capital, which compels him to rely, first, on credit from the merchants and, second, an overdraft at the bank. In August and September, the farmer has not only to face the relief of those commitments as soon as his product is available but also the extra wages, overtime and other expenses of harvesting. Therefore, a penalty is laid upon this section of the producers.
In the light of what my noble friend said about the general situation in the barley market at the present time, and the nature of conditions in various parts of the country, this scheme seems to me to be unfair. During the last growing season many farmers were unable to plant a sufficient quantity of winter barley. In many parts of the country, they were not able to get on to the land until the middle of March—and in some parts it was later than that—and in consequence we may have a larger percentage of spring-sown barley and other grains to be sold in the coming season. Moreover,

823
because many farmers in those parts of the country where spring wheat is not usually a good investment have this year turned a larger acreage into barley there will be further quantities offered in the market this year.
In the light of all that, it seems to me that the scheme to amend the existing scheme is unfair. After all, the acreage payment system was adopted, after careful thought, as being fair to growers of barley and other cereals. It meant that a sufficient number of people with capital had to withhold their grains from the market and get a much higher price, in order that the acreage payments to growers as a whole would be averaged so as to be of mutual benefit to the industry at large. But in this kind of process it seems that although you have had to give quite heavy special subsidies to the small farms, you may be partly helping to drive some of them out of business. That seems to be a great pity.
The only other question that I should like to ask is this. Have the Government now come to the state when they can say whether or not they are going to meet the specific demand of the National Farmers' Union for action to be taken under the anti-dumping laws to meet the extraordinary situation which was apparently viewed almost with horror by the Minister himself in the statement which was read out to your Lordships this afternoon? When shall we know that the Government are going to take action to deal with this unwholesome physical condition of the market at the present time, and so close to the first days when the British grower will be offering some of his product?
3.21 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my noble Leader and my noble friend Lord Wise have most politely pointed out some of the weaknesses of this scheme; but I should like to be much blunter. I think that this is (and I am sure that in his heart of hearts the noble Earl feels it, too) a useless scheme. What are we trying to do? The noble Earl said that we are trying to achieve more orderly marketing. That is a good thing to achieve, and by all means let us try to do it. But to do that what is being offered is a differential of 2s. 3d. per
824
cwt., from minus 9d. to plus 1s. 6d., over twelve months, which is approximately 10 per cent. You are trying to encourage farmers to keep their barley, and not sell it during the autumn, by paying them 10 per cent. more than in the guaranteed price. But most farmers, particularly at that time of year, want an overdraft, and this at the present time will cost them 6— per cent., with every indication that it will be more before harvest comes.
But to take the reasonably optimistic figure of 61 per cent., that leaves 3— per cent. with which to cover the enormous wastage on drying out of the barley, which may show a 5 per cent. loss in weight during that period, and the enormous hazards that come from damp and rats getting in, or whatever it may be, together with the actual cost of the equipment in order to make it possible to store the barley. But that does not include the biggest risk of all, which is the risk of a fall in price. What would have happened if this had come in twelve months earlier and a farmer had been encouraged by this 10 per cent. to save his barley until June instead of selling it in September or October? He would probably have been able to sell his grinding barley at 18s.—it even went a little higher, if he was lucky, at that time. That would have been subject to a deduction of 9d., resulting in a figure of 17s. 3d. If he sells it to-day he will be lucky if he gets 15s. or 15s. 6d. for it at the outside. That 15s. 6d. plus ls. 6d. makes 17s. Therefore, this year he would have been much worse off if he had followed this Government advice and accepted their incentive to keep his barley.
Farmers are not fools: they see what has happened in this last year, and they will learn the lesson for next year. In my opinion, it is idle to think that this scheme of a very minor differential, good though it may be in principle, will have any effect whatsoever. The only way in which we can regulate the marketing of barley, as experience is proving to us, if we open our eyes now, is by being prepared to regulate the import of barley. There is no ducking that if we are to have guaranteed prices and a guaranteed market which mean anything at all. We must be prepared to say at certain periods that barley or other cereals will not be allowed to

825
come into the country. I am very much in favour of the efforts that are now being made to prevent the clumping of foreign barley—and that goes almost without saying. Let me remind your Lordships that French barley, which is to-day coming into this country at 15s. or 15:s. 6d. a cwt., or £15 or £17 10s. a ton, is what the French farmer is being paid l5 per cent. more for: he is getting £23 a ton for it. If that is not a clear case of dumping, I do not know whether anyone can produce a case that will satisfy Government Departments and officials.
But that is not the only point on which I rest my case. I suggest that while we must be prepared to take urgent and rapid steps against flagrant clumping of this sort, we must also be prepared, if it is in the national interest, to hold up at certain periods of the year the importation of barley from other sources. It is no good shutting our eyes to this. Barley from Russia can never be proved to be dumped, because nobody knows what price the producer of Russian barley gets; and the exchange rates are so complex that, even if that figure were established. the second could not be arrived at. So purely anti-dumping legislation, even if operated quickly, would be insufficient.
It is not only the farmers in whom we are interested here, because eventually the consumer has to pay. It is a curious thing in all this that, even when we do import food (barley, wheat or whatever it may be) at a low rate—or call it a dumped price—the price to the consumer does not seem to fall. It certainly does not fall rapidly, and it certainly does not fall hand in hand with the lower prices. I should have far less objection if, because we were bringing barley into this country at a cheaper price, the price of beer and other products went down. But in fact the price of beer has just gone up. I should have far less objection when we bring in wheat at extremely low prices if the price of bread went down. But the price of bread has gone up. So we cannot have the justification of saying: "Let us import cheap food, because, although we have to pay a larger sum in deficiency payment, at least the consumer is benefiting". The consumer does not benefit by cheaper prices; and the consumer, as taxpayer, is penalised by having to meet ever greater deficiency payments. I suggest that these items,
826
which are coming up the whole time and being seen by us all, ought to make us think two or three times about whether in fact the present system of attempting to give stability to agriculture and to carry out the principles of the 1947 Act is working as efficiently and effectively as it might.
3.28 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, there is little that I wish to add to what my three noble friends have already said, but I want to associate myself entirely with the case they have put forward. I am interested in this matter primarily as a consumer of barley. Of course, I welcome from a personal point of view the present position under which I get my barley at least £10 a ton cheaper than I did in the corresponding period last year. But I derive little satisfaction from that, because it is an indication that there is something wrong. We have attempted in the agricultural industry to plan production and marketing and to ensure that it is carried out in an orderly way. It looks very much as if the attempt has failed. Barley is merely symptomatic of other commodities. To-day it happens to be barley; but the noble Earl will remember that we have had exactly the same problem with pigs at one time or another. There has been over-production of pigs and under-production of pigs. We are now being asked to produce more pigs, and I imagine that it will not be long before we are asked to cut down production. The same has happened with milk, eggs, and with other agricultural commodities.
It seems to me a very curious way of organising our farming industry to have these repeated ups and downs—over-production, under-production, gluts, scarcities, and so on. At the present time, of course, we are suffering from two things which happen to come simultaneously; an over-production of barley and, at the same time, considerable imports, which my noble friends have described as "dumping "(and I have no reason to think they are wrong), of barley. If the British taxpayer has to pay for both the over-production and the dumping, it is a very extraordinary way of planning our agricultural production.
I should like to see the Government dealing with this matter in a way different from that which they are doing,

827
which seems to me rather tinkering with the problem, and not in the best interests of the small producer. The big producer will not mind, but the small producer, who has to carry his barley over a long period, at the risk of penalisation, is not really compensated by the extra subsidy for the cost of keeping his barley longer: so that does not strike me as being an effective or fair solution of the problem. I should like to see the Government looking at this from the point of view of controlling production, as well as marketing, and also importing, so that the country gets the barley or the other commodities it needs while avoiding this over-production and underproduction, and the necessity of juggling with the subsidy, as the Government are doing at the present time.
3.32 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we have ranged fairly widely round the Orders that we are supposed to be discussing to-day, but your Lordships are generally 'tolerant of that and I have no reason to object. We are dealing here with quite a minor piece of machinery—the adjustment of the deficiency payments on an individual crop of barley. I doubt whether I should follow some noble Lords who have spoken into the far wider criticisms of agricultural policy generally, but there it is.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, was, I thought, unable to keep these two subjects separate, as I think they ought to be kept separate. The scheme we have before us now is not a dramatic scheme, but a sensible and practical scheme, to even out the marketing of the home grown barley crop or to help to do so. It is not really proper, on this scheme, to discuss these far wider problems of dumping and imports and whether the deficiency payments system is under strain or not. Of course, I fully appreciate and agree with what my right honourable friend said in another place, that the barley situation now is causing considerable concern. The prices have been correctly quoted—£15 a ton, with the guaranteed price at nearly £28 a ton. Of course, that must cause concern, and noble Lords will know that there is at this moment an application put in by the National Farmers' Union to the President of the Board of Trade for countervailing duties under the anti-dumping legislation, and
828
I could not for a moment comment on what Ministers will decide. All I can do is to reiterate what my right honourable friend said in another place when questioned on this subject: that the Government are treating this application by the National Farmers' Union with urgency, and we shall all be informed of the outcome of that application as soon as possible. I cannot anticipate now what will be said.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, felt that there were injustices, and that the deduction of 9d. per cwt. from a guaranteed price of 27s. 7d. per cwt. was too severe, and would cause great injustice. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Walston, rather contradicted him when he said that they were not nearly big enough and would not be effective because they were so small. We cannot have it both ways, and I believe that these are sensible adjustments to make in the first year of trying this scheme, and that we should, to use a country phrase, "Let the dog see the rabbit". Let us see whether this will not be much more effective than some of the critics think it will be. There is about 65 per cent. of the barley crop normally marketed between July and October, and we believe that may go down by 10 per cent. to about 55 per cent. as a result of the new scheme, and we feel that that will have a really steadying effect on the market. I do not think this is going to drive small farmers out of business, nor do I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that it is going to be entirely ineffective and have no use at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, spoke as a user of barley—as a big pig feeder, I understand. I could not follow his argument, because although he liked having this cheap barley on which to feed his pigs, he thought it was somehow wrong that he should be able to buy this cheap barley to feed his pigs. I do not think it is, provided we can adjust the price to the barley grower by means of the deficiency payment so that he too (this is the whole essence of this policy) can get a fair return on his barley.
The main point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was that we have these fluctuations—too much barley, or too few pigs—and what are the Government going to do about it? This is much

829
more a biological matter than a Government matter. We are not dealing with a factory here; we are dealing with growing life, and it is not possible, under any system, to prevent a favourable harvest from producing a lot of grain, or a flood of rain from causing a bad hay crop—and the noble Lord knows that. That is the difficulty with which agricultural Ministers always have to deal. There will be fluctuations, and no honest agricultural Minister will ever deny that. What he will say is that because of these fluctuations we will try to put in administrative arrangements that will modify them.
In this barley scheme we are talking about, by taking off these small amounts of 9d. per cwt. at the beginning of the season, and putting it up to Is. 6d. at the end of the season, perhaps we shall level out the market a little more than we think. Let us be optimistic and hope it will be more. Certainly do not let us be pessimistic before we have given it a trial and think it will be less. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that in my heart of hearts I did not believe in this scheme. That is not true at all. I believe it is a sensible scheme agreed between both sides—that is to say, the merchants and the farmers.
I do not want to say much more about this now, but I think it is wrong that we should go on record in this House as saying that a scheme, carefully worked out, agreeable to the industry, and brought in on an experimental basis, should be met with as much carping criticism as we have had this afternoon, and I hope that this Order will now be approved without that criticism weighing too much with your Lordships.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are not conscious that we have exercised carping criticism. But perhaps one might make a moral judgment at the end and say of the scheme:
"… unto everyone that hath shall be given; … but from him that hath not shall be taken away"
some of that which he hath.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I will not accept that as anything like a fair criticism of this scheme, if your Lordships will study it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CEREALS (DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1961
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move this Order.
Moved, That the Cereals (Deficiency Payments) (Amendment) Order, 1961, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN RHODESIA CONSTITUTION
3.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, perhaps it might be convenient if I were now to make a statement to your Lordships similar to that which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I will, if I may, read it out in the words which he is using in another place. He said:
"I will with permission make a statement on the Northern Rhodesia Constitution. In my statement of the 21st February I informed the House that I had asked the Governor to put forward recommendations after consultation with political groups in Northern Rhodesia on the matters which then remained to be settled, in order to fill in the details of a picture of which only a general outline had been given. I have now received the Governor's recommendations and a White Paper containing the text of them is available in the Vote Office".
I might interpose that here, of course, it will be in the Printed Paper Office.
"Honourable Members will wish to study this paper carefully and at the moment I propose to confine myself to a summary of the Governor's main recommendations in respect of the more important matters which were left for settlement and Her Majesty's Government's view as to the advice which should be tendered to Her Majesty on these points.
"As regards the elected membership of the Legislative Council, the Governor considers that the number of elected members should total 45 as suggested in the White Paper, composed of three equal groups of 15, the

831
15 members returned by the upper and lower rolls respectively to be elected in single-member constituencies covering the whole of the country. As regards the third group of national members he suggests that the simplest arrangement would be a pattern of seven double-member constituencies, perhaps combined with a separate single-member constituency. Her Majesty's Government accept the Governor's recommendation in respect of the upper and lower roll constituencies and in respect of the seven double-member constituencies. As regards the suggested single-member constituency we have decided that since the proposed arrangements do not provide an opportunity for the smaller racial communities who have their particular contribution to make to Northern Rhodesia the Asian and coloured communities throughout the whole territory should constitute a separate single-member constituency and consequently those registered in this constituency will elect an Asian or coloured candidate.
"As regards the method of electing national members the Governor (and Her Majesty's Government agree with him) has come to the conclusion that the basis should be the equalisation of the two rolls as outlined in the White Paper, but be makes two suggestions to meet some of the criticisms he has received. First, he suggests that three or four of the seven double-member national constituencies should each return one African and one European member. Her Majesty's Government accept this suggestion and consider that four of the seven double-member national constituencies should be reserved in this manner. Secondly, while endorsing the view of the White Paper that all candidates for national seats should be required to obtain a prescribed measure of minimum support, he suggests that the particular method envisaged in the White Paper might not in practice meet its object of compelling candidates to seek support from both races. He therefore recommends that the minimum support required by a candidate in order to qualify for election should be expressed as 1½ per cent. or 400 votes (whichever is the less) of the European
832
votes cast in the election and 12½ per cent. or 400 (whichever is the less) of the African votes cast in the election. Her Majesty's Government accept this recommendation but consider that candidates to qualify should obtain in addition at least 20 per cent. of the votes cast by one or other of the two rolls.
"As regards the delimitation of constituencies Her Majesty's Government agree with the Governor's conclusion that it would be desirable to appoint a delimitation commission under the chairmanship of a serving or retired Judge.
"On the franchise the Governor's proposals provide for the increase of voters eligible for registration on the upper and lower rolls on the lines recommended in the White Paper. The Governor has reported to me that he has had representations favouring an increase in the number of Africans on the upper roll, but felt that in view of the terms of the White Paper he could not recommend an increase beyond the figures of 1,500 to 2,000. Her Majesty's Government nevertheless feel than an increase here would be justified and accordingly I propose to ask the Governor to add categories to the upper roll which would enfranchise an additional 500 Africans beyond the numbers mentioned in the White Paper.
"I am sure that the House will agree with me in paying tribute to the statesmanlike way in which Sir Evelyn Hone has discharged the difficult and burdensome responsibilities which we had placed upon him. Her Majesty's Government and all communities in the territory are deeply in his debt. The recommendations he has put forward with the amendments which Her Majesty's Government have made accord fully with the objectives which have always governed our approach to this matter—that we should secure a substantially increased number of African members in the Legislative Council, while at same time maintaining the principle of a non-racial political approach in which political parties are obliged to seek support from both races."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl for giving

833
us this statement. We have not had very much time to study the statement itself, but in view of the fact that the White Paper is now available in the Printed Paper Office I think we should like to reserve any comments until we have time to study the White Paper and to compare it to the previous reports available to us. But I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he could say, from his more intimate knowledge of the situation than we can have as yet whether the Government now consider that this proposal, as set out in the statement, is really in accordance with the whole spirit of the original White Paper that we had, and whether, in accordance with the necessity for developing that spirit. it can be said that the amendments proposed will leave the Africans in a fair position, or whether it is, in fact, less than was perhaps at one time expected could be given.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, if I may say so I think the noble Viscount made a very good general point; these are complicated matters and a careful study of the White Paper is probably appropriate before the thing is discussed in any detail. On his second question, I can say unhesitatingly that what we now propose is within the spirit of the White Paper and its framework. I think that that also answers his point about whether the proposal is fair to somebody or other; it is within the spirit of the White Paper and its framework.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the long statement he has made on this very complicated system that is proposed, and agreeing that it would be better, before going into it in any detail, to study the White Paper closely, may I endorse the tribute that he has paid to the Governor, Sir Evelyn Hone for his activities? May I also ask him one question. Will this, in his opinion, broadly satisfy both the Europeans and the Africans in Northern Rhodesia?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think that is a very difficult question to answer. I think we shall have to see what is the reaction tomorrow when this scheme has been made public; but I would repeat that it is within the spirit and framework of the White Paper. I do not know whether it will satisfy every-
834
body, but it is none the worse for that. I do not think, from the very nature of this problem, one can satisfy everybody all the time.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can explain one matter of detail? He may refer me to the White Paper, which is now laid, for satisfaction. Why should only four, not all seven, of the double member constituencies now be reserved on a racial basis? What is the reason for that?
THE EARL OF PERTH: If I understand the noble Earl's question, it is why only four are to be on double member basis and the other three to be entirely open. I think the thought behind it was that one wants a measure of, if you like the word, uncertainty as to the outcome of an election; you do not want to get something which is going to work out strictly on a certain basis, either of Africans or of Europeans; and the three which are not to be on a double member racial reserve basis give us that opportunity.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl two questions? Certainly I agree we must all study this matter, and it will be interesting to get reactions before we express a firm opinion. I would say, rather than put it in the form of a question, that I think it is most desirable that as many as possible of the fifteen—it is now fourteen—seats should be multi-racial in every sense of the word, in the sense that they should be voted for by Europeans and by Africans. I am very glad that at any rate some of them—I hesitate to say whether there should not be more—are not to be allocated one to a European and one to an African, but that Europeans and Africans should be able to stand and be voted for in those seats.
As to the new idea—and again I must say that I do not like communal franchise as a rule—at the first blush I am a good deal attracted by the idea that there should be one constituency in which the coloured and the Asian would have a representative. Do I understand from the Minister that this will be voted for entirely by Asians and coloured; they will be the only people in the constituency; there will not be any admixture of Europeans and Africans voting,

835
so that the only candidate could be an Asian or coloured?
THE EARL OF PERTH: The noble Earl understands aright; it will be only the Asians or coloured who will vote in that particular constituency. I very much agree with him that it is desirable to have a representative of those races. They have a real contribution to make. It was difficult to see any other way in which we could achieve that purpose. On the first point he made, I think there is no more comment for me to make at this moment. Perhaps he will, as he said, study it, as we all shall, in the light of the White Paper.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether Sir Roy Welensky and his Government approved in general terms this plan?
THE EARL OF PERTH: The position with the Federal Government, I think, as everybody knows, is that we consult with them; that is the constitutional position. I am advised to make one clarification on a point which arose on the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Perhaps I misled the House. Of course, the national constituencies—there are seven—will all be double-member constituencies, but four will be reserved on a racial basis. If I misled the House, I hope that clears it up.

SPECIAL ROADS (CLASSES OF TRAFFIC) ORDER, 1961
3.55 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1961, dated May 15, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on May 18, be approved. Your Lordships will have noticed that the Special Orders Committee reported that the provisions of this Order "raise important questions of policy and principle" and that "it cannot be passed without special attention", but I think that the formal words used to draw the attention of your Lordships to them may perhaps rather over emphasise the importance of the policy and principle involved. This I hope to show in an explanation which I shall
836
try to keep as brief and simple as I can, because it is the explanation, rather than the matter itself, that is a little complicated.
The Order is concerned with the Fourth Schedule to the Highways Act, 1959. That Schedule lays down nine different classes of traffic which may or may not be allowed to use "special roads", which are, to all intents and purposes, at the moment, motorways. The effect of the Order will be, quite simply, to allow us to permit invalid carriages and mopeds to be used on cycle tracks where they are provided alongside a motorway and to permit pedestrians to use any footpaths which are similarly provided and take with them their perambulators, pushchairs and other kinds of baby carriages and dogs held on a lead.
Your Lordships may think the Order for which I seek approval seems rather elaborate for such a simple thing. So it is, and I should therefore explain that it is really a procedural Order and its form is entirely dictated by the provisions of the Highways Act. There is no other way of doing it open to my right honourable friend. Section 11 of that Act enables a highway authority, including, of course, my right honourable friend, to make a scheme for the provision of a special road, and the scheme can prescribe the classes of traffic which may use the road. But these classes of traffic must be selected from those set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. The Minister has power under Section 12 of the Act to vary the composition of any class of traffic in the Fourth Schedule or add further classes to it. That is the power that the Minister is exercising in this Order. It is the only power he has and as I say, he can exercise it only in this way, even if it does seem rather elaborate.
The present position is that only Classes I and II of the Fourth Schedule—that is private cars, motor-cycles, buses, lorries and so on; and the special vehicles used for carrying large pieces of industrial equipment or belonging to the Armed Services—are allowed on the motorways. But we now have three road projects of a new and different type coming along. They are the Severn, Medway and Maidenhead bridges. The

837
Maidenhead bridge forms part of the Maidenhead by-pass, and if all has gone according to plan it was opened this morning. We hope that the Medway bridge will be opened early in. 1963 and the Severn bridge in 1965 or 1966. In all three cases cycle-tracks and footpaths connected to local roads at either end will be carried on the bridges alongside the main motorway carriageways but completely separated from them by fenced barriers. Access to the cycle-tracks and footpaths can be obtained only from the side roads across which the motorway will pass, and not from the motorway itself, but they have to be treated as part 'of the motorway where, so to speak, they share the bridge with it, because the whole bridge is in fact part of the motorway.
In the schemes I mentioned provision was made for the cycle-tracks to be used by pedal cycles and the footpaths by pedestrians, each of which constituted one complete class in the Fourth Schedule. But it does seem reasonable and perfectly possible on these bridges to allow mopeds and invalid carriages to use the cycle-tracks to cross the bridge and pedestrians to take with them their dogs and their prams. This could not be done under the Fourth Schedule as it stands, because mopeds and invalid carriages were covered in a class which also included a great many other vehicles, like tractors and excavators.
Prams were covered by Class IX, which also included quite a number of other pedestrian-controlled vehicles, like costers' barrows and, I believe I am right in saying, mowing machines and that sort of thing; and dogs were in yet another class which included other animals, such as flocks of sheep. Therefore, to use these categories and to find excavators using the cycle-tracks and flocks of sheep the pavement is not very practical.
What the Order does, therefore, is to take the mopeds and the invalid carriages out of Class IV and put them into two new Classes X and XI, and to amend the definition of pedestrians to cover those who are pushing prams or leading dogs. The schemes which are already made refer simply to Class IX (which is pedestrians) and Class VII (that is pedal cycles) will have effect as if they included with pedestrians their prams and dogs, and by Article 4 of the Order mopeds
838
and invalid carriages will be included with pedal cycles.
I know that your Lordships do not like legislation by reference and neither, I think, does the public. We have therefore reproduced the whole of the Fourth Schedule in its new form as the Schedule to the Order. I think that this will be very helpful to those who are concerned with these matters and this course has the advantage of showing exactly where things now stand.
No new offence is created by the Order. It is already an offence under Section 12 of the Highways Act for traffic not of the prescribed classes to use a special road, but the Order varies slightly the classes themselves. The public cannot be expected to know in detail either the classes of traffic set out in the Schedule or the contents of every special road scheme. That is why, at the entrance to every special road and at the entrances to the cycle-tracks and footpaths, where these are provided alongside the main carriageway, notices are or will be exhibited saying precisely who may or who may not use it. I should perhaps make it quite clear that the new classes as they refer to schemes in existence, will not make it illegal for anyone who may now use a special road to use it in future. What it does is to add some new traffic to certain classes which may use special roads in a very restricted way.
I should naturally have liked to be able to bring before the House a much simpler Order than this one, and I am sorry that I have felt obliged to take up so much time with this explanation. I am afraid, however, that under the Act it is only in this rather complicated way that we can deal with this particular problem. There is nothing in the Act which enables my right honourable friend simply to prescribe directly who may or may not use a motorway, and schemes must refer only to the prescribed classes in the Fourth Schedule by their numbers. As experience has shown that the classes as drawn up have not allowed full and appropriate use of these new roads, they must be amended under the powers available to my right honourable Friend; but I am advised that the classes of traffic as amended by the Order should prove adaptable for all foreseeable requirements.

839
I hope that, with this explanation, your Lordships will agree to approve the Order, but I will, of course, endeavour to explain any points and to answer any questions which your Lordships may have. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order, 1961, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we are most grateful to the Minister for the painstaking way in which he has expounded the variation of the classes so that the situation will now become quite clear. But what we want is the special roads.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL
4.6 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 Crook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Prohibition on sale, etc., of goods not complying with regulations under s.1]
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (3) (a), after "possession" to insert:
"of any goods or component part the subject of regulations in force under the foregoing section".
The noble Lord said: In moving this first Amendment may I say a general word about the other Amendments? Amendments 1 and 2, which deal with the same matter, make a considerable change in the Bill. The remaining Amendments, in my submission, are designed to improve the administration of the Bill when it becomes an Act. May I deal with the first two Amendments together as they are part of the same subject? In this clause agents, who are described as such, are exempt from certain of the parts of the clause; and in this connection "agents" means secondhand dealers and auctioneers. I think that probably covers the lot.
The point behind these two Amendments is that under the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act which, as I said last week, comes to an end if this Bill becomes an Act, there has been considerable concern about secondhand heating appliances which do not conform to the regulations. There has certainly been one fatal accident, and there have been many other accidents. This state of affairs is likely to go on, to increase, so long as exemption is granted to agents and the number of goods subject to regulation is extended. Clearly, it would not be right to prevent private people from selling their property privately. But there is an outlet for this type of thing in subsection (3) (d) and (e), which would enable private people to sell these things to scrap merchants or people who are dealers and so on. But it seems to me to be not really arguable that anyone who is in business should not know that what he is selling is dangerous or not subject to the regulations, and by taking the agents out of this exemption they would have to comply with the regulations when they sell the goods. The object of these two Amendments is to prevent secondhand heating appliances from being sold when they are not in accordance with the regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Derwent.)
LORD CROOK: I am obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he has moved this Amendment, and for the opportunity we had of exchanging a few words, both on the afternoon of the Second Reading debate and to-day. I think the truth is that the noble Lord has put his finger on one small loophole in this Bill and, indeed, in the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act, 1952 which your Lordships sped on its way from this place. Having said that, may I say that I hope to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment, for two or three, as I think, rather good reasons. First of all the reason why this clause is phrased in this way is deliberately to avoid placing an undue burden upon the agents of auctioneers who, in certain circumstances—if, for instance they were selling the whole of the contents of a house—would in fact have to satisfy themselves that the whole of the contents

841
of the house were such that they did not contravene either this Act (as I hope it will be) or the other two Acts which already exist.
That leads me to the second and, to my mind, much more important point, which I think is one the noble Lord himself accepted as important the other day. That is, the desire of people on all sides to get this Bill through and on to the Statute Book by the end of this Session. If we raise any major issues on this as a Private Member's Bill we run the very grave risk that we may lose the Bill when it gets back to the other place.
As the noble Lord himself indicated, what is involved in this clause is what is involved in the Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act, 1952, and that clause was reproduced in the same phraseology in the Oil Burners (Standards) Act of last year, which was one of the things which caused the setting up of the Molony Committee and which might be said to be the genesis of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will bear in mind that he will probably get an opportunity of saying something like this in very much better circumstances, I hope, in a couple of years' time. I know that that seems a long way 'off, but it h not when we look at this kind of problem. Whatever we may be doing with a Private Member's Bill here to try to get this Interim Report of the Molony Committee put in some way on to the Statute Book., we are hoping that by about this time next year we shall have the Final Report of the Committee, and I am quite sure that the Home Office., after sight of that Report, by 1963, will be coming forward with their own suggestions for major legislation. Then this kind of thing can be taken care of in a Government measure rather than in a Private Member's measure, producing as it does a considerable number of difficulties. I hope that the noble Lord may find it possible to withdraw his Amendment. I would obviously give way to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, from the Home Office if he would desire to add anything to that.
EARL BATHURST: I want only to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has said in 'asking your Lordships not to accept this Amendment or, better still, in asking my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment. It is true that there is a small loophole which the
842
Amendment would stop. But the debit side of doing this would be to put an almost intolerable burden upon bona-fide auctioneers and agents who were selling property on behalf of a seller to another person who will be paying them a commission. It is true, I suppose, that in such transactions a number of out-of-date and unsafe fires will come on the market. But I think that the number of people who are in that sort of market to buy such fires is very small, and in any case few of the fires will work. Also, if a person buys such a fire with the aim and object to sell it to someone else he would, of course, be caught under the provisions of the noble Lord's Bill.
There is, I agree, another small loophole whereby a secondhand dealer might try ito get round these provisions by becoming an agent in order to sell an out-of-date fire on behalf of a seller. I think that the prices involved are so small that the numbers of such dealers will be infinitesimal compared to the amount of extra trouble which my noble friend's Amendment will make for bona-fide auctioneers. I assure the noble Lord, as he well knows, that if any of these proscribed articles should come on the market as a result of one of these deals through an auctioneer—that is, if they are going to be sold to another person—whether they be new or secondhand, then the noble Lord's Bill will catch them. So I think we have a very small loophole and a very small problem, and the hammer which my noble friend is taking in the shape of this Amendment to crack this nut is really much too heavy and will bear very hard upon the auctioneers. I hope, in the light of what has been said by the noble Lord who is guiding this Bill through your Lordships' House, that my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I must say that I was rather surprised to hear the reply from the noble Earl. He said there was a loophole, and then he went on to tell us of another, and then he told us that the loopholes are only small and the price of this Amendment is too high for stopping these loopholes. But, as I listened to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and the noble Earl, it seemed to me that there were great possibilities; that the price need not be so very high, and that these loopholes

843
should be regarded seriously. It has been said that an auctioneer has a large number of goods to be auctioned. But surely if there were fire appliances, the things about which we have heard the dangers, it is possible to put them aside when arranging or cataloguing what the auction is dealing with. I think it is a pity that we should agree to pass a Bill when it is said by the noble Lord who is in charge of it and by the noble Earl who is speaking for the Home Office that it is agreed that there are loopholes but that we can wait for another Bill. I must say that I am very disappointed in the reply which the noble Earl has given us.
EARL BATHURST: It was the noble Lord himself who, on the Second Reading, said that there were loopholes. I am being quite frank with the Committee in admitting that there are these two very small loopholes. The main loophole will be the case of the sale of a house with its contents, because it might have two or three old and out-of-date and unsafe fires. If the owner of those fires so wished he could go to the noble Lady herself and offer them to her, and the noble Lord's Bill would not "bite" in such a case. Therefore, it seems that where an agent is in charge of and is selling these appliances in the midst of many other articles in a house there is no need to take such drastic action as the noble Lord has suggested with his Amendment. After all, I think the action is really up to the buyer. There is no need for a buyer to buy one of these articles.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: May I interrupt? I agree that in many cases we are trying to protect the public too much, and I have often stated here and in another place that I think we do. But, after all, this Bill is called the "Consumer Protection Bill" and if you are not going to protect the person who is being offered a fire of this sort I consider that you have a very wide loophole in the Bill.
EARL BATHURST: There are very few consumers in this particular small class. But the measure which my noble friend would like to see taken would put an almost impossible burden upon the auctioneers. I do not know how many people would buy such fires, but let us
844
remember that in the future not only fires will be included; there will be all sorts of articles that may be proscribed. I do not know whether the noble Lady has considered how such a measure as my noble friend would like could be drafted or drawn so as to enable auctioneers to find out what is proscribed, what is not, and what are the regulations regarding these particular items. I do beg the noble Lady to consider that point, although I am much in sympathy with what she says. Of course, we agree it is a consumers' protection Bill—that is quite true. But the size of this particular problem and loophole is so very small that it does not warrant the great inconvenience that such an Amendment as has been moved by my noble friend would cause to the agents and auctioneers, and to their staff, too. I do ask the noble Lady to consider that.
LORD MERRIVALE: I cannot understand the argument of my noble friend Lord Bathurst: why on earth he wishes to stand out so much for the auctioneers, and why, in effect, auctioneers and their staff cannot take the trouble to see that electric heaters, and so forth, which may be unsafe should not be put on the market. My noble friend also mentioned that it may not be only heaters, but that there may be other forms of equipment which may be dangerous. If that is the case, I should have thought that that was an even stronger reason to plug this loophole. I cannot understand his argument in any way whatsoever.
LORD HAWKE: I feel that some of my noble friends are being rather unreasonable on this. The business of an auctioneer is going to become utterly impossible, I think, if the Amendments are passed as they have been argued by noble Lords on this side of the House. We are talking at the moment, apparently, on the assumption that the goods specified are going to be those paraffin heaters about which I helped to pass a small Bill. But, of course, there are a great many other very dangerous things about in the world. Before we know where we are we shall find that cooking and electrical equipment, of all sorts and of all kinds of descriptions, used in the house will be subject to this clause, and no auctioneer will dare to touch them. He would not have the time, the staff or anything else to inspect these things to

845
see whether they complied with the regulations that had been issued about them. It is very difficult when you start to try to protect consumers, I agree, but I believe that in this case we are trying to go altogether beyond the realms of practicability.
EARL BATHURST: I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Hawke has said; and I would assure my noble friend Lord Merrivale that I am not standing at this Box here to protect auctioneers or agents. What I am saying is that it will be very difficult to use this measure, which my noble friend Lord Derwent would like to see used, to stop such sales, and it would place an almost intolerable burden on the auctioneers if such a measure were effectively brought into operation. The noble Lord, Lord Crook—he is my noble friend, too—has said that in a few years' time there may be new measures which will probably go a very long way towards securing what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, wishes to see achieved.
I think that there is also another point that we should consider. Very quickly, as the years go by, there will be fewer and fewer of these appliances put upon the market, although the numbers of categories of proscribed goods may very well increase. That is, of course, quite true: but I do want to assure the noble Lady that it is a very small and narrow problem. I think we should pay attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said. If this Amendment is approved by your Lordships, I think it will be a great hardship upon those who may be selling such goods, for the reasons that the noble Lord has put forward.
LORD MERRIVALE: Before the noble Earl sits down, could I ask him one question?—though I do not want to weary the House. What is the proportion of these dangerous appliances involved in sales by auctioneers or agents? It must be very small indeed. Therefore, I should have thought they could have been put aside for consideration by the auctioneers or their agents.
LORD CROOK: I did not want to intervene again, to hold up the business of the House—it has a very long Order Paper in front of it—but the plain truth is that there will be very few of these.
846
But that is not an argument for putting this Amendment in the Bill: it is an argument for keeping it out, if I may say so with every respect. Because what you are trying to do here—and I do agree with my noble friend Lord Bathurst when he says that you are taking a big hammer to smash a small nut—is to bring in as a sidewind a complete control of every auctioneer and of their profession, which I do not think your Lordships could very well do in this Bill. I do not want to keep your Lordships a long time by developing that point; I want only to remind your Lordships that this afternoon, at long last, some of us have seen the Mock Auctions Bill come in from the Commons. In that, great difficulties are involved by way of defining what is a mock auction, and so on.
This Consumer Protection Bill, the object of which is declared, is related to the Molony Committee Report, which deals with new goods by manufacturers, and with their being sold in the ordinary shops. If we now say in this Bill that auctioneers must go round and look at everything before they take part in an auction, we shall get into a completely new field of legislation, outside anything which ought to be in this Bill and outside anything which ought to be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill. This is a Bill to deal with consumer goods which are sold new. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said—and he has helped me very much—the majority of the goods in this country are going to be covered if this Bill goes through in its present form, though a few odd things will be left out. How you can ask an auctioneer who is selling a 12-roomed house and the whole of its contents to go through them all and look at the pots and pans, the blankets on the beds to see whether the electrical contacts are effective, and so on, I do not know. I do urge that noble Lords should not hold up the Bill for the sake of that.
LORD DERWENT: I am not an expert in loopholes. They may be small in this case, but I know at least one child who has been killed through a loophole, and a good many have been hurt. However, I am sorry to say that I found my noble friend on the Front Bench rather less inclined to influence me than the noble Lord opposite. I think he has, in fact, made out a case for not

847
bringing auctioneers into this particular argument, at least under this Bill. I myself believe that we shall have to have something, either at a later stage in this Bill or in future legislation, dealing with secondhand dealers. In the case I am talking about, where a child was killed, the electric fire was in fact sold by a secondhand dealer, and it was wrongly wired. A secondhand dealer should be able quite easily to find out whether what he is selling is the correct thing. However, I appreciate that this Amendment, in its present form, is not quite correct. I do not think we can bring auctioneers into it. I will have another look at it, to see whether we can do anything at a later stage. But I do not want to lose this Bill—this auctioneers business is frightfully controversial—so at the moment I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved to add to subsection (6):
"Provided, further, that where any goods to which this section applies are found in the possession of any person carrying on business or on the premises of any person which. whether a building or in the open air, whether open or enclosed, are used for business, such person shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act, until the contrary is proved, to have such goods in his possession for the purpose of selling."
The noble Lord said: The High Court has given many rulings on this question of being in possession of goods. I am advised that the words, "or being in his possession for the purpose of selling", are not adequate, and that they leave unprotected offering or exposing for sale. We have had this trouble before in your Lordships' House and in the courts. There was, of course, the case of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959. That Act said:
"any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire,… shall be guilty of an offence.…"
That was in relation to things like flick-knives. It came up in the courts, and it was found at once that exposure for sale was not covered. Immediately, we had a Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959, (Amendment) Act to deal with that point. Recently in your Lordships' House we had the Weights and Measures Bill, and at a very late stage
848
in that Bill my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, on behalf of the Government, introduced an Amendment dealing with exactly this same point. I have put down an Amendment so that the matter would be fully covered in the courts, and the wording of the Amendment is taken from Section 59 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, at end insert the said proviso. —(Lord Derwent.)
LORD CROOK: I follow very clearly the desire of the noble Lord to be helpful and to strengthen the Bill where it can be strengthened; but on the wording which is used in this Amendment I would suggest that the Bill would be very much weakened. As things stand at the moment, we thought it was a rather strong Bill. All that is required under the Bill as it stands is to prove that the goods were in the possession, and were in the possession for the purpose of sale. Whereas if the noble Lord's Amendment were carried, they would only have to be found in the possession, and the question of found in possession for the purpose of sale would not be able to be dealt with in the way the noble Lord thinks it would at all. We should, in fact, be reversing the normal proof taken in criminal cases; and I am sure that what the noble Lord said in his speech was the exact opposite of that principle. So far as I can see, what the noble Lord is trying to do is to get away from the accepted principles and to require a person, other than in very exceptional cases, to prove his innocence. I do not think we have the case which the noble Lord thinks we have to make the Amendment he has suggested, but I should be glad to hear what the noble Lord who leads for the Home Office has to say.
EARL BATHURST: My information is contrary to what any noble friend Lord Derwent believes and is that, if a trader who normally deals in the sale of goods has goods of his trade in his possession, that is prima facie evidence that they are in his possession for the purpose of sale, and therefore no problem should arise. As the noble Lord opposite knows, the teeth of his Bill will bite when a sale is actually made. An inspector, or any other person, whoever it may be, will make a purchase, and the goods or the particular article will be tested. If

849
it does not conform to the prescribed regulations which will have been made for the particular article, then an offence will have been committed. Of course, any number of additional offences will be committed if goods of exactly the same sort continue to be sold.
It is my advice that the noble Lord's fears are not founded in this case. It is also my understanding that the words, "or have in his possession for the purpose of selling", are a well-known formula, and that there are many precedents for using such a formula in this particular case. I am quite certain that my noble friend will realise that if his Amendment were carried it would then be for the person concerned to prove himself not guilty. That will be a very wide departure from the usual rules of British justice. As the Bill stands now, it is up to the prosecution, the inspector (or whoever it may be), to prove that the goods were in the possession of the person charged, and that they were in his possession for the purpose of sale. I think that sounds fair under British law as it so stands.
LORD DERWENT: May I interrupt my noble friend for a minute? The Weights and Measures Act, 1878, carries this wording. Is that considered unfair?
EARL BATHURST: I am afraid I have not information about that same wording; but I am advised—and I can assure the noble Lord of this—that this wording is well known to the courts, and I understand that very little difficulty is envisaged when it is applied to the Bill of the noble Lord opposite. I want to assure the noble Lord that the words used in the Offensive Weapons Act did not include the expression "possession for the purpose of sale" at all. That Act, before it was amended, used a number of expressions which were not so comprehensive as the words used here. I assure the noble Lord that in fact there will not be the same difficulty here under the noble Lord's Bill as there were under the Offensive Weapons Act.
To go back to the point I was making with regard to the onus of proof being put upon the person who is alleged to have committed the offence, I think the noble Lord must agree that the Amendment would cause a very large departure from the principles of British justice. I think, too, that the noble Lord
850
must admit that the point which his Amendment deals with is a relatively minor point, and that such a very wide departure from the principles of British justice would barely be necessitated in this case. Therefore, I do ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I do not think it is very much against justice, but my noble friend has the advantage of Home Office legal advisers and as long as he is completely satisfied that this is going to stand up in court, and that we shall not require an Amending Act next month or next Session—and I take it he will ask for it to be looked at again—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Enforcement of Section 2]:
4.37 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment concerns a matter that I mentioned on Second Reading. It is designed to give the courts power in suitable cases, on conviction, to order the forfeiture of the goods concerning which the regulations have been broken. There have been cases where the conviction has been obtained for selling goods not in accordance with the regulations; a fine has been imposed, and the appliance, the subject of the charge, has been offered for sale again unrepaired, in exactly the same condition as it had been before. Again this is a question of heating appliances. If a conviction is obtained and the court thinks that the fellow is perhaps (shall we say?) likely to be a little "crooked", then in those circumstances the court will have power under this Amendment to order the forfeiture of the goods, and to make certain that they were not put up for sale in the same condition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 46, at end insert ("and the goods or component part shall be liable to be forfeited").—(Lord Dement.)
LORD CROOK: No one who has listened to the noble Lord's moving of the Amendment would fail to have a great deal of sympathy with the kind of case he has put. Clearly, if there were no way out of this, then the kind of Amendment he is suggesting would probably need to be carried. But I suggest

851
to your Lordships that for this rare occurrence—and it is a rare kind of thing—there is already a perfectly good existing legal procedure, a procedure which would exist the more under this Bill, and one which ought to be used. That is the second prosecution. I have had no evidence myself of the kind of thing to which the noble Lord refers, but surely it is true that, if the appropriate action were taken about this kind of thing and a second sale of the article then proceeded, it would call for a second immediate prosecution. One would have thought that the magistrates, in those circumstances, would then not use just the weapon of the fine, but would have gone right on to send the person off to imprisonment.
As the Amendment is drawn I am informed that it also goes very much wider than merely looking at the ordinary individual case. It strives to impose a general sanction on the whole of the commodity in stock, whereas very often any non-compliance which would exist would be a simple thing to put right. What is visualised under some of the kinds of regulations that were discussed in the Committee stage in another place was the issuing of certificates and the proper use of certificates on things. Non-compliance could even be failure to put a certificate on an article sold, and it would be possible forthwith to put the appliance being sold back into order again from the point of view of the regulations to be made under the Act by properly labelling. Equally it would not be fair, I am sure the Noble Lord would agree, that, if there were one particular article in one particular piece of stock, the whole stock should be confiscated. That in fact is, I am advised, what would happen if the Amendment were carried.
To sum up, I think this would involve such a large change in the Bill that if you sent it back to the other place, with its present clogging of legislation that we have all been warned about, we might run the risk of losing the Bill which the noble Lord is supporting. May I suggest to him that having put his point on record, he might be content to leave it to the next lot of legislation, and I hope he will be satisfied to-day and withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I should in any case have to get further advice as to the legal implications of the Amendment. I see the point the noble Lord has raised that it might not have the effect we desire. I also appreciate, of course, the point about a second prosecution. At this stage, and particularly in view of the legal situation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (2) to omit the proviso, and to substitute:
".—() A person against whom proceedings are brought under this Act shall, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention of the provisions in question was due brought before the court in the proceedings; and if, after the contravention has been proved, the original defendant proves that the contravention was due to the act or default of that other person, that other person may be convicted of the offence, and, if the original defendant further proves that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provisions in question were complied with, he shall be acquitted of the offence.
() Where a defendant seeks to avail himself of the provisions of the foregoing subsection—

(a) the prosecution, as well as the person whom the defendant charges with the offence, shall have the right to cross-examine him, if he gives evidence, and any witness called by him in support of his pleas, and to call rebutting evidence;

(b) the court shall make such order as it thinks fit for the payments of costs by any party to the proceedings to any other party thereto.

() Where it appears to the authority concerned that an offence has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken under this Act against some person and the authority are reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person and that the first-mentioned person could establish a defence under subsection (1) of this section, they may cause proceedings to be taken against that other person without first causing proceedings to be taken against the first-mentioned person.
In any such proceedings the defendant may be charged with, and, on proof that the contravention was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the first-mentioned person might have been charged."
The noble Lord said: This is another of these legal questions. Not being a lawyer I find it very difficult. I am told that the proviso to Clause 3 (2) does not adequately cover the problem of

853
contravention due to a fault by some other person, and that if a person charged with art offence is not convicted, because he has proved under the new Bill to the satisfaction of the court that he had reasonable cause to believe that such requirements were satisfied, it might be difficult to take any action against the person actually responsible. That is the legal point behind this Amendment. The procedure in my Amendment is laid down in Section 113 of the Foods and Drugs Act, 1955. It is similar to that employed in the Weights and Measures Act and well understood by the courts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out from beginning of line 1 to end of line 6 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD CROOK: I was very surprised to hear the suggestion that this is a stronger provision than the one already in the Bill. I went out of my way when moving the Second Reading to point out that I thought the defence opportunity which was being offered was one of the finest defence opportunities that there had ever been. I want to suggest to the noble Lord that he is mistaken in thinking that his provides a better defence for the retailer.
What the Amendment does is to replace by a new definition the proviso which is in Clause 3 (2), and which states merely that the person "has reasonable cause to believe". That, as I thought I suggested in the Second Reading, was one of the strongest defences ever offered in any court of law, and better, I believe, than any opportunity offered in many criminal proceedings at the moment.
How the laying of the blame would proceed under this sort of provision I fail to see. I do not quite know where it is that the person selling an article will have the ability to examine the structure and to know where to pin down the detail and so on. What the Amendment is really trying to do is to suggest a much more difficult procedure than any we have visualised in any way during the discussion of this Bill in the other place or on Second Reading here. I do not know whether from the point of view of considering the legal complication, Earl Bathurst has anything else he can
854
offer from the Home Office. So far as I am concerned I should not like to see the Amendment accepted.
EARL BATHURST: I must agree with my noble friend Lord Crook that Lord Derwent's Amendment makes a very drastic and radical change to the defence mechanism which is built into this Bill. Both I myself, and the noble Lord, referred to this defence in the course of Second Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, wishes to substitute his method for the defence of the retailer. His method of defence cannot be anything like as reasonable—the word that is used in the Bill—or as safe for him or as effective in the case for the inspector.
The obvious defence which a retailer will use, if he is alleged Io have committed an offence, is that the article which he is selling has a mark or a stamp of some sort or another which is recognised to be a seal which means that a certain number of possibly very technical and specialised provisions have been included in what may very well be a complicated article. I did make reference to the increasing complication of domestic articles which are coming on the market—for instance, washing machines. Some of these articles may be tins of paint, which Lord Auckland referred to, or some other substance which is kept in a tin or bottle or some other container, which neither the retailer nor the customer is able to see at the point of purchase. So it may be necessary to prescribe in regulations under the noble Lord's Bill some sort of stamp or mark. If the stamp is upon an article we believe that it is a fair and reasonable defence for the retailer to use that fact as his defence.
If in fact, the retailer has not put that stamp there he could surely have committed no offence. That is laid down in the Bill. Therefore the proceedings will go further back in the chain which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent mentioned in Second Reading, through possibly the wholesaler, and so forth, to the person who put the stamp or seal or mark upon the article and who has in fact committed the offence. The noble Lord's Amendment means that it will be up to the accused retailer himself to bring in some person, who may be completely unknown to him, who may or may not be in business at the time of the offence,

855
and endeavour to prove that it is in fact that person's fault. I do not believe that your Lordships will agree that that will be a more reasonable method of defence than Clause 3(2) which provides as a defence that a person has reasonable cause to believe that any requirements imposed by the regulations in respect of goods for sale are satisfied. By the time these regulations are actually in effect for a particular brand of goods, the regulations will have become well known throughout the trade. So I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment, which, as he himself says, brings a completely new conception into the Bill and which, I feel, would place considerable hardship upon retailers and possibly upon manufacturers, too.
LORD DERWENT: I think that this time my noble friend has a case. This is a highly technical matter, which could well wait until further legislation. I have aired the point, as was my intention on all these points, in the hope that, when there is further legislation, somebody will turn them up. If they do not, I shall. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
LORD CROOK: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Crook.)
EARL BATHURST: Before the Lord Chairman puts the Motion to your Lordships, I wonder if I might say two or three sentences. We have been most obstructive to my noble friend Lord Derwent in refusing Amendments which, when he mentioned them on Second Reading, seemed to cover serious points in law. I suspect that that was due to the persuasive oratory of my noble friend. I should like to assure him that, in spite of the short time that was available, every one of these points has been looked at by the legal experts in the Home Office to whom he referred and my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State has given them his personal attention.
I should also like to say a word of appreciation of what the noble Lord,
856
Lord Crook, said on Second Reading about the help which my honourable friend has given to the noble Lord's honourable friend in the House of Commons, Mr. Edwards, in bringing forward this Bill. I want to assure noble Lords that all these Amendments have had careful consideration, but we came to the general conclusion that the safeguards in the Bill were sufficient without my noble friend's Amendments.
LORD CROOK: I had no idea whether or not I was entitled to say anything by way of observation at the end, but the opportunity provided so courteously by the noble Earl allows me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who moved the Amendments, which we have opposed one after the other, and to say how much I appreciate the way in which he has co-operated with us between the Second Reading and now. I would thank, too, the Home Office and its representative, the noble Earl, for the way in which, on every stage of the Bill, they have co-operated with us to try to make certain that this Bill finds its way to the Statute Book.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

OXFORD TRAFFIC INQUIRY REPORT
4.56 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to draw attention to the report of the inspector who conducted the inquiry into the Oxford roads problem; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: my Lords, it was on February 8, 1955, that I put down a Motion in your Lordships' House to draw attention, not only in the interests of Oxford, one of our great national heritages, but also in the national interest, to the necessity for something to be done to alleviate the growing traffic congestion caused by Oxford's geographical position. I do not claim to have been the first to have done so, because in 1937 it was unanimously agreed by the Oxford City Council, the Oxfordshire County Council, the Berkshire County Council, the University and the Oxford Preservation Trust that something must be done.
I am not going to bore your Lordships with the comings and goings of the history of this matter until 1958, when,

857
on February 13, we had a debate in your Lordships' House on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, to set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole of this growing, and by now gigantic, problem of traffic congestion in Oxford. Your Lordships took the view, under the persuasion of the then Leader of the House, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that there should be what was called an inquiry at large by an inspector, or inspectors, as it was then supposed there might be, of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The inquiry at large has been held and the report has now been presented. On February 13, 1958, the Government promised—in order, if I may say so with no disrespect, to save their faces by not being taken into the Division Lobby, where they would have assuredly been defeated—that your Lordships should have an opportunity of debating this report before the Minister made up his mind whether he would adopt it or not.
This report is a peculiar document. After having an inquiry at large, after hearing evidence from every source that desired to give evidence, the Inspector recommends a plan which was advocated only by its sponsors and opposed by everybody who gave evidence at the inquiry. Strange as it may appear to some, and not so strange to others, the recommendation of the inspector is almost precisely the same as the one your Lordships' House turned down in 1957, known as the Sandys Meadow Road Scheme. The Inspector appears to have centred the whole of his report upon the necessity, in his view, of preserving what he calls the peace and quiet of the University area. In fact in his recommendation in paragraph 300 of the report and the following one he says that if the peace and quiet of the University area is to be restored, a road through Christ Church Meadow is inescapable; and he recommends accordingly. I am going to ask the Minister to reject that recommendation.
My first ground for asking that is that the inspector was not charged with finding how best to restore the peace and quiet of the central University area. He was charged with finding how best the traffic (and at the time of the 1957 debate it had grown to such proportions that the congestion in the centre of Oxford was almost intolerable, because almost
858
all the traffic converging along the four main roads had to pass through the centre of the City of Oxford) could be diverted and the congestion eased, and not with how to preserve or restore the quiet of the University area, admirable though that objective is, if practicable.
The 1957 debate was mainly concentrated upon that point, and that was because it was recognised by your Lordships then, including the Government, that this was not a purely local, but a national question. In fact, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who was the Leader of the House at that time, said in the debate [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201, col. 834]:
"Finally as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out, and I entirely agree with him, it is a key point in our system of communications, being on the main traffic route between the industrial Midlands and the South and West of England, including the great ports of that part of the country."
There was complete unanimity in your Lordships' House and in every conceivable body of opinion outside that the by-passes should be completed with all speed. It was said repeatedly in your Lordships' House that the problem of congestion of traffic in Oxford could not be viewed in its proper perspective until that had been done. No one who listened to that debate and to those who spoke, including the Government spokesmen, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Earl, Lord Munster, could have gone away with any other impression than that the by-passes were going to be completed with all speed. Again I quote the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury on that occasion. He said [col. 840]:
"The construction of the outer by-passes will not be held up until there is agreement on the Oxford Traffic Plan."
I have with me a letter which has been written to-day by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and, with your Lordships' permission. I should like to quote a sentence or two from it, because the noble Marquess is indisposed and regrets that he cannot be here. He writes:
"If you think it would be any help, please do not hesitate to say that, after reading all the papers on the subject, I still do not see why it should not be the best plan to complete the outer ring road and see how much traffic that draws off from the centre of Oxford be, fore proceeding to measures which are bound to affront large sections of opinion in the city and outside."

859
Yet, my Lords, there is not a recommendation throughout the whole of this report that advocates the hurried and expeditious completion of the outer ring roads: as a matter of fact, there is only a passing reference to them and an assumption that they will be completed and that when they are completed there will be various effects.
I should think that there is still unanimity in your Lordships' House and outside, in the University, the Oxford Preservation Trust, the county councils and also the City Council of Oxford, that it is imperative that there should be no delay, and that whatever is done, the Oxford road traffic problem will not be solved until those by-passes are completed. Only the other day the Mayor of Oxford wrote this to the Minister of Transport:
"The result of continued delay in the completion of the work on this section of the by-pass "—
that is referring to the last section, which is not yet in the programme, known as the Sandford link—
"will therefore mean that the river will continue to remain a barrier for the whole of its length between the centre of the city and Abingdon. Among the incidental results of the decision must be included the fact that until the outer ring of by-passes is complete it will be impossible for my council even to consider following Gloucester's excellent example of prohibiting the heavy through goods traffic from its central area."
That is from the Mayor presiding over a Council which has put forward a scheme to the inspector, which the Mayor does not pretend will solve the problem, and which the Inspector has accepted.
Four and a half years have passed since your Lordships debated Lord Beveridge's Motion, and even now those ring roads are not completed: in fact, the Sandford link is not yet in the authorisation programme. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that if the Government had carried out their promise that expeditious treatment would be given to those by-passes, not only would the inquiry not have needed to be held, but this debate would not have had to take place, and we should have now seen what the problem was as clear as daylight, even if there were not a problem to deal with at that moment of time. So that is the first complaint that I have against this report, and those are my
860
first grounds for asking the Minister to reject the recommendation in it.
I am not going into detail, except on one point. I do not reject the figures produced by the Road Research Laboratory; I reject their assumptions. They are quite entitled to bring statistics forward, but assumptions are entirely different; and in my opinion everybody in an official capacity has failed to pay sufficient regard to what I would call the congestion factor. The Laboratory's figures were based upon a per capita census—a notoriously misleading thing. A ten-ton lorry ranked as one vehicle, and the smallest motor car ranked as one vehicle. The congestion factor, and the time-lag factor, of a ten-ton lorry bears no comparison to that of a small motor car. One of the greatest congestion factors is the fact that some of these great commercial lorries which have to pass from the South of England right along the A.34 (that is the only main road we have down the centre of England, and it runs plumb through the centre of Oxford) are brought down to two miles per hour on some of these slight inclines. To take that traffic out of the City of Oxford and to utilise the power which the Minister has under Section 26(3) of the Road Traffic Act on the application of the local authority to ban the routing of heavy traffic, or any other traffic they want to stop going to the centre, would revolutionise the problem of the traffic congestion of the city of Oxford.
The plan recommends that a scheme shall be agreed and put into operation to drive a road through Christ Church Meadow. I can speak with a perfectly unbiased mind, as I am not a member of the University of Oxford. I am no special pleader. If special pleader I am, it is that I am a great lover of Oxford and have spent the greater part of my life in its vicinity. But as a piece of traffic engineering the plan that is recommended is sheer and utter nonsense. I characterise the Sandys Plan—from which this deviates hardly at all—as the silliest of silly pieces of traffic planning. Now what does it do? It first of all commits the crime of collecting the traffic to near the point of congestion. It takes the traffic right up to the point of congestion, and then it tips it in and unloads it within 200 yards of the greatest point of congestion in the whole

861
of the city of Oxford, Carfax; and from there it goes on to Heaven knows where. Certainly the inspector did, not know. He airily made some kind of comment that perhaps it might, in some distant future, be advisable to widen New Inn Hall Street, but that was never a subject to be discussed at the debate.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who followed me as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, is present. If we learnt anything at that Ministry, we learnt that the way to relieve congestion was to take the congesting traffic as far away from the congested spot as we could. But here you take it as near as you can, and you tip it right into the centre. As a piece of planning it again falls down. I do not pretend to be a planning expert, but I was very much impressed to read a letter in The Times this morning from Sir William Halford, Mr. Trustram Eve and Mr. Pitcher. I suppose it would not be an exaggeration to say that they are three of our leading planning experts in this country, and they have condemned this scheme.
The centre of Oxford has never been planned. Nothing is ever planned in Oxford; Oxford just grows. Your Lordships may think it a joke, but there has never been any attempt to plan any traffic control in Oxford yet—never in its history. There is an essence of planning required here; but are your Lordships aware that the whole of the shopping centre of the city of Oxford is right in the middle of the University area? It is about one mile square, and it contains all the multiple stores to attract everybody from miles around. You will never get over that congestion until you plan the adjoining roads to cream off the pedestrian traffic. But with this plan, the inspector's plan, what are you doing? If I may use a vulgarism, because it is apt, you spew the whole of the local traffic into an area which is congested with pedestrians, women with children in perambulators doing their shopping, and you strew incitements. You have Woolworth's, Marks and Spencer's, and Boot's, who are putting up or have put up the most elaborate places, and now another of them is to be added in the Corn Market, where Littlewood's are to have a multiple store which will make confusion worse confounded.
I will leave the planning aspect of this question to be dealt with by speakers who are more knowledgeable than I am. I want to turn to one other point. The Inspector says—and I regret he has said this, because it is completely untrue—that nobody except the University raised any opposition to the plan that he has advocated. First of all, the Chief Constable was dead against it. His number one priority was that the outer by-passes must be completed first. But is it not an amazing thing—and this came out in evidence at the inquiry—that of all the consultations that the City Council had between their various departments, some in secret session and some out, the Chief Constable's advice was never asked and he was never consulted. The Inspector makes some rather caustic comment as to why the Chief Constable was not consulted, and the Council said they were in entire ignorance of his views. The Inspector says that that was a very strange thing, but it is a fact.
The next opponent to this recommendation is the Chief Planning Officer of the city. He thought so little of the city's plan that he brought up his own plan. Then there is Sir William Halford, who, if he carries weight with nobody, surely carries weight with Her Majesty's Government and the Minister of Housing and Local Government, because he is the man who is going to get the Minister out of his Piccadilly Circus mess; and so he must have some weight. He is the greatest authority in the country when it comes to Piccadilly Circus, but he does not seem to rank quite so highly with the Inspector and the Oxford Road Committee. Then there is Mr. Trustram Eve and Mr. Dennis Pilcher.
My Lords, I am asking the Minister—I cannot ask the Government as it has, at the present moment, nothing to do with them; but I suppose the Minister of Housing and Local Government is the one who will, after consultation with his colleagues, when he has heard of your Lordships' comments, come to a conclusion—to reject the Council plan, because it will not bring peace and quiet to the University end. What it will do is to put a noose round its neck which time will tighten and tighten until it strangles it completely.
Now the cost. It has been given in evidence that the cost of this road will

863
be between £3 million and £4 million. To spend £3 million or £4 million on something that will not cure your problem and to burke over the £1 million, or just over £1 million, that it will cost to complete the South by-passes by the Sandford link and see your problem three quarters solved, is not, I think, very good logic.
I do not deny that a case can be made for inner relief roads in the city of Oxford. I think they must be thought of very carefully, but, above all, they must be thought of in the light of experience, when you have taken out the real obstruction, and that is this heavy commercial traffic that comes from the North and the Midlands and is funnelled right through the centre of Oxford. Leave out the vandalism and the sacrilege, leave out the convenience and the amenity of the eye, but when you come to think that this plan envisages a huge concrete—I suppose it will be concrete—cross-over, two elevations, almost outside the door of Christ Church Cathedral, it does not sound possible that anybody who has thought about it can recommend such a thing. That is why I am asking the Minister to reject this recommendation and I ask your Lordships to support me in, that request. I beg to move for Papers.
5.23 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for raising this important matter and for his very cogent speech. Naturally the Member of your Lordships' House to put forward the views of the University would be Lord Simonds. Unfortunately, he is indisposed and I have been asked to put the views of the Vice-Chancellor and the Hebdomadal Council, and in view of the large number of speakers of far greater experience than myself I propose merely to read the statement which has been given to me, because I am quite sure that any points I should wish to make would be made better by other people. This is the statement:
"I have been asked by the Vice Chancellor of Oxford, on behalf of the Hebdomadal Council, to say that they are not only disappointed by the recommendations made by Sir Frederick Armer, but that they feel that due weight has not been given, in his Report, to the evidence tendered on behalf of the University at the public inquiry over which he presided last December.
864
"The University has more than once, and consistently expressed its views by the votes of very large majorities in Congregation. In the last of these debates, held only a few weeks before the public inquiry, the University took the opportunity to express a positive and decided preference for a plan on the lines of a published scheme, Scheme A, and for the use of traffic restrictions to make such a plan work, that is to say, to make it succeed in diverting traffic from the central area.
"The Vice Chancellor was authorised by the University to speak on its behalf at the Inquiry, and there was also an expert witness, Mr. Pitcher, and there is, of course, no question now of adding to or modifying their evidence. The question is, whether due weight has been given to it. This evidence laid stress on two points of principle which the Vice Chancellor represented as underlying the University's resolutions in Congregation. The first, that the problem at Oxford is not merely a traffic problem; the second, that any solution ought to be based on a long view, not a short one.
"It was the combination of these two fundamental considerations, as well as other considerations of detail, that led the University to press for a plan which would ensure that traffic would be enabled to circulate on a ring road system that would, of course, be well inside the by-pass ring, but well away from the centre. It would keep South of the Thames, North of the University Parks, West of St. Ebbe's—more or less along the line of the railway—and East of the Green Belt along the Cherwell. That describes in general terms the area within which motor traffic should be discouraged. It embraces not just the University but the main shopping and civic centre of the City. If a ring road system of this description, plenty of car parks at suitable points, did not succeed in relieving the centre, then suitable restrictions should be imposed.
"The problem, as I have said, is not merely—perhaps not even primarily—a traffic prolem. It is the problem of rescuing the heart of Oxford—City as well as University—from a surfeit of motor traffic and preserving it for future generations. The plan recommended by Sir Frederick Armer not only provides additional routes for traffic to move in the area but should, on the contrary, have less traffic on it. It is also too short-sighted. Everybody expects a general increase in motor traffic in the country at large. The Inspector's plan is short-sighted because it does not push the traffic far enough away from the centre.
"The future on which, naturally, public attention is being focused is the proposal for a road through Christ Church Meadow. This is certainly objectionable because it would destroy an irreplaceable amenity, but even if it did not, it would still, the University contests, be had planning. From a planning point of view, another feature, which is linked with the line of the proposed meadow road, is almost worse, namely the continuation of the meadow road through, instead of round—i.e., to the South and West of St. Ebbe's—the new area of development which is of such importance to the City. To drive a main traffic road, first through an open space of great natural beauty, then through an area of new development, and in both

865
cases within, instead of outside, the area of Oxford that should be relieved of traffic, is surely bad planning. It is certainly bad for those who live in, or visit, Oxford. It may do no more for motorists than add to the number who already enjoy the maximum of inconvenience with the minimum of speed, by providing more internal roads for them to congest, but, in any case, what we should be thinking of, the University maintains, is not the convenience of motor traffic, but the rescue and preservation of Oxford,"
I would only add that I have been associated with a vast amount of matter on this subject and I have come to the conclusion that. I agree with the Plan, Plan A, as proposed already by the Oxford Development Trust, and I cannot accept at the moment this ruling of Sir Frederick Armer as really meeting the case. I would say that while it may be said that there is something exceptional in Oxford—a point with which I agree—my view is that we must have drastic traffic limitations, not only for Oxford but for Cambridge and other towns, such as Stamford, if we are to preserve our heritage and fine old towns.
5.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel some diffidence in addressing your Lordships now after a long interval. When a man has reached the extreme old age of 90 he may think that to intervene in the controversies of the day may be regarded as an intrusion of the past into the present. If I were to give your Lordships my reminiscences of Mr. Gladstone when he was Prime Minister in 1893, you would probably listen with polite attention, but you may perhaps think that you are not obliged to take account of the views of a nonagenarian about a future which he will not live to see. But in justification I can claim that during the last two years I have accumulated to my credit a large balance of silence on which I may perhaps be allowed to draw to-day.
Secondly, I have justification in my special connection with this question of the Oxford roads, because during the last war, while attending your Lordships' House regularly, I was living part-time in Oxford for four years, when the Oxford Preservation Trust, on the initiative of my friend Lionel Curtis, decided to appoint a committee on the planning and reconstruction of Oxford and did me the honour of making me the chairman of that committee—probably because I myself had several years of
866
Cabinet experience, including the office of President of the Local Government Board. Members of that committee included the chairman of the City Council's Planning Committee and also the chairman of the County Council's Planning Committee and two or three other experts. We held 50 meetings; we heard 30 witnesses; we presented two unanimous reports in 1941 to 1942. And now, 20 years after, almost all the recommendations of that committee are being carried into effect.
I do not speak to-day, however, for the Oxford Preservation Trust; the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, who is the Chairman of the Trust, will be making his maiden speech in this debate. Nor do I speak for the University, since the noble Earl Lord Attlee, with the direct authorisation of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, has done that just now. Nor do I propose to cover the whole wide ground covered by this question; and in order to economise, to make my speech as concise as may I shall limit myself to one point and one point only, with some attendant questions—namely, whether there ought to be a main highway constructed across Christ Church Meadow. Twenty years ago our committee had this proposal before it, and we refused to recommend it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I feel that the Inspector's report which is at this moment before your Lordships' House is essentially wrong, although in one important point I am in full agreement with him. I regard it, as he regards it, as of the first importance to relieve the traffic from Carfax and the High Street of Oxford. The incessant vibration of the heavy traffic is disintegrating the fabric of the colleges and other buildings on The High, and the prolonged traffic blocks involve an economic waste and exasperation and frustration which are quite intolerable.
This month of June sees Oxford at her natural best. We remember Matthew Arnold's familiar lines:
"And that sweet city with her dreaming spires
She needs not June for beauty's heightening."
If to-day Arnold were writing he might speak of the city of dreaming spires and nightmare streets; and these conditions will certainly grow worse. The tourists coming to this country are at the rate of

867
nearly one million a year, and this year shows an increase of 17 per cent. over last year. With cheap and safe travel by air or by sea, every man and woman of intelligence and enterprise who can afford it will wish to come to this country, to come to Europe at least once in their lives, from all the Commonwealth countries and from the countries of the American Continent, north and south. They will come to visit Europe. They will come either to Paris or to London, but if they can to both. If they come to London they will wish to go on an excursion to Oxford and on to Stratfordon-Avon. And with our own population here at home, when practically every family will soon have its own motor car, we may expect every place of real interest in this country to be visited by great numbers of tourists.
So far I am at one with the Inspector appointed by the Department, and I am at one also with the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. It was Lord Beveridge who moved the last substantial Resolution in this House on this subject. Unfortunately, he is at this moment in the United States fulfilling a series of engagements and is unable to be present, but he has sent a letter the substance of which I have been asked to communicate to your Lordships' House. In that letter, which covers a long memorandum, he says:
"The Armer Report seems to me utterly wrong. Even on the narrow view that he was concerned only with roads, his choice of the Christ Church route is indefensible and absurd. The road plan that seems to me the right first step is the Preservation Trust's plan. A Christ Church Meadow road would always have been useless and to-day would be absurd."
With that view I would associate myself without qualification. And now I will offer to your Lordships, with as great brevity as I can, my grounds for that summary rejection.
My grounds are that Sir Frederick Armer makes two assumptions, both of which are false; and he ignores altogether, or makes only casual reference to, two of the main features of the whole situation. The first wrong assumption is that we have to choose between the Magdalen Bridge being either closed or open. That is a false assumption. It is not necessary to keep the bridge either closed or open. It can be kept closed for certain classes of traffic and
868
open for others. In many countries of Europe and elsewhere it is quite customary to distinguish classes of traffic and to allocate them to different roads. It would be perfectly possible to make a regulation closing the Magdalen Bridge and Carfax to trucks, often of enormous size, which take up a great deal of space, to tourist coaches and long-distance buses, which constitutes the traffic which does the main damage to the buildings. It is perfectly simple to make such a discrimination. We are well accustomed to it here in London, because for years past we have seen heavy traffic going along Park Lane and lighter traffic going along the Hyde Park carriage road. Now a much better system has been brought in, but there has never been any disadvantage or difficulty in dividing the two classes of traffic, one, the heavy, going along the road, and the other, the light, going within the Park.
The second assumption of Sir Frederick Armer is that in order effectively to relieve The High the relief road must be as short as possible compared with The High, because it is necessary to induce the lorry drivers to go along the relief road instead of going along the shorter road, along The High. It really is not necessary to induce them to do this at all. If the road is closed to heavy traffic they will necessarily have to go along the relief road, and it makes little difference to them if they have a clear run over a road which is perhaps half a mile, or even a mile, longer than the short road along The High. The assumption that it would create inconvenience to the population of Oxford to close Magdalen Bridge and that it must be left open as it is, does not follow at all. You can discriminate, and you have not got to leave it to the choice of the lorry driver as to which road he will take: he must go by the relief road or keep clear of Oxford altogether. These two false assumptions invalidate or vitiate the whole of the Inspector's argument.
The second point is that there are two omissions in envisaging the whole situation. His plan would leave the whole of the traffic that now passes along The High, but which is to be diverted from it, to be poured out on to St. Aldate's, reducing the whole of the traffic situation there to complete chaos. To my mind, the key to the whole situation is

869
not to be found in Cowley or in Magdalen Bridge, or on the question whether there should or should not be the meadow road—although all those matters are of great importance. The key to the whole situation is right away out to the West, to the railway stations and to the new development that will soon go on beyond the railway stations.
If I were asked, "What is it that you favour? It is easy to criticise; construction is difficult," I would take up that challenge. I would suggest that the Government Department concerned should first approach the railway authorities. When I was closely acquainted with this question twenty years ago the Great Western Railway had already scheduled Oxford railway station, a wretched, ramshackle Victorian building, to be pulled down and a new station built perhaps a little further south along the line. The old L.M.S. station was also designed for clearance. The railway authorities should now be approached seriously to take up the matter, and to say what they would like done about the Oxford railway station. Do they want to keep it where it is, or move it a little further south? Or what do they wish? Similarly, they should be approached about the demolition of the L.M.S. station.
Then the Ministry should endeavour to appoint a committee representing the County Council of Oxfordshire, the County Council of Berkshire, and the City Council, who are the statutory authorities, to form a working group to plan out a completely new traffic centre, covering the whole of the present railway centre and perhaps an area beyond, of the order perhaps of half a square mile, which would give the traffic experts and the town planners room to manœuvre, to create an ideal modern system of roundabouts, fly-overs, under-passes, garages, restaurants, public conveniences and a car park of perhaps four of five storeys, of the pattern which is now becoming standardised.
That is the constructive, definite proposal that I would submit for consideration. At the same time the new relief road should be made from whatever part of the Cowley area is found to be most convenient, passing not far from the south bank of the Thames—not the north bank—leaving the Christ Church Meadow quite untouched. As soon as
870
that is completed, regulations should be made closing Magdalen Bridge and Car-fax to heavy traffic, while leaving them open to light cars and perhaps to single-deck local buses, and providing the owners of shops and so forth along The High with opportunity for early morning deliveries.
It may be said that the cost of all this would be prohibitive. Not at all. Immense compensation would have to be paid under the Armer proposal, and it should be remembered that this new lay-out would create a large number of extremely valuable building sites, all along what I hope will be called the Abercrombie Road—because he was the person who proposed to make it there—and with street frontages and the development west of the parking area in the station area. So the county councils of Berkshire and Oxfordshire would be vitally interested financially because it would increase immediately, to a significant degree, their rateable values. The British Travel and Holidays Association should also be brought into consultation.
The second omission from the inspector's scheme is that he fails to realise that the one great improvement still open to Oxford in this present century is the creation of a new river front My Committee in 1942 thought that Oxford was "particularly fortunate in her waterways." We say that:
"The Thames and the Cherwell add much to the amenities of town and University. But the Thames suffers a strange eclipse between Godstow and Upper River and Folly Bridge on the Isis. The Thames coming down from the west is divided into five streams and disappears. No one can say where the Thames is."
Now the way is open for the creation of a new water front on the Thames the whole way along from Ipsdon to Iffley. The removal of the gas works has made that possible, and now the replanning of St. Ebbe's which has been taken vigorously in hand by the City Council. We cannot hope to emulate in Oxford the breath-taking beauty of the Cambridge Backs, but at all events we can abstain from spoiling such river front as we have and create a further river front to continue to the upper region.
So this scheme, I would urge respectfully upon your Lordships, and especially upon the Government, is far better than the Armer scheme, carrying a four-way

871
autobahn of heavy traffic right across Christ Church Meadow, cutting off for ever the University of Oxford from this ancient and present frontage on the Thames. On all this—the need for a spacious traffic centre and the future development of the river front—not a single word appears in the Armer Report. It entirely ignores the whole of that aspect of the situation which should be regarded as a vital part of it. In his recommendation he makes a perfunctory reference in the final paragraphs to
"The loss of the long preserved … amenity provided by the Meadow and the provision instead of the lesser amenity that would no doubt be secured"—
I quote from the Report. My Lords, what "lesser amenity?" Where? How? When? No hint is given as to that.
So I come to this conclusion. What is the purpose of this debate? It is to enable your Lordships to express their views on the Report of the Government inquiry. This Report does not serve any useful purpose, and its author clearly sees that it need be nothing more than superficial and perfunctory. For consider the very frame of the Report itself. The Introductory section occupies five pages. The précis of the plans presented to the Inspector for consideration covers 59 pages. The third part, Conclusion and Recommendation", is given in two paragraphs, one of nine lines on page 64 and the other of six lines on page 65. Superficial and perfunctory this Report must be termed. Yet the Inspector says in the course of those brief observations that the Meadow road is inescapable. "Inescapable" is a silly word, very much like the word "inevitable", which people often use argumentatively when something is very probable in their opinion and they want to make their declaration emphatic—"Mark my words! So-and-so is inevitable." Communists, in particular, favour that word. But five years later, when something entirely different has been done, nobody remembers to mark his words; and no one has any interest in saying how wrong he was. "History" in this case may be very much the same.
In regard to the gas works, the Labour Government were in power and two of their Ministers, the Minister of Town
872
and Country Planning and the Minister of Fuel and Power, approved an expenditure of £200,000 of new money to patch up the old Oxford gas works in the very middle of the river front, regardless of the protests of the inhabitants and of all those concerned. Happily, your Lordships' House was able to intervene there because of legislation which was just about to come to an end and the requirement of a statutory instrument from both Houses. The House of Lords appointed a Select Committee and this plan, regarded by the Ministers as inevitable, was thrown out with contumely. What happened? Did all the disastrous results happen to the consumers in Oxford? Nothing of the kind. The new Gas Authority was only too pleased to get rid of this monstrous nightmare and provide a much better supply of gas from an entirely different quarter; and no one now remembers that there was a moment when the Government of the day tried to press through an expenditure of a quarter of a million pounds on that site.
Next came the inquiries of Mr. Duncan Sandys, who was the predecessor of the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. He took an infinity of trouble over this matter; went to Oxford; spent some time there; saw everybody; read everything; gave the most careful consideration: and finally came to the conclusion embodied in a directive, or the equivalent, sent to the City Council; and that includes three proposals, all of them thoroughly bad. The first was to make a huge motor road at right angles to St. Giles's, right across, spoiling the whole of the northern part of Oxford. The second was to close definitely Magdalen Bridge. The third was to make a new great highway right across the Meadow, but as far north, as near the colleges, as could be arranged. All those proposals have been completely abandoned, and no one now would wish to revive them.
Those are not the only cases. I remember well, having taken part in all these controversies, that the Electricity Board insisted that they must put up a new great electric power station just south of Durham Cathedral and Durham Castle, spoiling completely one of the finest cathedral views in Europe. We were told that they were very sorry but

873
it could not be helped; there was nowhere else where it could be placed. Public opinion revolted against that and said, Put your station 100 yards this way or that way, but do not put it into the middle of the view of Durham Cathedral." The Electricity Board gave way. They moved their station accordingly, and what was regarded as inevitable proved to be easily avoided.
Similarly with Lincoln Cathedral. Exactly the same thing happened. The electricity engineers said that there was only one possible place for their power station—right in the middle of the view of one of the finest cathedrals in Europe. There again, the same thing happened. There was an explosion of public opinion, and the electricity engineers were told, "Put your station where you like, but you shall not put it in the middle of the view of the Cathedral." "Very well", said the engineers. They moved their station, and nothing more was heard of it. Now here is yet another example. Sir Frederick Armer says that a Meadow road is "inescapable." Nonsense! If your Lordships' House and public opinion reject this Report, as I sincerely hope they will, five years hence no one will remember anything about Sir Frederick Armer or his Report.
Let it be well understood that this is not a case where two contending parties have agreed to an arbitration and appoint a reliable arbitrator to judge between them. Nothing of the kind has happened in this case. We did not agree to give up the idea of a Royal Commission. We said that if there was going to be an inquiry, at all events let it be thorough and open to everyone to present their plans. But there is no aureole around the head of an inspector. What is an inspector? What qualifications has he? An arbitrator one understands; but no one would have dreamt of appointing Sir Frederick Armer as an arbitrator, because, so far as anyone knows, he knows nothing whatever about the subject. He had never been heard of before. After a blameless career—and, indeed, a distinguished career—in the Civil Service, promoted to grade after grade, mainly in the Ministry of Health and the Board of Control, he ends up by being chosen, at the age of nearly 70, suddenly to inquire into the Oxford roads. Oxford
874
University protests indignantly. The premier University in the world, whose name is famous everywhere, says, "You must not do this to our precincts". Are we to be told, "We pay great respect to what the University says, but the matter was so complex that we referred it to an inspector. He has spoken, and we must put aside the opinions of the University"?
After twenty years of work, mainly successful, the Oxford Preservation Trust comes to this House and, through the mouth of Lord Harcourt, its chairman, will, I think, appeal to your Lordships' House to support their view. The late Sir Patrick Abercrombie was against it. I hope, as I say, that the road may be named after him, as he was the first author of it. Sir William Holford, whose name is well known as an architect and planner here in this country and everywhere, is also against it. Both of those experts are to be brushed aside—Sir Frederick Armer takes a different view.
I have heard it said—indeed, I think I saw it in one of the Sunday newspapers not long ago—that people have lost patience and lost courage because of the long delays in this matter; and the writer said, "A wrong decision is better than no decision at all." That seems to me disgraceful and cynical defeatism. I do not ask the Government to declare their opinion to-day. This debate is being held in order that the House should give its opinion; but I hope that, before the Parliamentary Recess, noble Lords will give their verdict here. To give a wrong decision or no decision at all are not the only alternatives before us. There is a third course that is possible: to give a right decision, and now.
6.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have had the honour—or, indeed, the courage—to address your Lordships, I crave your indulgence. I trust that I can rely in full measure on the kindness and the generosity which you traditionally extend to somebody in my unfortunate position: more unfortunate than usual, I think, in having to follow in my maiden speech, and after a very long period of silence, the brilliant speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, after a stock or a credit balance of silence of only eighteen months.

875
It is also usual or traditional, when addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, to try to choose a subject as little controversial as possible. Nobody could possibly maintain that the subject of the Oxford roads was noncontroversial. It has been argued up and down the country with vehemence for years and years; but I will try to be as little controversial as possible myself this afternoon, and deal only with the broadest principles and not go into any great detail. The details can all be found in Sir Frederick Armer's Report. They are there spelt out; and there is in existence, of course, a very voluminous transcript of evidence.
My Lords, I am Chairman of the Oxford Preservation Trust, and I should like first of all, if I may, to correct a misapprehension which I think is widely held; that is, that the Oxford Preservation Trust is a university organisation and, as such, biased in favour of the University, and even in favour of the policies of certain individual colleges. That is very far from being the case. The Preservation Trust consists very largely of citizens of Oxford who have little connection—and in many cases no connection whatsoever—with the University. The membership of the Trust has grown by over 60 per cent. since the last inquiry into the roads problem, which was held in 1957. That is a measure of the interest taken by the ordinary inhabitant of Oxford in what is going on. In fact, my Lords, the Trust is now an association of citizens, not only of Oxford but of the immediate neighbourhood, who are genuinely interested in attempting to embellish and develop the city. When the Minister announced that he proposed to appoint an inspector to hold an inquiry at large, the Trust was obviously concerned to obtain the most expert advice possible in the preparation of its own case. In this we were indeed fortunate, because we had already obtained the services of Sir William Holford, one of the most distinguished town planners of England and also the president of the Royal Institute of British Architects. He had already, under one Minister of Housing and Local Government, prepared a plan for the immediate surroundings of St. Paul's Cathedral; and at the instiga-
876
tion of the present Minister he has been retained by the London County Council to draw up an overall plan for Piccadilly Circus.
When I say that the Trust had already secured the services of Sir William Holford, I must make it clear that they had not secured his services for the original purpose of advising them on the subject of the roads: they had engaged him as the result of what they considered to be the enormous opportunity offered by the City Council's intention to develop the whole of St. Ebbe's. The City Council asked the Preservation Trust for its views; and we felt that without expert advice we were quite unable to make a worthwhile contribution. It was in that connection that Sir William started working seriously on the problem of Oxford. His brief was to draw up a plan for the whole of the St. Ebbe's area in conformity with the express purpose and requirements of the City Council. It is of interest, I think, that at the first meeting between the representatives of the Trustees and Sir William, there was no doubt that at that time he inclined strongly toward a Meadows Road. His final recommendation and the evidence which he gave at the Inquiry were equally strongly against a Meadows Road. The conclusions which Sir William arrived at were the direct result of his examination of the St. Ebbe's problem and the whole problem of the development of Oxford.
Sir William was one of the principal witnesses at the inquiry, and he was one of the very few truly expert witnesses who appeared. There were also Mr. Trustram Eve and Mr. Pilcher, who at that time were the President and Vice-President respectively of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. There was Dr. Sharp, who addressed his thought purely and simply to the innermost core of Oxford, and did not concern himself with the outer fringes or the suburban problems. And finally, there was Mr. Chandler, the City Architect. Mr. Chandler had been working for many months on the City Council's plan. He rejected that plan himself and submitted a plan in opposition. How different, my Lords, from the Preservation Trust, who employed the greatest expert they could find, studied his plan, and, when

877
it was presented to them, adopted it unanimously after a long debate at an open meeting!
My Lords, as I said, Sir William Holford finally came out very strongly against the Meadows Road; and not only the Meadows Road, but against the whole conception of which the Meadows Road formed a part. The revolutionary change of approach was caused by Sir William's seeing that the pattern of Oxford was changing rapidly and radically. The further his study went, the more convinced he became that the Origin and Destination Report of the Road Research Laboratory, which was completed in 1957, no longer represented the facts as they existed in 1960, and even less as they exist now, one year later. Traffic originating in Iffley, Cowley and Headington is, and will be, different; and its destinations will also be different. For instance, in the Report on his plan prepared by Sir William Holford, and published by the Preservation Trust last year, entitled New St. Ebbe's and Oxford's Roads, Sir William strongly advocates the removal of the Market from its present situation in The High to a new situation in St. Aldate's. Sir Frederick Armer also recommends this and considers it important. The City Council plan takes no account of this whatsoever.
Oxford is seething with changes, and, despite Lord Samuel's dislike of the word, I feel that those changes are almost irresistible—at least they are dynamic. Offices and business premises are already moving from their traditional site. They are moving out to Beaumont Street, Woodstock Road, the Banbury Road; and large areas are either being redeveloped or are ripe for redevelopment. St. Ebbe's, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, is already being developed, but at present only in a small way.
Everything is held up until we get a decision on where the new roads are to run; but St. Ebbe's is being redeveloped. The station is, I understand, to be rebuilt, and I hope that that means that it will be rebuilt in the very near future, and not in another twenty years from now. The bus station is also to be removed from its present site further to the West, and is to be re-located next door to the rebuilt railway station. The
878
whole area West of St. Giles's is ripe for development when the original building leases fall in, and these will begin to fall in within the next eighteen months. If you take the area of St. Ebbe's, the railway station, the bus station, and the area immediately to the West of St. Giles's, and even up as far as Divinity Road, as an area ripe for redevelopment, it is very formidable. It is an area almost 2½ miles long, with an average depth of half a mile. The Eastern boundary is the central North/South line of the City of Oxford. It comprises everything from the very middle of Oxford, West. These redevelopments must lead to a decentralisation of Oxford. They must lead to an ever-widening area in which the business life of Oxford will take place away from the crowded centre, which we have all known, of The High and the Cornmarket.
The Trust's proposals are the proposals which are designed to serve these developments, and even to speed them. The Trust's proposals, including, as they do, the Southern Freeway conceived by Sir William Holford, provide the radial roads which give access from one suburb to another, and from each suburb to the railway station and the bus station. These are located on the perimeter of this new enlarged centre of Oxford. The City Council's proposals which were reached only five weeks before the Inquiry at large was held, and after many changes of mind, do little to help this. They are frankly a compromise proposal, hardly won in the Council, and promptly disowned by their own Town Planning Officer. What do the City proposals do? They allow traffic to come almost up to Magdalen Bridge. They then seek to divert it within sight of the forbidden city and take it through one of the most beautiful parts not only of Oxford but of almost any city. They then deliver it through a bottleneck—what the Chief Constable, when finally allowed to express his view on the traffic problem, referred to as "the hopeless quandary"—to an area which is already a severely congested area immediately at the further end of what should be the forbidden city.
The Trust proposals do quite other than that. They remove traffic further away from Magdalen Bridge and much nearer to its place of origin. They draw it well to the West of the centre of

879
Oxford, the existing centre, without any major road junction on the way. Their route crosses the Abingdon Road South of the river and South of Folly Bridge and South of the new St. Ebbe's development and then delivers it to the West, whereas the City Scheme entails a massive, and necessarily disfiguring, roundabout or intersection North of Folly Bridge just at the end of St. Aldate's, three hundred yards from Carfax and in the very shadow of Christ Church. This City Council route then goes on from that disfiguring roundabout and takes the road in such a way that the greatest opportunity that Oxford has had in the last 70 years of redevelopment, which was proposed by the City Council itself, is promptly divided into three. If you divide St. Ebbe's into three you destroy a large part of the possibility of restoring to Oxford some of that charm which the developments at Cowley have destroyed.
The final lunacy, to me, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth said, the traffic is spewed out at the Mac-fisheries Corner—that is, the Chief Constable's "hopeless quandary"—into such a congested area that Sir Frederick Armer suggested that the only solution was the widening of New Inn Hall Street. In fact, the widening of New Inn Hall Street had already been considered by the City Planning Committee. It had been considered, proposed and rejected. The Trust's routes begin, run through and end in areas which are ripe for development. They can conform to that development and they can serve it. No development can benefit from the Council's route nor can any development make it more effective.
My Lords, frankly the Meadow Road is obsolete. It is obsolete long before it is built, because the close centre of Oxford is already shrinking in importance if looked at in the light of the enormous growth which is going on on the fringes of the green belt, both inside and outside the green belt. It is here that the population and the traffic are growing. The city population is falling. Between 1951 and 1958 the population of the City of Oxford fell by 2,600, but the employment rose by 8,700. Where then are those people housed? They are housed on the fringes of the green belt, both inside and outside.
880
The Trust scheme has been spoken of as a projection of what was referred to at the Inquiry as Scheme A, which was the scheme which Lord Attlee was supporting on behalf of the University. I should like to say one word about it. The Trust scheme goes much further than Scheme A. Scheme A is founded on the Abercrombie Ring. The Abercrombie Ring was, as Lord Samuel said, undoubtedly the progenitor of all these schemes. But the Abercrombie Ring, when it was drawn up by Sir Patrick in 1953, did not and could not take cognisance of the changes which have come about in Oxford since 1953 and to which I tried to draw your Lordships' attention a few moments ago. The Trust scheme is basically the Abercrombie Ring but with the very major addition of Sir William Holford's southern freeway and the continuation to the North, across the Banbury and Woodstock Roads and out to Marston. Added to the Northern bypass. This makes it something which is different and more ambitious and which serves a greater planning purpose.
Sir Frederick Armer has entirely failed to appreciate the situation. He attempts to solve the wrong problem. He attempts to solve a problem of traffic only, and traffic in a very restricted area. The Trust has gone much further. It seeks not only to solve the traffic problem but to make a major contribution to the ordered growth of the city of Oxford. It is not a problem of traffic only but of major redevelopment. As I have tried to point out, large parts of the city are now ripe and ready for that redevelopment.
Is the Minister to hamstring himself and the City Council in this redevelopment of Oxford by imposing a solution which is applicable to conditions which have already been superseded and which are therefore irrelevant? Or is he to lay down, by adopting the Preservation Trust Scheme prepared by Sir William Holford, one of our greatest town planners, a pattern which will allow the centre of the city to be enormously enlarged and diversified and thus bring quiet and peace to the University? It is a scheme which will encourage and facilitate the development of the area within the radial roads and which will provide a permanent solution of the inter-suburban traffic. If he does adopt

881
the Trust proposals he will, in the opinion of thousands of citizens and lovers of Oxford all over the world, lay the basis of an imaginative development for both the City and the University in a way which I think will evoke gratitude and admiration for generations to come.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the order of batting gives me the very agreeable opportunity of being the first of your Lordships to congratulate my noble friend the President of the Oxford Preservation Trust on a faultless maiden innings. A number of us have benefited, when he was Minister in Washington, from his wise judgment and advice, and to-day he has spoken to us with a combination of that judgment and vision which have characterised all his public and general work, coupled with that devotion which the Harcourt family for centuries has shown to Oxford and all that Oxford stands for. We are indeed grateful to him, as we are to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for once again raising this matter.
I am going to intervene very briefly. I do so only because I took some part on the last occasion. On that occasion, I made a proposal which commanded the general support of your Lordships, and it was pressed by me, and also by other noble Lords, though I had the privilege in the first instance, on the Leader of the House that when an inquiry took place it should be an inquiry at large. And that was what my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who was then leading the House, accepted.
I should like to say two things: first of all, that in my opinion that undertaking has been fully implemented, because every possible proposal, and quite a number which frankly I should have characterised as impossible, if I do not offend the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, by using that word, was produced and investigated at the inquiry. I thought that perhaps in that respect the speech of the noble Viscount was just a little hard on Sir Frederick Armer. Whether we agree with his conclusions or not—and I am bound to say that I frankly disagree with them myself—I think we must agree that the inspector conducted the inquiry thoroughly and impartially. Obviously, he found great difficulty—I
882
think it is clear from his report—in coming to a decision. He says himself that he turned down Scheme A—and no doubt that also applied to the elaboration of Scheme A in the Oxford Preservation Trust proposals—with real regret, and that he turned them down entirely on traffic grounds.
I think it is generally conceded—certainly I have not heard it argued to the contrary nor can I find anything to the contrary in the report—that on a long-term view Scheme A and the Trust's proposals are far better planning. I do not think anybody is going to deny that. On the traffic aspect, we just do not know and cannot know what the position is. I am going to justify that statement briefly, but I hope conclusively. First of all, the Chief Constable—and this is very noticeable—does not support the Council plan. As is clear from his evidence, no attempt has yet been made at a proper use of zoning, of parking meters, of one-way streets or of modern methods of internal control and deterrents, which the Chief Constable stresses and which I should have thought he certainly ought to have authority to put into force without delay.
Secondly, the Council were not unanimous. As was clear from the speech of my noble friend Lord Harcourt, they had second and third thoughts. I do not complain over people thinking again. I should be very much surprised if, with surer knowledge, they did not have some further thoughts. But, most important of all, the circular by-pass roads have not been completed. On the last occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I urged that until this was done nobody could really know the extent of the traffic problem, much less decide on a solution. Any noble Lord who was present on the last occasion—I think the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who followed me then was entirely in agreement with this—will agree that we cannot possibly tell what the traffic problem is until these roads are completed. And surely that argument applies at least with equal force to-day. Indeed, I should have thought that it applied with more force, as now we have Scheme A and the Trust proposals, both of which have enormous merits.
Again, on the last occasion a great deal was said about the Cowley Centre.

883
It was one of the things about which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, was so eloquent. I understand that not only has the Cowley Centre not been completed but it has hardly been started—at any rate, it is a long way from completion. That is a factor which must have a considerable effect upon the traffic which comes into Oxford. Only when the circular road has been completed and when we can see what happens from the Cowley Centre shall we know how much traffic will by-pass Oxford and what the problem really is. If we wait to have that knowledge, I say frankly that there would be general relief and I should think that there would be very likely general acceptance in Oxford if the Government felt able to announce to-day that they could accept Scheme A and give favourable consideration to the wide and visionary, but at the same time practical, extension which the Oxford Preservation Trust has proposed.
If they cannot do that, then surely we must have more time. We must get that accurate knowledge; but at least the Government could give an undertaking about the circular road. There is not much left to be done on the circular road and it is not the most difficult part. I remember, when the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was answering the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, we were told that some of the by-pass would take time because of the number of arches which had to be constructed to take the road over the boggy parts of Port Meadow. Nothing was said about the difficulty of making this circular road at the part which is vital, and on which I understand there is no great practical difficulty. Cannot the Government give us an undertaking that they will complete that? We just cannot afford to go wrong over Oxford. Many of us have been its beneficiaries. All of us who in any way have any responsibility in this matter are trustees for Oxford, and in this case, surely, we might accept the advice of one of Oxford's wisest sons and wait and see".
6.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I should like to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, for the admirable speech he made,
884
which to me was not unexpected: I had an idea that his speech would be intelligent and well ordered and, indeed, conclusive in its argument. I think your Lordships will agree with me that that was the case.
This is a well-worn subject. The years go by and no decision is made about these Oxford roads. Documents and reports accumulate, and no doubt in the end, as we know from experience, the Government will select the wrong scheme put forward by the Inspector and reject the right scheme put forward by Sir William Holford and the Oxford Preservation Trust. Meanwhile, all politicians are alike in remaining in masterly inactivity, feeling that this uncultivated democracy of ours does not care a straw about Oxford one way or the other. Lately a young lady living in a village near mine in Oxfordshire went into Oxford to see the new Woolworth building that has been put up there. "It is beautiful," she said when she came back: "It really makes all those old colleges look dreadful".
Everybody knows that the motor car is making a hell of all our cities, and making them into places in which a civilised life cannot be led. I make bold to say that we, the old and the young, are very disappointed with this middle-aged generation who are now running the world. They are very scientific and all that, and wonderful new inventions are made once a week. And the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in spite of the enormous handicap of being an hereditary Member of your Lordships' House and, therefore, presumed by the entire Labour Party to be half-witted, is undoubtedly one of the cleverest men in England, but he is a good thing in the wrong place. He might do wonders if he had a year at the Ministry of Transport. Science is getting along splendidly and can do perfectly without him. What we want is someone who knows how to adapt these great inventions to the ordinary civilised use of the community. Not since Lord Keynes, the last great Liberal, died have we had such a man. I remember giving up to Lord Keynes, as he arrived late in a packed House here, the seat from which I am now speaking, and sitting in the gangway on my left to hear one of those great speeches on which our affluent society was built and which knocked the bottom out of Socialism. He

885
knew how to adapt the scientific theories of economics to the advantage of the whole community.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, when the noble Viscount says that Lord Keynes was the last great Liberal, is he forgetting his former Leader, sitting in front of him, who addressed the House this afternoon?
VISCOUNT ESHER: I meant, of course, the last great Liberal except those that are alive.
It is very alarming that no man is engaged upon this essential task of planning some order out of the revolutionary chaos in which we live. No one is trying to decide about the large sections of our national life which are made obsolete or obsolescent by science, and to turn our new scientific powers to ordinary use. Dr. Jung, the great German philosopher, wrote in the 'thirties:
"If we go on exploiting this great progress made in the control of natural resources for our own mutual destruction, what kind of future lies in store for us?"
We now know that armies, navies and air forces are obsolete, though at present those who govern us have the adequate excuse that Russia is not to be trusted. But surely they should be prepared for the inevitable day of disarmament and the chaos that disarmament will produce.
There is no sign of any recognition in our governors that railways, coal mines and Atlantic liners are obsolescent, and that the money and labour employed by them will in no distant time have to be transferred to modern uses. They seem to me unable to read the signs of the times. Does it not seem strange to what is now called "the establishment" to find an old, respectable and distinguished member of the Order of Merit like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, sitting with the young people on the pavement in Whitehall? If I had his vitality I would go and sit in the middle of Carfax until someone made a real effort to remove the menace of the motor car from the life of this country.
Surely the approach of the ministerial mind to this problem is always wrong. Their first consideration is how to make things easier for the traffic: how to enable more cars to use the road; how to find places for more cars to park. On
886
the contrary, the mind of the Minister should be concentrated on how to reduce by every means the number of cars that use spaces vital to the comfort, happiness and amenity of our lives. It was, I think, an American who said (or it may have been me; I cannot really remember) that he came to see what Matthew Arnold called the city of dreaming spires" and found a city of screaming tyres. Surely the life of the town, and the business and pleasure of the people who live in it, are more important than the lumbering lorry that refuses to use the railway.
Every place has its own character. Avebury and Stonehenge are essentially lonely and remote; but no real effort is being made by the Minister of Transport to remove A.361 from Avebury or, still more, the disgrace of A.344 from Stonehenge. For years the traditional collegiate quiet of Eton College, in spite of the number of Cabinet Ministers that it continues to produce, has been ruined by the seven bus lines and the unceasing traffic that pours through its narrow street. With no sense of urgency the bypass there has at last begun, but not as part of a general recognition that main roads can no longer run through the centre of a town, and not as recognition that the planning and development of a precinct in which cars cannot enter or park except if they are essential to the actual business of the town, a centre precinct for shopping or to preserve the sanctity of the Cathedral or the tradition and atmosphere of the University, has become essential to the life of every urban community. Oxford is the outstanding example of this necessity. Everybody knows that Oxford has now lost its charm, its personality and its inspiration. To retain its character, the uncontaminated student life of thought, meditation and discussion, a university must have a precinct that the motor car cannot pollute, bringing its constant irritation and disturbance.
The Government Inspector's first task was to create that precinct. On the contrary, he has looked upon his task as the traffic problem of a large industrial city. If he had looked upon it from the University point of view—and it is as a University that Oxford counts in the world—he would have seen at once that what the University needs, and must have if its character and traditions are

887
to be retained, is the creation of a precinct by the selected closing of Magdalen Bridge, by the creation of a ring road to by-pass The High, sufficiently far out to preserve the amenity of Christ Church, and the creation of a shopping centre by the selected closing from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. of the street from Folly Bridge to St. Giles's Church. I wonder whether the Government will have the courage to do anything of that sort.
I agree that you can argue for ever over the details of traffic control, discuss the siting of car parks and the access of delivery vans. You may say that it will take Lord Nuffield four minutes longer to drive from Cowley to the station than it does now, and, therefore, of course, the road must not go through too far out. But the by-pass, the precinct and the shopping centre remain essential for civilised life in that ancient city of learning. Any other plan will bring more and more cars into the centre of Oxford, and our much vaunted affluent society will fizzle out in the prolonged exasperation of a traffic block.
6.56 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. First of all, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Harcourt on his admirable speech. He knows that I am a devoted member of the Oxford Preservation Trust, and I agree with practically everything in the Report which they have put forward. I am interested very much in Oxford and in The High, because I lived there, when I was an undergraduate, years before there was a single motor car in the world. I live there now. I have a room and a bedroom at All Souls College which is over the Warden's Lodging on The High; but fortunately my bedroom looks over the Warden's garden instead of over The High. I sincerely pity those people who have to live on The High. I do not think they can do it without a double glass window to keep out the noise.
I lived for years only 30 miles North of Oxford, and constantly travelled into Oxford. What strikes me is the enormous growth of the City of Oxford. I see it particularly from what I might call the Kidlington end, rather than the Cowley end. No doubt the Cowley end, the Marston end and the
888
Headingley end are growing very much, too. But I was struck the other day when a new small piece of road was built to make Brackley and Banbury and Bicester a little nearer to Oxford. This left a large open space, and within a few months it was absolutely covered with houses. In fact, Kidlington is really now part of Oxford, and Oxford is going to stretch a great deal further in that direction, North as well as South. Therefore something has to be done to enable the residents who were in Oxford but now live outside, to get there easily without using merely the Banbury Road and the Woodstock road. Other roads are needed.
What has been so evident about Oxford is that there has been no planning. Cowley was not planned at all. That was perhaps not the fault of the University, but the fault of the Council. But what was the fault of the University was the development of the Corn Market. The Colleges owned most of the property, and they sold it all to these enormous shops, the last one by pulling down the Clarendon Hotel, agreed to, I think, by the Prime Minister, and letting Woolworth's put a gigantic shop there. Now Littlewood's are going to do the same. That fixes the fact that a large number of people anyhow are coming from the outskirts of Oxford. whether from North or South, to shop in the Corn Market. They may come on foot; they may come by bus or bicycle, but they will probably come by car or bus if they can. I do not think a great deal can be done about that at the moment, but my point is that what Sit Frederick Armer proposes adds to the dangers of the Corn Market, because it produces another huge road running quite near the Corn Market and, therefore, making it easier for everybody to come there.
I entirely support the scheme of the Oxford Preservation Trust. As I understand it, when that scheme is completed there would be the by-pass roads, first of all, then almost an inner by-pass road, leaving as local roads the Banbury Road and the Woodstock Road; but there would be an inner circle of roads right round Oxford going up to Woodstock, and another road across Oxford joining the Northern by-pass. In this way there would be means for any inhabitant of Oxford to get to his destination without

889
necessarily going up the High Street. Nevertheless, I think that, even when all that was concluded, it would still be necessary to apply some restriction. I do not think it is feasible to close Magdalen Bridge, but I think that some restrictions, perhaps severe restrictions, would be required to reduce the traffic in The High and The Broad to reasonable proportions and make life possible both for the human beings in it and for the buildings, which are no doubt weakened by the constant heavy traffic. My Lords, I certainly hope the Government will not accept Sir Frederick Armer's Report as it seems to me to have no merit, but will finish the by-pass road immediately (I believe they promised to finish the Sandford link next year) and will support the scheme of the Oxford Preservation Trust.
7.3 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I feel almost as an interloper in this domestic discussion which is taking place on Oxford roads. Every speaker so far, and I think every one who is going to speak, is either an Oxford man, or lives in Oxford, or otherwise has had some very close connection with the City. I find myself at the tremendous disadvantage of having none of these credentials for speaking. I have been thinking what credential I can possibly produce and, searching my memory a long way back, I can say that many years ago one of the Oxford Colleges did award me a mathematics scholarship, which unfortunately I was unable to accept. At any rate, I have affectionate memories of Oxford on that account.
But I have read the Report. I spent the week-end reading it, as well as the immense amount of literature which has been showered on most noble Lords in connection with this debate, some of it several times over, and I think I have three copies of certain types of literature from three different quarters. I have studied, I am afraid without very much advantage, the plan which was enclosed with the Report, but I am afraid (I suppose that old age has reduced my eyesight), that I was quite unable to read the letters in the plan or to identify the streets, and I should have suggested quite seriously that, if we were to get the maximum value out of this debate, certainly for the benefit of those noble Lords who are not as
890
familiar with Oxford to-day as some are, we ought to postpone the debate until we have a more intelligible plan that some of us can read and study.
However, I cannot help feeling a good deal of sympathy for Sir Frederick Armer, who has been the subject of so much criticism this afternoon. I suppose that whatever Sir Frederick Armer recommended would have been the subject of a good deal of criticism from certain parts of the House. He had a number of proposals before him, he could not recommend them all, and those who were supporting one would undoubtedly have criticised him if he had recommended another; and the odds were at any rate two to one against any recommendation of his being accepted—indeed, I think rather more than that. It is interesting also to note that although criticism of Sir Frederick Armer (of his Report, I should say) has been pretty general, there has not been general agreement as to what should be put in its place. There has been a certain amount of support for other of the proposals that have been put before Sir Frederick, and while I should say that perhaps the scheme of the Trust has had more support than others, it has by no means had universal support.
I find myself in this position. having studied the Report, and having, if I may say so in all modesty, had some experience in having to decide after reading inspectors' reports; and I suppose I have had to read as many inspectors' reports as most people—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: More than most people.
LORD SILKIN: —and have had to come to some decision—according to the noble Viscount, a wrong decision. I suppose that all of us are liable to go wrong. Be that as it may, I find that Sir Frederick's recommendation is intelligible and understandable, and, given the premises upon which he has made his Report, I think he is probably right. I think that a good many noble Lords have, however, criticised his premises, and I find myself in agreement with those who made that criticism. If it had been his job merely to consider the traffic problem of Oxford and to put forward a short-term answer to that problem, I suppose that his answer would have been the right answer, and

891
almost the inevitable answer; and I use the word inevitable "in spite of the caution of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I think that, looked upon purely as a traffic problem, his solution is probably right. But, of course, the problem of Oxford is not a traffic problem at all, it is a planning problem, and here I find myself, to my surprise, in almost entire agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in his observations. I hope that I do not embarrass him by expressing so much agreement.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I am honoured.
LORD SILKIN: Thank you. We have to look at Oxford, not as it is to-day but as it will be. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, said the same thing, and I would congratulate him very much on a very thoughtful and penetrating maiden speech. After all, roads constitute a factor in the plan of the City. They have got to serve a specific purpose and a specific plan. They are not merely a means of getting from one place to another at the present time. They are the foundation of what Oxford is going to be in the future; and so, it seems to me, it is impossible for the Minister, or anybody else, to decide to-day, or in the very near future, what is to be the road pattern of Oxford. He must really first make up his mind what is to be the general pattern of Oxford; what sort of a city is it going to be.
I should like to put a few hypothetical questions on that. Is the Oxford of the future to be largely industrial? We know how industry has grown and developed in Oxford over the past forty or fifty years. Is it going to continue to develop? Do we know the future of the motor industry and those industries which it inevitably has attracted and will attract? On that question the Government have a great part to play, because to-day they can control the extent of industry that will come into Oxford. How do they propose to deal with the industrial future of Oxford?
Then again there is the question of the academic future of Oxford. Are we to assume that the size of the University is going to be sterilised, that there will be no demand for an increase in the accommodation for students and in the academic capacity? We know that we
892
need a great many university places in this country. Have the Government decided once for all that those additional places are not to be provided in Oxford? If they have, then that will fundamentally affect the road pattern.
A number of noble Lords have explained the need for redevelopment of certain parts of Oxford. The noble Earl referred to Cowley; the noble Viscount referred to St. Ebbe's; and there are other parts of Oxford that are going to be redeveloped in the near future. Such redevelopment when it takes place ought to contemplate the possibility of relieving the need for motor traffic in the centre of Oxford by decentralising the shopping. One of the difficulties of Oxford, as I understand it, is that virtually the whole of the important shopping in this city is concentrated in this small area in the centre. In connection with the redevelopment, is it proposed that there should be substantial important shopping centres in these new redeveloped communities? If there are, it will reduce the need for traffic to come into the centre and thereby in itself solve the traffic problem to that extent.
Then there is the question of the ring roads which have been completed and which, again, constitute a big factor in the traffic problem. Sir Frederick Armer has gone into figures and has indicated the extent to which the traffic problem of Oxford constitutes a local problem and the extent to which the traffic is through traffic. But the alleviation of the through traffic, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, have explained, is not yet completed and it will not be completed until the whole of the outer roads have been finished. How far that will relieve the traffic it is difficult to say, but that it will relieve it to a very large extent everybody agrees.
So we have the position that the completion of the roads will reduce the `traffic in the centre to a substantial extent. It is hoped—certainly I believe it will be the case—that the redevelopment of the various parts of Oxford will take away from the centre a good deal of the shopping and decentralise it into those areas. There are many other factors that will have an influence on the road problem, and I fail to see how at this moment it is possible for any

893
Government to make up their mind as to what is to be the right pattern and what is the right solution for an Oxford the future of which is not fully decided. I would suggest to the Government that they should first complete the ring roads as soon as possible and that they should prepare a plan of Oxford. There has been a development plan prepared which is a good many years old and it is now ripe for review, but there should be a new plan prepared as speedily as possible for the new Oxford as we see it, and in connection with that plan I think the road plan will automatically fall into place.
If that is done, then I think we can arrive at a solution which will be acceptable to all parties, which will not arouse the controversy which any plan at the present time is bound to arouse, and which undoubtedly will obviate the need, which I hope will not arise, of the Government's having to impose a road plan upon an unwilling Oxford and an unwilling population throughout the country of those who are concerned with Oxford. I cannot see any plan at the moment commanding universal agreement, and I think that particularly in the case of Oxford it would be fatal to try to impose a plan against the wishes of those who love that City so much and who are so deeply concerned.
7.18 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Harcourt on his admirable maiden speech, and I think I should have paid tribute to that speech even had it not been the one speech of those already made with which, above all, I agreed. Like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has just spoken, I approach the matter mainly as a planner, but I think we can make much better use of the Report that has been made than was indicated in the noble Lord's speech. I think there is much that is useful in the evidence collected, though I regard as wholly deplorable and quite unjustified the recommendation that the Inspector has made. But I am not going to plead for delay. There are certain things that can wait, but one of the few matters on which I am in agreement with the City Council is the necessity for decision on certain points.
894
I am going to urge the Government to say in the quite near future that the road across Christ Church Meadow is wrong and to be rejected now and for ever. But I am equally in favour of their saying that the A scheme, with the additions and amendments, probably, of Sir William Holford, is the right scheme and should be accepted. This will not be turning down the local authority. The local authority have expressly left it to the Minister to say which scheme he prefers. On hearing the Minister's decision they will put up detailed recommendations which will, I understand, by law, have to be the subject of a further inquiry. But we do not wish to throw away the inquiry that has already been made. I desire to make it quite clear to my noble friend that I am not pleading for delay; I am pleading for the right decision, which is the rejection of the recommendation in the Report and the acceptance, in broad outline, of the scheme proposed by the Oxford Preservation Trust.
What I find most shocking about this Report is the complete absence of any consideration of town planning. There has been some discussion whether more attention should be given to traffic or to amenity. Anybody who has studied the art and science of town planning knows that it is quite elementary that you have always to consider both. I advocate the town planning approach to this problem not only because the city concerned is Oxford; for every city in this country deserves to have proper town planning considered. Traffic congestion, which is serious and must be remedied, is itself a symptom of bad planning.
The most shocking fact about this Report is that the science and art of town planning are treated as if they did not exist. Some nineteen years ago, I was appointed the first Minister in this country who had to consider only town planning. I was made a Parliamentary Secretary to the then Ministry of Works and Buildings, specifically to consider planning problems, and within a short time I carried the legislation making that Ministry of Works and Buildings the Ministry of Works and Planning, and subsequently the Statute creating the Ministry of Town and Country Planning,

895
in which I became Parliamentary Secretary under my noble friend the late William Morrison, later Lord Dunrossil.
I already knew before my appointment, and was a friend of, Sir Patrick Abercrombie, because it happens that these problems of town planning had always interested me, and it was largely for that that I entered politics. In the next few years I met Sir Patrick Abercrombie frequently. He was engaged on many of the most important inquiries that were to precede post-war reconstruction, and I had as my principal technical adviser on town planning, William Holford, as he then was—Sir William Holford to-day. He was then a great expert on town planning. His is now one of the foremost names in the world on that subject. I find it quite extraordinary that this Report should have been made not recognising that there was such a thing as town planning; and apparently the Inspector did not worry at all because his scheme wholly conflicted with the considered advice of Sir Patrick Abercrombie and Sir William Holford.
I recognise the goodwill of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his good intentions for Oxford, which no one doubts. I expect that he found it a little difficult to think of the right man to conduct the Inquiry. There was one man who would have been ideal for the Inquiry, because he has great knowledge both of the problems of roads approaching, and in, cities, and of architecture. He is Mr. C. D. Buchanan. I think my right honourable friend might well have asked him to conduct the Inquiry but for the fact that he was debarred from doing so by an undertaking given to this House; because it had been said in our last great debate on this subject that the Inspector would not be an official of the Government Department concerned.
I am glad to say that Mr. Buchanan has been either transferred or lent—I do not know which it is—to the Minister of Transport, because my right honourable friend and the Government realise, quite rightly, what a great expert he is on this subject. One of the things that comforts me, taking the view that I do of the posals in this Report, is that I have no doubt that they will seek and obtain the
896
utter technical incompetence of the pro-advice of Mr. Buchanan and their other experts.
I agree, of course, that the missing link in the scheme of the outer by-passes ought to be completed as quickly as possible; but it would be quite wrong to suggest that that would be sufficient to deal with the problem. The A roads are also necessary; and I think it is certainly desirable that the fullest consideration should also be given to Sir William Holford's proposed freeways, since, although their construction may not be immediate, the reservation of the land concerned may be important. The whole of that scheme, the A roads, plus the freeways, will not of course all be done at once. But the most urgent thing can be put in hand at once—the road from the Iffley Road passing South of the river and returning over a new bridge to the West of St. Ebbe's. That is a necessity for completion at the earliest possible moment. I hope that the Government will decide on that scheme and will reject the road through Christ Church Meadow.
Let me give some elements of the problem—they have been given admirably by my noble friend Lord Harcourt. The population within the city is decreasing; employment, on the other hand, is increasing. The journey to work problem, therefore, becomes increasingly important. All the expanding areas are on the perimeter. Those are the elements of the problem which a proper road system has to meet. It is this growing Oxford, as the noble Lord who just sat down mentioned, that has to be planned for. This is precisely what the Abercrombie-Holford Plan would do and it is precisely what the Inspector's plan disregards.
But it is not only that the road itself that is proposed by the Inspector is wholly inadequate. Within Oxford itself there are two important areas due in the immediate or near future for redevelopment—St. Ebbe's and St. Clement's. The scheme of the Inspector trisects both. My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Harcourt pointed out, it is not only the University that will suffer. If this road were to be adopted no proper decent reconstruction of St. Ebbe's would be possible at all. St. Clement's, whose development will be a little later,

897
will be equally prejudiced, because if the proposed road, before it is taken South to avoid The High, comes as near to Magdalen Bridge as this plan makes it, then an altogether insufficient area for proper redevelopment is left in St. Clement's.
This disregard of planning considerations would be quite inexcusable if Oxford were an ordinary city. It becomes scandalous when we are dealing with one of the glories of Europe and one of the most beautiful cities in the world. The strange statement is made in this Report that, apart from the opposition of the University and the Colleges, little opposition to the Council's proposals was forthcoming. I should have thought that the opposition of the University and Colleges was a rather important exception. But, my Lords, more remarkable than the alleged fact, which is not true, that there was little opposition, was the fact that there was absolutely no support: not a single expert witness backed it. Even the Inspector himself thought it necessary to modify it, and in paragraph 294 he proposes "the widening of New Inn Hall Street", which, of course, was not the subject of any evidence which he heard.
What is required of the road system? Surely, to allow the rebuilding of the areas within and near the centre of the City as good places in which to live and to work, and to connect the growing outlying parts, the large residential suburbs, with the station and with the car parks near the centre, without driving the motorist, in order to reach those car parks, to traverse the centre. The centre itself must not be too narrowly conceived and must, indeed, include all historic Oxford. Let me quote from the Report itself the University's own description of what the area should be—it is in paragraph 84:
"The first decree of the University gave some indication of what they thought should be the area to be preserved; it stretched from Norham Road in the north to below Christ Church Meadow in the south and from the Cherwell in the cast to the railway line in the west; it included St. Aldate's, St. Ebbe's, New Inn Hall Street arid its surroundings, Beaumont Street and Worcester College."
All those things must be included in the centre which we wish to preserve.
The pattern of roads advocated by Sir William Holford is something that any
898
town the size of Oxford would need in any event and it is the only plan that promises a long-term relief for the centre. I do not know, my Lords, whether it is generally realised that 80 per cent. of the population of Oxford live outside that ring—already. In a few years it will be more than 80 per cent. The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, said that the noble Viscount, Lord Nuffield, might be delayed in motoring from Cowley to the station by the Trust Road rather than by the road proposed by the Inspector. I believe it is the other way round: that from that distance out from Oxford, certainly from many of the new outlying suburbs on the East, the road to the station will actually be shorter under the Trust scheme than under the scheme recommended by the Inspector.
My Lords, what about the expert evidence on the traffic aspects of the scheme? What about the evidence of the Chief Constable, Mr. Burrows? The Chief Constable really does know something about the traffic problems of Oxford, because he has to live with them and deal with them daily. His criticisms of the road that this Report recommends are quite devastating. As he points out, it takes the traffic from the East far too near the East end of The High; and, of course, as he also points out, the relief road should not join St. Aldate's north of Folly Bridge.
A great deal was said by the Inspector, and by various witnesses at the Inquiry, about the traffic census and the report of the Road Research Laboratory. I, for one, thank my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for having arranged that census. I think it provided some useful information, but it cannot be used to support some of the proposals that are alleged to be based upon it.
I should perhaps disclose for the Record, what is already known to some, that I myself am a Christ Church man, as is my noble and learned friend who is to reply to this debate; and both of us love our College. But it is sometimes thought that you cannot be opposed to this road across Christ Church Meadow unless you are also against all motorists. My Lords, what complete nonsense! Christ Church's opposition, and the University's opposition, to this road is not in any way hostile to the motorist.

899
I do not know to what other Members of this House this applies, but my answers to questions are included in this traffic census, because I was stopped on entering Oxford and asked various questions for the purpose of this census. I remember at the time being rather sorry that I was not asked various other questions. I regretted that I was not asked any question which would have enabled me to say what I, and I believe most civilised motorists, want—namely, to reach a car park near the centre of the City without having to drive through the centre. Once we have left our car in a car park we have no objection whatever to using our feet in the University City and in a much wider area still. As has been pointed out, practically no discipline at all has been applied to motorists in Oxford, though such discipline is familiar in most other cities.
My Lords, the Road Research Laboratory give useful information about the 1957 pattern of traffic, but it is crudely unscientific to suppose that, because there will be more motor-cars owned in the future, therefore there will be uniform increases throughout all the streets dealt with at this Oxford inquiry. Of course, the traffic will be affected by new points of origin and destination, by the relocation of the market, for example, and many other factors. It is no part of my purpose to question that the future increase of traffic will be very great indeed. In fact, I believe that the Inspector has himself misunderstood the estimate of the Road Research Laboratory in paragraph 254 of the Report. I believe that the estimate of the Road Research Laboratory of the rate of increase in the ownership of motor vehicles in the country as a whole is a good deal greater than is there stated by the Inspector. This great increase will make the Council's relief road demonstrably unfitted for its purpose long before it is completed. It will certainly not restore peace to the centre.
My Lords, in the debate of February 13, 1957, I stated, and I hope established, three main propositions: first, that the proposed road would do irretrievable harm to one of the loveliest things in Europe; secondly, that it was unnecessary; thirdly, that it would not bring the intended relief. All those three
900
propositions remain true to-day, and the first, I think, is no longer contested. About the beauty of Christ Church Meadow it is difficult to speak—de gustibus non disputandum. The unique thing about Christ Church Meadow is that you there have, as I think you have nowhere else in Europe, or possibly in the world, a piece of unspoilt country coming to the very wails of the ancient City and Colleges, and enjoying heavenly peace and quiet. My Lords, this amenity is such, this unique beauty is such, that it is really quite intolerable that, without any town planning interests being taken into consideration at all, the destruction of this unique thing should be proposed. But, my Lords, not only is it unique in this country and, I think, in Europe; it has never been so much valued as it is to-day by the ordinary inhabitants of Oxford. When I went to Oxford, it was quite easy to escape into the country in almost any direction—into the country of Matthew Arnold and the Scholar Gipsy. Try to go on foot from central Oxford into the country to-day! Ask the women who bring their prams and their children into Christ Church Meadow where they are going to get a substitute for the peace which it is now proposed to abolish, and to abolish for ever! So much for what it is proposed to destroy, my Lords.
That the destruction is unnecessary is shown by the fact that the greatest expert planners who have considered the problem—and, indeed, anybody who uses common sense—can see that the Abercrombie-Holford solution is the better alternative. It presents a better alternative even to-day when amenities are considered as well as traffic; and it will present an infinitely better alternative when the City has developed as quite foreseeably it will. Thirdly, as I said, that it will not bring the intended relief is demonstrable, too. It cannot bring that relief without some restrictions on traffic in the centre; and, given those restrictions on traffic in the centre, a road south of the river and crossing to the north by a new bridge west of St. Ebbe's is demonstrably better for the University, better for the City and better for all the inhabitants.
In fighting for Oxford to-day I am pleading for all English cities. I do not think I am asking for Oxford what I should not seek for any city similarly

901
threatened. Such is the progress of traffic and the increase of it that every one of these cities will cease to be a civilised place in which to live and work unless we plan now, both for traffic and for living, by the use of the most far-sighted plans and the most gifted and expert planners. It is quite useless to indulge in crude surgery in the centre. I am pleading, my Lords, not for delay but for decision and for the right decision.
Much has been said about the idea of a precinct. That is not an idealistic impossibility. The principle of planning each part of a town so that it is an integrated whole, not severed by railways or traffic arteries, was propounded by Sir Patrick Abercrombie and is a fundamental aim of all town planning. It has been tried in many of our cities to-day, some old and some new. This is what Oxford needs—a civilised setting for its University and its shops. The only way of achieving this will be through the precinctual approach; by accepting the principle that motorists must be diverted by sending them round the centre of the City and allowing them in only to convenient car parks at the edge of it. It would be possible, in time, to extend the peace and quiet of the College quads and of the Meadow, which are themselves already precincts, to the whole environment in which they are set.
The proposed road system is a phased one and not all steps are equally immediate, but the first step should be taken without any delay at all. The road proposed in the Report is a crude by-pass designed to relieve The High. It ignores most other Oxford roads, St. Aldate's in particular, and it ignores the interests of the inhabitants both of St. Ebbe's and of St. Clement's. My Lords, there is this further point. If it were a logical and sound argument that the congestion in The High demands a road through the Meadow to by-pass it, then, by identically the same logic, when the Banbury and Woodstock roads become more congested they will no doubt have to be relieved by a double road on the lines of the road through the Meadow, but this time through the Parks.
My Lords, in the long run, and even in the fairly short run, we shall save all Oxford or we shall save none of it. If we are too lazy, too timid or too shortsighted to save Oxford, what other town
902
in England will have a hope? If the Government choose this road, they will not only ruin Oxford; they will deal a mortal blow to the cause of town planning in England, and be numbered amongst the great vandals of history.
7.48 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, as the clock moves remorselessly on and the numbers in your Lordships' House dwindle, the debate inevitably takes on a somewhat intimate note, so that one almost feels as if we were a group sitting on late after some old members' dinner. Perhaps, therefore, it may be appropriate to commence—and I shall try to be very brief—by recalling that we are debating a subject which has a long arid somewhat lamentable history of dissension among the Oxford colleges themselves. Even in the debates here in your Lordships' House, the views we have expressed have sometimes similarly seemed to be coloured by the respective locations of our alma maters—or, possibly, in view of the academic background of this debate, I should say our almae matres. Perhaps, therefore, this is one of those debates in which it is really appropriate to declare a personal interest. One or two have been declared already this evening, but I suspect that mine may be of a longer unbroken continuance than that of any other noble Lord present here this evening, even the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel.
Long before my own residence in Oxford began, I used to visit Oxford frequently, to stay in the home of my maternal grandfather, who was the last Rector of the City Church, at Carfax, and retired when it was pulled down in order to make room for the traffic of that day. Incidentally, I am proud to recall that he made them retain the tower, which still stands. Thus I can remember an Oxford which, although already scarred by the architectural monstrosities of North Oxford, was still unravished. It was still possible to imagine the medieval Oxford, with its pinnacles and palaces rising sheer out of the jewelled green of its water meadows. It was even possible to believe that it was true, as I am assured that it is true, that less than one hundred years earlier the first duty of the porter at All Souls, at the commencement of the Michaelmas Term, was to cut the

903
grass which had grown during the long vacation in the High Street.
For three years before the First World War, I was an undergraduate in a college in Broad Street. For twenty years after the war, from 1919 to 1939, I was a teaching Fellow of a College in the High Street, where in the 1930s it was already virtually impracticable to conduct a tutorial in a room facing on to the street. For another twenty years, from 1939 till 1959, I had an office in Oxford, first in South Parks Road and then in Beaumont Street. Thus, with the exception of the four years of the First World War, Oxford was either my place of residence or my place of work, or both, continuously for 48 years.
For the last fifteen years my home has been outside Oxford; and for the last two years, when I have had no work there, I have visited the city only rarely and with reluctance; reluctance owing primarily to sheer distress at seeing what Oxford has been allowed to become, and also partly, I must admit, owing to the frustration of attempting to make one's way, whether on foot or in a car, through the maelstrom of Oxford traffic. Last Saturday week it took me 25 minutes, driving a Bentley, to make my way from the War Memorial at the North end of St. Giles's to Worcester College, a distance of about a quarter of a mile. As for travel on foot, your Lordships may have heard, I dare say, of the legendary Oxford citizen who, after waiting in vain for some ten minutes to thread his way, at the risk of his life, across the torrent of traffic in the High Street, descried a friend on the other side and called out to him in despair: "How did you get across?" and the friend shouted back: "I was born on this side"!
My Lords, we are not going to solve this problem without fairly drastic measures, and it seems likely that the older among us—and we have been a pretty ancient age group, speaking so far this evening—may be the readier for drastic measures, since we remember Oxford before the impact of the motor car, than those who have known it only in the Nuffield age. I well remember, after one of our previous Oxford Roads debates, about five years ago, conversing in the Prince's Chamber with a
904
couple of noble Lords who had also taken part in the debate, both of them older than myself, and how we were joined by an Oxonian of a later vintage, a noble Lord for whose wisdom and charity I have long had a profound admiration, and whose counsel on any matter not purely political I would follow as readily as that of any Lord Temporal in your Lordships' House; and how astounded I was when his first observation on joining our little group was that he saw nothing very much wrong with the streets of Oxford as they were. If that, or anything like it, is our attitude to-day, we shall do nothing but tinker half-heartedly with the problem. And that, I am very much afraid, is what we are shaping to do, adopting at immense cost measures which will partially alleviate, but will not cure, the disease, and will alleviate it not only partially, but temporarily.
A number of road schemes have been put before the public in the last ten or fifteen years, and at the moment I suppose three are outstanding. Of these, according to the Road Research Laboratory's admittedly somewhat dubious statistics, it is the Oxford Council's plan which seems likely to afford the greatest traffic relief. But the City Council's plan, at immense cost, as has already been pointed out repeatedly, to the surviving amenities of the city, will, according to these calculations—which I think are optimistic—leave 36 per cent. of the volume of the 1957 traffic still in the centre of the city. But surely 36 per cent. of the 1957 volume must be considerably more than the total volume of traffic in the 1930's, when it had already became impossible to conduct a tutorial at the High Street and the ancient buildings there were already beginning to disintegrate. And, as has been pointed out more than once, and notably by my old friend, Lord Conesford, we must not forget that, as the experts foretell, traffic will be doubling itself in 30 years. So that what this scheme seems likely to do is—to quote a fatal phrase which we hear all too often nowadays, and which I was sorry to hear in the course of this debate—to "reduce the traffic to manageable proportions". But, of course, we do not want traffic reduced to manageable proportions. What we want is Oxford restored to the due status and proper

905
condition of a university city. For that, we need something much more courageous than either an inner or an outer relief road.
Much has been said this evening about waiting to see what the completion of the ring of outer by-passes will do for us. But there is plenty of evidence, quite significant evidence, already obtainable, as to the probable effects of the completion of the outer by-passes. Any of your Lordships has only to proceed to Oxford High Street on a Thursday afternoon, which possibly not many of your Lordships have recently done, to find that since, although the University and offices are still functioning normally, the shops are shut, the volume of traffic in the High Street has been reduced to something like one-third or one-quarter of its normal density. In other words, there is already evidence that Oxford's traffic problem is largely self-generated. If peace is ever to return to Oxford, and if Oxford is to be restored to the condition which any university city, and above all Oxford, deserves, then, it seems to me, we must insist upon the conversion of the centre of the city into a precinct.
A precinct has already been hinted at by two previous speakers. I propose to put only the principle before your Lordships and shall not weary you with much detail. I put it before you as the only practicable long-term solution, which, if it is to be saved, Oxford must sooner or later adopt, if not now, then later and after another period of increasing discomfort and desecration.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a recent proposal for a precinct which would involve closing the centre of the City from Magdalen Bridge to the Old Station and from Folly Bridge to St. Giles's Church, from say, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., to all motor traffic except local buses, the cars of residents within the precinct, vans having business within the precinct at certain fixed hours, and taxis carrying residents within the precincts or their guests. It would be necessary to build multi-storey car parks near the entrance to the precincts, where I believe room for them could be found without much difficulty. And finally it would be necessary to construct the relief road advocated by the Oxford Preservation Trust. Only so, it seems to me, can peace return to Oxford.
906
There will, of course, be loud cries of horror, particularly from the trading interests in the centre of the city, where the astonishing short-sightedness of various authorities has brought it about that there are shortly to be not only a great new Woolworth's but a great new Marks and Spencer's and a great new Littlewood's. But the tradesmen in the centre of the city, although they are extremely influential on the City Council, should not have the last word on this matter. Moreover, it seems to me that they would gain as well as lose from a precinct, and they might conceivably gain even more than they would lose. Last time I tried to reach a certain shop in Oxford with which I have dealt for many years, I spent half an hour crawling through intermittent traffic blocks in search of a spot where I could park my car within three quarters of a mile of my objective, and finally abandoned the attempt and transferred my custom permanently to a shop in a town nearer my own home which has not yet built up for itself a traffic problem on the Oxford scale, though it is straining every nerve to do so.
In the last resort if there should be a residual conflict of interest between commerce in the centre of the City and the needs of the University, well, that, after all, is the fundamental issue which we are considering to-day. I, for one, remembering that there are many Wigans but only one Oxford, have no doubt in whose interest it should be resolved, or what, on the long view, is the best means of resolving it. I devoutly hope that the Minister responsible, who has shown plenty of courage in other respects, will have the courage to seize this opportunity of earning the gratitude of posterity as the man who saved the University from having to see its doom sealed by half measures.
8.6 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, the opening words of the noble Lord who has just spoken provoke me, like him, to confess, or perhaps claim, a personal interest in the subject we are discussing. I do so the more willingly because my particular experiences have been of a kind which, as I think, supply a counteracting bias to any temptation to bias from any particular interest. Though I

907
have been connected with the University for many years I was, in fact, born in the City of Oxford, the son of a Mayor of Oxford, and brought up as a boy in Oxford.
Inside the University, though my closest association has been with two Colleges on the High Street, I was for thirteen years Burgess for the University, and as such was concerned also with the interests of other colleges. I preceded the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, as Chairman of the Oxford Preservation Trustees, of whom I have been for many years one; and of course I participated in the historic debate in this Chamber four years ago. That may seem a rather menacing introduction of a long speech, but I assure your Lordships that mine will be of only a very few minutes duration, because it seems to me that the debate that has already taken place has been so comprehensive and conclusive that I need not either repeat or add to arguments that have already been used. I propose only to recall the nature of the collective and responsible opinion about the different alternative before us, in particular about a proposal which includes a road across the Meadow.
So far as the Oxford City Council, the legal planning authority is concerned, it has been in an extremely difficult position through all these years of controversy. This is partly perhaps because of the reasons to which the noble Lord referred, of the influence of the shopkeepers in the Corn Market and adjacent streets, and still more for a deeper reason: that Oxford is unlike almost any other planning authority in the country. The borough which Oxford City Council represents is really a borough of two towns, one of which, East of Magdalen Bridge, has grown during the last 40 years into a great industrial town with a different outlook, different interests and largely different origins—many people coming in with the Nuffield industries, shortly after the first war, from the old City and University. It now comprises more than half of the total residents of the whole borough of Oxford represented by the City Council.
I think if you look at the record of the Oxford City Council over these years of controversy you will see that it has been vividly conscious of that underlying difficulty and division. It has changed
908
its view; it tentatively put forward a proposal for a time under a misapprehension of the nature of a Government communication; it showed itself willing to have—indeed apparently for a time desirous of having—a solution found from outside its own ranks. Even at the last stage the division is almost an equal one and the recommendation obviously reflects division, conflict and uncertainty. In addition, as has been pointed out, the City officer most concerned in the problem of traffic which has been the central core of the Report before us, the Chief Constable, has been bitterly opposed on traffic grounds to the present recommendation. So much for the legal planning authority.
Contrast with the uncertainty of their advice and their commendation the views of the other responsible authorities concerned. First of all the University. It has officially, and supported by an overwhelming majority in Congregation, opposed this Report and showed itself in substantial agreement with the main recommendations of the Oxford Preservation Trust. The Trust, established of course before the machinery under the Planning Act was created, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, reminded us, comprises among its active trustees leading members of the City Council, of the University and of the adjacent county councils, of Oxfordshire and Berkshire, with other residents in or near Oxford of special authority and expert knowledge. It has to some extent the advantage, as a non-official body, of not being subject to the pressures or the proclaimed policy of a Government of the day. Through all these years of controversy it has been consistent, and been able to recommend its policy nemine contradicente.
Lastly is this House, which expresses an opinion on these problems from the wider point of view which is appropriate to the problem of a city which not only concerns the residents in it but is a national and indeed a world heritage. I challenge any student of our Parliamentary institutions to find any instance in history in either House of Parliament in which leading members of every political Party and such leading men among the independents as the late Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, showed such a unanimity of opinion against a proposal

909
of a Government of the day as was shown in the historic debate four years ago against the proposal put before us on behalf of the Government by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. He was then speaking for the Government, but, as we have been reminded, is now himself opposed to the plan which includes this Meadow Road. I think that that is both significant and without precedent.
I remind your Lordships of the last sentence of the noble Marquess's speech on that occasion:
"I have to confess that all the Peers who have spoken have disliked this proposal—all."
If that was without precedent in English political history, my Lords, we have had something very much like it again today—with, however, I am glad to say, one significant difference. In 1957 the House was debating a proposal made by the Government of the day. To-day we are, happily, having a debate which has still to be considered by the Minister with whom the responsibility rests, after he has had an opportunity of hearing what we say and having regard to the weight of responsible collective opinion which I have attempted to summarise. I look forward with some confidence to his giving adequate consideration to the evidence that was available both before this debate took place and from this debate itself.
8.15 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I feel that after the remarkable consensus of opinion which this debate has shown, it seems hardly necessary that I should delay your Lordships by making a few observations. I should, however, like in one or two respects to give a slightly different angle from the arguments that have already been put forward. Sir Frederick Armer posed the question of whether this was a problem of amenity or a problem of traffic. As noble Lords have pointed out, it is of course, both and I think that there is no conflict between the two. The problem which has arisen of recent years is what, for convenience, I will call modern traffic. When I say "modern traffic", I mean traffic of two kinds. I mean, in the first place, through-traffic which is not primarily concerned with Oxford at all, and, secondly, the modern traffic which has resulted from the development of
910
Oxford as a great industrial and commercial city.
I believe that the solution is to have, in the first place, a university precinct from which all unnecessary traffic is excluded and, secondly, suitable roads for dealing with modern traffic. Obviously, the Inspector's report is quite unacceptable; and for two reasons. In the first place, it is too timid. He declares that it is his purpose to restore peace and quiet to the ancient City. There is not a single noble Lord who has spoken to-day who believes that his proposals will have that effect. In the second place, all that he is proposing is a temporary palliative while traffic is as it is at the present time.
He accepts as inevitable the increase in traffic in accordance with the Road Research Laboratory's estimate of the increase in the number of vehicles. I have had a great deal to do with the Road Research Laboratory and I have an unqualified respect for their scientific and accurate way of carrying out their researches. Therefore, I accept, first, that the vehicle ownership in the Oxford district is likely to increase by 5 per cent. per annum; secondly, that passenger car units will be doubled within the next 20 years; and, thirdly, that traffic will be doubled in 30 years. But it does not follow from that, that we can be satisfied now with proposals which are going to do nothing to prevent Oxford from again being encumbered by the problem with which it is confronted to-day, when that full increase of traffic has taken place.
In paragraph 257 the inspector says:
"Having regard to possible increases in traffic beyond the doubling point, many people may regret that this prospective relief is not greater, but it seems the best that can be achieved."
When the author of this Report is so defeatist when he is drafting it, clearly it would be unwise for the Government or for this House to accept his proposals, Apparently he accepts the predominance everywhere of the motor car. In this year, we can say that public opinion is moving rapidly in all parts of the country in the direction of the control of motor cars. I do not speak with any undue optimism in this matter, because I have gone through this whole problem myself;

911
but I am delighted at the way that parking meters, for example, which were introduced with trepidation, and after sounding opinion in the House of Commons in the Road Traffic Bill of 1956, are now accepted, even by the Automobile Association and by the Royal Automobile Club. There is no criticism of them at the present time.
In the new towns, precincts confined to pedestrians who wish to shop in peace and quiet are now accepted. In Ottawa one of the old streets has been closed to traffic in order that pedestrians should be enabled to pursue their normal avocation. In Oxford there are a number of shopkeepers and other business people who believe that restrictions upon traffic would not diminish their trade, but would increase it. That is the direction in which public opinion is moving at the present time; but of that there is not the slightest recognition in the Report.
The particular problem of Oxford traffic offers its own solution. The reason why the traffic in Oxford is such an appalling problem is that it is the meeting point of traffic from all directions, and that rivers, railways, marshes and open spaces make Oxford impassable to traffic from all directions except over the existing roads and bridges. That is the reason why this special problem has arisen in Oxford. But if that liability and difficulty is grasped boldly, it provides a quite simple answer to the problem. It is this: the precinct does not want modern traffic passing through it, and modern traffic would like to avoid the precinct if it could. The closing of Magdalen Bridge to heavy traffic, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said, and, as I would say also, to private motor cars, is the absolute key to the solution of this problem. I would leave it open to buses, because that is. I think, a way in which the inhabitants of Oxford can move in an easy and economical way without undue congestion. There is not the slightest reason why Magdalen Bridge should be left open to heavy traffic and private motor cars.
The position has been reached when 60 per cent. of the inhabitants of Greater Oxford live East of Magdalen Bridge, and as has been pointed out by many noble Lords, and especially by the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, new developments are taking place around the
912
stations, in St. Ebbe's and in the far West of the City. Therefore, there is no need to hesitate about joining up the East and the West and by-passing by a road far South of the precinct the industrial areas in the East and those in the West: whereas the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said: "Why worry if the A road which has been proposed is longer than the road through the middle of Christ Church Meadow?" I pray in aid the expressed opinion of the Road Research Laboratory, who say that the motorist does not mind what the distance is; what he worries about is the time taken. Indeed, provided that the traffic is gathered far enough East, and carried far enough West (which is the gist of the argument of those who are looking ahead to the future development of the town and are not unduly blinded by what happens to be the position at the -present time or was the position ten or fifteen years ago) there should be no difficulty at all about carrying this industrial traffic, this modern traffic, as I call it, along the A road. It is not, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, worth worrying about this, provided that the Magdalen Bridge is closed to the traffic that one wishes to divert. Hobson, that remarkable livery master in the 17th century, established a choice which can well be applied in the case.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Was he real?
LORD MOLSON: Hobson's choice. I cannot believe that even those who desire to see, or who would reluctantly agree to a Meadow Road would wish to agree to that without the closing of Magdalen Bridge to heavy traffic.
If I have spoken a little harshly of the report of the Inspector, I want in fairness to say that I am disappointed at the evidence that was given before this inquiry by those whom I should have expected to recommend the closing of Magdalen Bridge to heavy and motor traffic. It was not, apparently, recommended by the University: it was not recommended by Christ Church and the associated colleges; and it was not recommended by the Oxford Preservation Trust. But it was advocated by Dr. Sharp, by Mr. Chandler, by a very influential body of Oxford dons led by the Warden of All Souls and, somewhat surprisingly, but very encouragingly, by the Oxford Trades Council and by the

913
Oxford Mail in a remarkable supplement which set out with extreme clarity the different courses that might have been taken. I believe there has been a rapidly increasing body of opinion which is in favour of the partial closing of Magdalen Bridge.
The closing of Magdalen Bridge would only be the most important and sensational of a number of measures that are urgently necessary for dealing with traffic in Oxford. I think the Town Council has been blameworthy in this matter in the past. In the first place, there are very few parking regulations, and those I understand are not normally enforced. It is quite shocking that a street as narrow as the Turl should still be used for parking cars without its being a breach of any traffic regulation. Secondly, there are no prohibitions on right turns. Thirdly, there are very few one-way streets. When I was in Oxford last Tuesday I stood and watched traffic passing through Catte Street; and Catte Street is so narrow that it should be closed to all motor traffic and should certainly be a one-way street, which it is not at the present time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord is wrong about that.
LORD MOLSON: I am sorry. I did stand and watch the traffic.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is a one-way street all right.
LORD MOLSON: There are very few no loading or unloading orders, although I know that that is now belatedly being considered by the Oxford City Council. I remember when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Manchester asked for a loading and no loading order. We refused it on the ground that they were doing nothing to prevent the cluttering up of the streets by the parking of private cars, and we said that until they did something with the powers that existed at that time we were not willing to give them additional ones.
If I criticise the Oxford City Council, I am bound to say that I do not feel they have had the lead from the University that they should have had. I know that in these matters it is largely a matter of the Town Council making the regulations, but I am not aware that my own college, New College, has given any lead
914
in favour of preventing parking in New College Lane and Queen's Lane; and I was surprised to see cars being driven into the front quadrangle of one of the colleges in Broad Street the other day, If the precinct is to be protected from modern traffic, it is essential that the University should also be prepared to establish control of academic traffic. In the first place, dons coming from their houses outside to their colleges must accept the need to park their cars outside the precinct and finish their journey on foot. In the second place I believe that the restriction which existed in my time, forbidding undergraduates to have cars except in their last year, is no longer in force or, at any rate, is not effectively enforced. Thirdly, I am quite sure that sightseers' buses would have to be excluded from the precincts. In the fourth place, it would, I think, result that commercial and industrial activities within the precinct would probably be reduced as the University, as its activities increase, takes over more and more of the area within the precincts. Of course, the removal of the covered market, in the way that the Oxford Preservation Trust has recommended, to outside the precinct and away from the High Street, would have a great effect in reducing the amount of traffic.
Having said that I advocate Route A, it is not necessary for me to say much about the two alternative routes put forward by the Council and by Mr. Chandler. Of the two, I far prefer that by Mr. Chandler, first, because it contemplates the closing of Magdalen Bridge, and secondly, because it does not do what has been criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and spew all the traffic which would have been gathered in the Meadow Road and pour it into a mass of unsuitable and unmodernised Oxford streets. I am quite convinced that, provided the necessary measures are taken in the way of closing Magdalen Bridge and of traffic restrictions, it should be possible to have a precinct in which the University would regain the peace and quiet which was desired by the inspector and, at the same time, provide greatly improved facilities for modern traffic.
The Minister has a great opportunity to replan Oxford for the future. He showed courage and leadership when he

915
responded to the protest that was made in regard to Piccadilly Circus. Oxford is far more important. I believe that he may obtain support from the present Minister of Transport, who has recognised very plainly the impossibility of continuing to tolerate indefinitely the use of one motor car for the transportation of one passenger. The precinct of the University is needed for amenity. There must also be roads to deal with modern traffic. I believe that that can be adequately provided by Route A., and I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will reject the recommendations of this Report.
8.34 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I feel that this has been a most interesting and illuminating debate, and I dare to hope that it has also been a comforting and a reassuring one. I am the thirteenth speaker, absit omen, and not one of the twelve noble Lords who have preceded me—not even, in the end, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—has expressed a wish to see these pernicious proposals adopted. I am the third speaker on these Benches. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, from the Cross Benches; one speaker from the Labour Benches; and we have to come the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who, I feel can be relied upon not to support the recommendations of the Council; and the rest have been Government speakers.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt to ask the noble Lord (I am glad to see he is wearing a red tie) why he is so sure that I will not support the recommendations?
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, my inference has arisen from observing the direction in which the noble Earl's "Hear, hears" were directed If I am wrong about that, I apologise, but I hope I am right
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: There is no need to apologise.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I think I am the third Balliol man who has spoken. There are two Christ Church men, two University men, and six who can be collectively characterised as "various", ranging in age from myself to my noble friend Lord Samuel who spoke with
916
such virile eloquence. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned that no alternative had been suggested unanimously. I do not think that is surprising when there are so many possible solutions to the problem, but at least I think we have been unanimous that the Council's plan is a bad one.
The City Council's plans have been opposed by the University, by the Chief Constable, by the Oxford Preservation Trust, by the City Council's Chief Architect and Planning Officer. And now they have been most clearly opposed by your Lordships, who have torn Sir Frederick Armer and his Report to pieces. What I want to ask is this: are we all fools, or is Sir Frederick Armer? Who, in fact, is in favour of this scheme? Is it possible that the noble and learned Viscount, who will speak this evening for the Government, will turn out to be the one Philistine in the woodpile who will support this desecration? He is a Christ Church man after all, and I really find it impossible to believe that.
So much has already been said of the irreparable evil that will be caused if this tarmac monster is driven through the Meadow, that I feel there is little left that I can add. The Christ Church Meadow is one of the few remaining oases of tranquillity in a desert of mechanisation. I feel it would be an act of pure vandalism to desecrate those lovely acres and to mar that whole reach of the Isis, and we all seem to be agreed upon that point. I feel that it would be an act of pure insanity to take the irrevocable step—and it is an irrevocable step, which is what frightened me most about it. It is like hanging a man, which is a crime in itself, only to find that you have made a mistake and there is nothing you can do about it afterwards. It is an irrevocable step, and once it has been taken you cannot unscramble by-passes. The Christ Church Meadow has been there for 1.000 years, enjoyed by Oxford men, and I feel we should wait and see the result of building the outer by-passes and see what effect that has before taking any step of this nature. If the outer by-passes prove in the end to be inadequate, I feel that the ring roads, so eloquently pleaded for by the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, would be infinitely preferable.

917
If they are properly planned and constructed, I think they must succeed in removing all through traffic from the City, and the amenities so dear to many of us will remain unharmed.
8.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think I have the unique distinction in your Lordships' House this evening of having been the only person here or, at any rate, inside the Chamber, who sat through the whole of the inquiry which is now under discussion. I had not intended to speak this evening, and, indeed, I can only do so on a very limited field, because I must declare an interest and say that I was representing the City Council during the inquiry. Therefore if I were to say anything on the subjects or merits of this matter it would, I think, be quite improper.
But if your Lordships would allow me to say this, I think that Sir Frederick Armer should be given a tribute by your Lordships this evening. He has taken, when I have been here, several very hard knocks indeed. It had been a very long and extremely complicated inquiry of a nature which, so far as I know, has never occurred before, In that it was an inquiry at large. It cannot have been in any way easy to conduct, and I hope that I might say that Sir Frederick did it with courtesy and competence throughout. Therefore, I should like to add one small thing to what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said when he mentioned recommendations, which took only two paragraphs. I would point out that there are also ten pages of discussion of the evidence, and I am sure that it was no mean task for Sir Frederick to go through the monumental pile of transcripts and decide what recommendation he should make at the end. Nor could it have been easy when he knew the fury that would be earned when he chose the Council's scheme. Therefore I do not think it would be fitting if this debate did not contain at least one simple tribute from someone who watched him rake the inquiry and who has read his Report.
8.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Viscount struck that note at the end. I am sure we have all read the report.
918
I am sure many of us have read it more than once, but I think the noble Viscount was, if I may say so, right to pay that particular tribute. I once heard of a schoolboy who was given Arma Virum que Cano and he translated it "I gave Arma the cane." I am afraid some of your Lordships have perhaps been drawn in that direction, but I might say quite unwittingly.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, would wish to join in paying our tribute to the energy and public spirit shown by Sir Frederick Armer in producing his report. He has recently laid down the burden of official life, I understand, having served in the field of mental health, with which I am so familiar and which, no doubt, is not so far removed from Oxford as your Lordships suppose, and I think it was very noble of him to take up his burden, knowing very well that whatever conclusions he arrived at he would be subjected to this kind of experience. But that does not in any way derogate from the right of your Lordships to comment about his report. However, I am sure that we should all like to join with the tribute to Sir Frederick paid by the noble Viscount.
It is quite common for a noble Lord from this side to be asked to wind up the debate for the Opposition but there is no need, of course, for any procedure of that kind on this occasion, and I shall detain the House for no more than five minutes—though it usually turns out to be six or seven, but I think it will be very short. So far as the position is concerned, I feel I should recall the words that fell from the lips of the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, who made such a fine maiden speech—I shall have to distract him for a moment from the map of the City of Oxford which he is explaining to the noble Baroness. I am delighted the noble Viscount made such a fine maiden speech. He is an old friend of many of us, and his ancestor said, "We are all Socialists now".
We are all opposed to the Armer Report and the opposition has not in any way been engineered. My noble friends may have been approached from this quarter or that quarter, but you cannot engineer unanimity of this sort, taking shape on all sides of the House, and it has been quite extraordinary how strong the opposition has been. I am sure I do not need to labour this kind

919
of point, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House knows it well; but if the opinion of the House of Lords is to count for anything, he presumably takes very seriously indeed this peculiar unanimity of expression which is unprecedented in the experience of most of us.
I am not going to co-ordinate the arguments which have been presented, because, in fact, when they are studied, someone much less acute than the noble Viscount would surely see what they amount to. One could, if one wished to be very clever—and I am sure the noble Viscount would not adopt that line—perhaps drive small wedges here and there between your Lordships, but I hope that the noble Viscount will not feel bound to apply any very positive conclusions to the House this evening. If I can relieve him of any duty, I think there is no one here who would disapprove if he rose from his place this evening and said that the views put forward would be considered by his noble friend; and I think that is all most of us are asking. We should be very sorry indeed if we thought that the Government had reached conclusions ahead of this debate. Presumably they have not. This is one occasion in the world when we think that no display of his unrivalled oratory is really called for; and I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to keep a very early engagement. That is the way I venture to present it.
I suppose we have all boasted of our various connections with Oxford; and why should we not? The noble Viscount's connections are, I suppose, the most distinguished of any of us; a most brilliant Scholar of Christ Church; Fellow of All Souls; City Member, as some of us have reason to remember, to our own cost. Others, of course, have laboured in other fields, some in the same fields, without the same successes. Many of these fields I have mentioned, but I think I possess a unique distinction—I was a member of the Oxford City Council which is under discussion to-day. The Oxford City Council in my time was a fine vigorous body of men and women; city fathers, city mothers—what did the noble Lord, Lord Elton, call them?—almae matres? Whatever the pronunciation, the thought is clear enough and I hope it will be equally clear to Hansard.
920
The city fathers of other days and city mothers were very well equipped to discuss many broad issues, and if they were not equipped that did not prevent them from discussing them. And as one who represented Cowley, and, later, part of Oxford, I should like to say that one problem we did not attempt the discuss without our advisers, was some intricate problem of town planning. We would argue but not to that extent. I am not saying a word against my successors. It may be that in years to come I shall once again seek something of the good people there and in a much simpler capacity. One never knows and therefore one must not deride the committee. But the fact is they know perfectly well that they would not normally decide a matter of this sort without the help of their advisers, and, extraordinary as it may seem, they have come forward with a scheme for which they can get no support from the Chief Planning Officer or the Chief Constable. It would seem to me almost incredible that a City Council so bereft of expert advice should hit on the ideal solution in the teeth of all the greatest experts in the country. That would seem to be extraordinary. It is the sort of thing which just does not happen. I decline to think there is much reason that they have hit on the right plan.
I do not want to say any more. Personally I am very much interested in what was called the precinctual idea; I am very glad that speakers have addressed themselves to that. I have the feeling that that idea came forward a little late from the point of view of the inquiry. I feel if that idea had been developed a year or two earlier we should have had even more inspiring or well-informed guidance offered to Sir Frederick Armer on that subject. Therefore, I hope that when the Government turn all these matters over in their minds they will not feel that the last word has been said about the precinct, although certain speeches have been made to-day in your Lordships' House which I think have advanced our thought on that subject very considerably. I do not mean to say more.
I hope I have made it plain to the noble Viscount that we have the highest confidence in his personal capacity to bring a mind of great fairness and ability to this question. I am not going to

921
appeal to him in the name of Christ Church. There would be a certain impertinence in doing that. In any case, I would not suggest he would wish to be influenced by his connection with Christ Church, All Souls, Oxford City or anywhere else. I am simply taking up the phrase used by the noble Viscount, Lord Esher; many of us consider him one of the cleverest men in England. Even if he were one of the less clever men in England but was still of fairly normal intelligence, I should feel that he would not be likely to accept the particular plan proposed by the City Council to Sir Frederick Armer. I realise that he and his colleagues will wish to consider all these matters with very great care and will study the shades of opinion which have been presented during the debate. But I can assure him that we seriously believe that he and those with him are most anxious to arrive at the just solution, and I will leave it to him without expecting him to say very much this evening.
8.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, despite the noble Earl, I think it would be slightly discourteous if I did not make a speech at this stage, and there are a number of things which I think I can say with profit. In the first place, I should like to be amongst those to congratulate my noble friend Lord Harcourt on his maiden speech. It was, by any standard, whether maiden or otherwise, a very excellent speech, and I do not think he need be worried about its being controversial. I find that every time I congratulate a Member of this House on a maiden speech it has been controversial, and personally I think it is better for being controversial. The rule is really a different rule, that one does not hurt other people's feelings, and there was not a syllable in my noble friend's speech which could have hurt anybody's feelings, even upon this very controversial subject. It was a very lucid exposition of a case, and I can only say I enjoyed the speech very much and with added pleasure because he happens to be a very old friend of mine in private life.
I should also like, if it is not at this late hour imposing on the House, to say what a pleasure it was to see the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, back again and to hear what was, again, by any stan-
922
dards, a very remarkable performance. I do not know how long it is since an actual nonagenarian addressed your Lordships' House. I remember the late Lord Bledisloe made a very good but very much shorter speech about a year before he died, but I hope this is not in any case a precedent for the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, whom I hope we shall have with us very many years; I hope we may even, in ten years' time perhaps, be able to signal a speech by a centenarian in your Lordships' House, and I have no doubt it will be as vigorous as the speech he delivered to-day.
Having said that, I should like also to disclaim any intention of expressing a personal opinion upon this subject at all. The question of Oxford roads has created more angry words and severed more friendships in Oxford than any subject for debate there since the condemnation of Newman, and the varieties of opinion expressed have also at times been as bewildering as the varieties of Christian doctrine displayed between the third and sixth centuries of our era. So far I have managed to keep clear of this controversy by not expressing any opinion whatever, and it would be a pity if I started to depart from that rule this evening. If anybody thinks he can deduce some opinion from what I say now, I hasten in advance to disclaim it.
The matter, I should explain—and I think it is right I should say so although other noble Lords have said so before me—is before my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and I think it would be manifestly wrong for me either to attempt to anticipate his views by predicting them or to prejudice them by disagreeing with them in any way. The fact is that he gave an undertaking at the last debate that there should be a debate in the House of Lords before he made up his mind, and that really means that, in speaking for the Government I should not express a view, rather than that I should express a view about the very controversial subjects which have been discussed this evening.
My right honourable friend welcomes this debate as an opportunity for noble Lords who are interested to express their views, and I can assure your Lordships that when I say he will not fail to study those views when they appear in

923
Hansard to-morrow I am not saying something simply formally: this is in fact the case, and I know he will find the debate a great source for study and that it will help him to form a view upon the subject. If I may just say so to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, there need be no fear that the views of the University and the Oxford Preservation Trust would be set aside; nor is there any disposition on my right honourable friend's part to try to treat the Inspector as an arbitrator or judge, because it is absolutely no disrespect to him to say that the responsibility for the decision must rest with, the Minister. The inspector discharged his duty faith, fully by reporting to the Minister and this Report, of course, will be taken into account with all the other circumstances of the case.
Of course, I should be less than candid if I did not report to my right honourable friend that the views expressed in this House this afternoon very largely reflect a single point of view. Nor will I attempt to drive what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, described as small wedges between the different points of view expressed this afternoon. But I should like, if I may, to marshall some of the different aspects of the problem slightly, because there have been variations of emphasis and there have been variations actually in the fundamental approach to this question.
The first question which I think has been raised by the debate, within the ambit of the expressed opinions, has been whether we really need to make up our minds at all. That was clearly a difference of opinion. My noble friend Lord Swinton ended his very interesting speech with the words, "Wait and see". I think this fairly accurately represented the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who introduced the debate and to whom we are therefore indebted for the opportunity to discuss this matter; and I think to some extent that was the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Other noble Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in particular, and my noble and learned friend, Lord Conesford, took directly the opposite view. They both said "Decide now, but agree with us and it will be the right decision".
924
I think it is worth just considering one or two aspects of that matter. The question whether we can afford to wait was well and plausibly argued both by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth and by my noble friend Lord Swinton. It depends on saying that the Sandford link and, indeed, the circle of the outer roads need to be completed before we can judge what the effect on Oxford's traffic will be. It depends on saying, "Let the Cowley shopping centre be completed, and that will afford some relief, and we shall then be able to see more clearly how much is necessary" There are minor, although still important, other projects of the same kind which it might be argued ought to be completed also in order to enable one to see how the traffic will be when they are completed, of which the removal of the market from the centre, where it is now, near to Carfax, is the one which occurs most readily to my mind.
As regards the outer roads, and particularly the Sandford link, I think it was generally agreed that these ought to be completed; and, if I may say so, I would accept the view expressed in the letter from the noble Marquis, Lord Salisbury, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that the question of the inner roads should never be allowed to hold up the question of the outer roads—the outer roads are required. The last preliminary step of advertising the side-road order has already been taken this month. Thereafter, of course, the progress will depend very much on statutory considerations. There can be objections, and there may have to be a local public inquiry on the side-road order, and then the whole process of the acquisition of land will have to be pursued. This means, at any rate, a considerable period before the Minister can enter upon the land. Thereafter, the construction will have to begin. So that although one may promise speed, the speed at which one promises to progress is the speed of the statutory ritual, which is a somewhat slower pace than one would desire in the mind's eyes to see. But that also must be completed. The question therefore about the completion of the outer roads is not so much whether it is desirable—and I think one can accept that it is desirable—but how far it is really relevant to the question of what the inner roads should be.

925
The same, I am afraid, applies to the Cowley shopping centre. Work has started on it. It is hoped that by the end of 1963 eighteen new shops will be completed, including four large multiple stores, and a car park for 300 cars. That is admittedly a desirable thing which must go forward, and which will not be held up in any way by the dispute about the inner roads. But again one has to ask oneself to what extent it is a relevant consideration which ought to hold up a decision. As to that, it is, I think, fair to say that the extent to which these projects, desirable in themselves, will in fact, or can in fact, relieve traffic in the centre, is predictable within certain limits; and at any rate one view which will have to be considered is that one can say with sufficient confidence, now, that the extent to which they and the other projects to which I have referred can relieve traffic in the centre is perhaps not sufficient to justify us in withholding a decision on the relief roads if in fact one can establish, as I think would appear from the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Elton of the matter, that all these projects added together will, or may, still leave traffic at the centre, which will require relief roads.
The other thing which I think I should say in this connection has also been stressed during the course of the debate, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, by the noble Viscount, Lord Harcourt, and it may be also by my noble friend Lord Salter—namely, that until you have some conception of where you are going to put your inner relief roads you are not going to develop St. Ebbe's or St. Clements, which of course clearly must be done; and although, therefore, nobody would wish to rush into this matter, I think one has to face the fact that the time for decision is probably fairly close, even if it be only a tentative decision.
The other thing that I think I should point out to your Lordships is that, whatever ray right honourable friend decides—which he hopes to be able to do either before the Recess or very soon after its commencement—it will be a long time before any sort of an inner road really appears on the ground. Because the position, I think—I have got now into such confusion with my papers that I shall probably say something which is not strictly accurate, but I think I am
926
right in saying this—is that he will then have to tell the Council to put into its development plan a plan for a road on the lines which he decides. There will then have to be another public inquiry—the fourth, I may say, which will have taken place on this subject—at which no doubt more counsel (including, I hope, my noble and learned friend behind me) will be instructed, and more witnesses called and cross-examined, and another report presented by another inspector.
When this is done, what will have come into being will be nothing more than a paper road; and the paper road will then have to take its place for allocation of the available funds by the Ministry of Transport. So that there will be, I should have said, a locus penitentiae, although I should hope that once the decision is made this time it will be respected, if at all possible, by the various disputants in this controversy.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Viscount has forgotten another debate in this House.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am sure there will be more debates in this House, but at this stage I am not undertaking that there shall be.
My Lords, there is where the matter stands to that stage. If in fact some thing has to be done in the way of inner roads and the "wait and see" policy is not pursued by my right honourable friend, then he really has to choose between three possibilities. When I say "three possibilities" I am, of course, aware that there were 22 different plans deposited with the Council and, I believe 76 different variations of those 22 plans. But it is three possibilities that we have mainly discussed this evening, and they are those referred to in the Report as A, B and C. This is an over-simplification, but they are, broadly, the three choices between us.
On that I would deprecate some of the sub-divisions which have been made. I do not think it is altogether fair in connection with the Council's plan to lay too much stress on the undoubtedly sharp division between the Council and the City architect, Mr. Chandler, because both plumped for the same line across the Meadow. I am not sure that I can quite agree with the noble Lord,

927
Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in saying that the decision or the recommendation of the Inspector was quite the same as Dr. Sharp's scheme, which was the Scheme B on the plan. I think there is a substantial difference, which was recognised by the University at one stage of the proceedings and I think to-day, between the two lines of Meadow Road, one across the middle of the Meadows and one on the northerly part of the Meadows.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I could not have made myself quite clear, or perhaps the noble Viscount misheard me. I was not referring to Dr. Sharp's scheme; I was referring to the Sandys scheme. Sandys' road and the present council road are almost identical.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My impression of the Sandys road, although I had not briefed myself to defend the Sandys road, or even to discuss it, on this occasion, was that it was considerably nearer Merton than the Council road at present proposed, and that it approximated more to the B scheme rather than to the Council scheme, which was C.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, it is fair to say, I think, that the Sandys road went through the Memorial Gardens just by Christ Church, and to that extent it is different from the City Council's road which goes, so to speak, half-way across the Meadow.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This was entirely my impression, my Lords, and I would therefore say that they were different schemes. Within those three alternatives obviously the main choice is whether you put a road across the Meadows or whether you do not; and, if you do not, clearly Scheme A is the only plan in the field.
VISCOUNT HARCOURT: My Lords, there is one point that I should just like to mention. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said that there were only three plans—A, B and C. That is not quite true. There is also the Oxford Preservation Trust plan, which varies from Plan A in one very important respect—in the road to the North of Oxford, which it continues right round through Marston and to the northern by-pass.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: This is quite correct, but I was thinking in terms of the controversial choices you have to make, where the Oxford Preservation Trust plan follows Plan A, I think, exactly. In that connection, I would say only that it is not quite fair to the Inspector to say that he rejected Plan A only on the grounds of traffic, as I think my noble friend Lord Swinton said. If he looks at the report again, he will see that the Inspector stressed very considerably in that report the damage to house property and to amenities at the two ends of the road, which undoubtedly would cause a good deal of demolition. I think it is fair to the Inspector to say that that had obviously operated in his mind.
Moreover, although I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of the Inspector's report, I think it was unjust to say of him that his conclusions were contained only in two paragraphs at the end. As my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross pointed out, the scheme of his report was to contain, I think my noble friend said, ten pages of discussion of the various schemes, and particularly of the three main schemes which were put forward; and noble Lords will find that, at the end of each discussion, his conclusion about that scheme is quite clearly stated. Therefore, I think it is unjust to him to suggest that he has put in only two perfunctory paragraphs at the end as containing the reasoning upon which his report was based.
Now, having made those points, I do not want to outstay my welcome here, and I do not want to give the impression that the matter is otherwise than open in the sense which I explained at the beginning. My right honourable friend will read this debate in all its aspects most carefully. If I have not mentioned all of the speeches which have been made, this is not to say that my right honourable friend will not consider what they contain; but there have been so many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House playing a part in this debate that I would not have been able to do justice to all of them had I dealt with them at length. My Lords, I do not think that there is anything more that I ought really to say this evening. I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the matter, and I hope the House

929
will accept it from me that my right honourable friend will consider your Lordships' views.
9.14 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House for an illuminating reply, because he has illustrated so well the penalty we are paying to-day for the four and a half years delay since we had the last debate. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for saying—at least, this is what I think he said—that there will be no delay by the Government from now on with regard to the completion of the Sandford Link. The only delay will be the natural and almost automatic delay of the processes of law. That is a very great comfort. May I say this to him? If that is so, and if my calculations and the calculations of experts are right, it will mean that the outer by-passes around Oxford will be completed and working while any plan for an intermediate road in Oxford will be still what the noble Viscount has described as a "paper" road.
What I was at pains to say, or tried to say, in my opening speech was that, even after the outer roads are completed—and that will be approximately, from now on, in three years—there will still be a need, I believe, for intermediate roads. I have said that; but I am doubtful whether they will turn out, in the last analysis, to be precisely where those lines are drawn on the present map, and they will, I think, be the A road with some slight variation to it. That was the only delay that I thought was necessary. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, however, for having given assurances that there will be no delay now in the completion of the Sandford Link.
I think, if I may say so without impertinence, that your Lordships have discharged faithfully and well the duty that was placed upon you by the Government when Lord Salisbury undertook that there should be this debate. I am sure the Government of the day cannot but be impressed with the absolute unanimity of your Lordships on this subject on two occasions. The House was unanimous in turning down the Meadow Road and asking for the completion of the outer by-passes in 1957: it is unani-
930
mous in the same direction to-day. I cannot but feel that that will have an effect upon the thinking of the Minister. I am very grateful to all noble Lords for joining in this debate, which I feel has not been altogether wasted. With those words, I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  CONVICTIONS FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES
  CONVICTIONS FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES
  HYDE PARK ROAD AND GARAGE SCHEME
  HYDE PARK ROAD AND GARAGE SCHEME
  WIRELESS LICENCES
  WIRELESS LICENCES