Sitting of 1 May 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Low-Priced Books Scheme
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made with his scheme for selling low-priced books overseas.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): Since my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 6th February, and that to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 20th February, our low-priced university textbooks have begun selling in India. Already repeat orders are coming in. Five further low-priced textbooks are now being produced. I will circulate their titles in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    We shall shortly begin producing our groups of books to aid the study of English. Initial printings of these should amount to some 400,000 copies.
    To complement our low-priced books scheme, we have decided to produce an annotated catalogue of British books selected because of their particular value to overseas readers.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will the Minister say how many books we sold and how many he expects to have sold by the end of the year? What precautions is he taking to prevent a black market from being created in these books?
    Dr. Hill: It is early to give a figure for the number of books sold. The returns are not yet in, although it is known that a number of repeat orders are coming. The estimate for this year remains the same as that which I gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East. On the third point, while one can never be certain that it will not occur, there is a widespread campaign of publicity about the prices. We are taking such steps as we can to prevent these books from being sold at prices different from those shown on the books. We will watch the position very carefully.
    Following is the information:
    Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics—Lewitt.
    Workshop Technology—Chapman.
    Part I
    Part II
    Part III
    Textbook of Inorganic Chemistry—
    Partington.
    Physical Chemistry—Mee.
    Economics of Welfare—Pigou.

    Communist Propaganda
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what overall directives he has issued concerning the policy to be adopted by the Overseas Information Service in response to the Communist propaganda theme of competitive coexistence.
    Dr. Hill: I do not issue overall directives. Ministers—and particularly the Foreign Secretary—have made plain the Government's views on this subject, and the Overseas Information Services have reflected and explained those views.
    Mr. Mayhew: Does the Minister agree that while the Communist conception of co-existence is wide open to attack, it might be as well, apart from just attacking it, if one or two non-Communist countries made clear our conception of co-existence, which is superior to and different from the Communist conception?
    Dr. Hill: I take note of what the hon. Member said, but in essence he is questioning policy, and such questions should more properly be put to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister tell us what is wrong with competitive co-existence? Is it not a great deal better than mutual suicide? If he seeks

    877
    to alter his line of propaganda, will he keep in mind the statement made by the Prime Minister at the Embassy in Moscow during his visit when he said about Russia,
    "The rate and quality of your progress are indeed extraordinary and, so far as I know, unparalleled in history"?
    Is he also aware that the Prime Minister said,
    "Across the Steppes glows the furnace of industry beckoning to a promised land."
    Why not put that in his propaganda if he is to do anything?
    Dr. Hill: I will not comment on the differences between the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). They can sort them out between themselves.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Death Grant
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will amend the contributions conditions relating to death grants, so that, upon the death of a mentally-defective adult person, who had been unable to work, a grant will be payable to the parents or guardians.
    The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, Cmnd. 33, on this point. As he will no doubt be aware, I accepted the advice of the Committee that such persons be covered for death grant on their parents' insurance up to the age of 18, and a provision to raise the age to this figure was approved by Parliament in the National Insurance Act, 1957.
    Mr. Prentice: Will not the Minister ask the Advisory Committee to have another look at this question? Will he bear in mind the recent case from East Ham which I sent to him in which a man died who had been mentally defective all his life, had never been able to work and had been dependent on his parents for everything? Surely in a case such as that the death grant ought to be paid as in the case of the
    878
    death of a child? Will not he ask the Committee to look at this question to see whether some amendment is possible?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The distinction is that up to the age of 18 a person can be treated as a child and dealt with for various benefit purposes on his parents' insurance. Beyond 18 he is not a child. I do not think that this is a question for contributory provision.

    Pneumoconiosis
    Mr. Stonesasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many appeals were made, under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts, 1946 to 1960, to the Commissioner during the period of the last three years, in cases where conflicting medical evidence was submitted as to whether pneumoconiosis was a contributory cause of death, by the dependants of the deceased and by the local insurance officer, respectively; and how many of such appeals were upheld or rejected in each of the two categories.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the three years ended 31st December, 1960, there were 143 appeals to the Commissioner in connection with claims for death benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts on the question whether pneumoconiosis was a contributory factor in the cause of death. One hundred of these appeals were made by dependants of the deceased and forty-three by the insurance officer; four of the dependants' appeals were successful and forty-two of those of the insurance officer. Whilst medical evidence must play an important part in the decision of these cases, it would be wrong to assume that there was a conflict of such evidence on every appeal.
    Mr. Stones: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given, may I ask if I am right in assuming that, provided the prescribed procedure has been properly followed in such cases as referred to in my original Question, the decision of the Commissioner is absolutely final and there can be no redress in the law courts?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is quite right. The Commissioner's decision on these cases is final.

    National Health Service Charges (Refunds)
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will simplify the form that is used in respect of applications for refunds of National Health Service charges.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The form of application available in chemists' shops and dispensaries requires of the applicant no more than his name and reference number or address. The layout of the form has been improved and supplies of the new form will shortly be available.
    Mr. Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are nearly 1,000 words on this form? As the form is used mainly by people who may be suffering from poor eyesight, could he look into the question of reducing the number of words?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The form has to cope with three different categories, the war pensioner, the person in regular receipt of National Assistance and the person not in regular receipt of National Assistance. While I share the desire of my hon. Friend to keep it simple, if we cut out too much we should be charged, quite rightly, with not giving full and necessary information to those concerned.
    Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main anxiety of the House is about the refund of prescription charges to those who are not war pensioners and not in regular receipt of National Assistance? Both those categories are perhaps aware of their rights, but for those on the border-line of National Assistance hardship may exist. Would he agree that perhaps the use being made of this form for refunds would be an index of how effective the arrangements are? Could he say when he would be ready to reply to a question on how many refunds are being made to persons not in the two categories I have mentioned?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not quite sure how long the time lag in respect of these figures will be, although, as the hon. Member will recall, I have given them for past periods from time to time. I agree with the hon. Member that the
    880
    most difficult category is that of people who are not in receipt of assistance and who are not war pensioners. On the other hand, from the point of view of this form they are numerically much the smallest number of the three.
    Mr. Walkerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will send copies of the simple leaflet explaining the system of refunds under the National Health Service to all doctors and to all persons at present benefiting under National Assistance.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health arranged for all doctors in the National Health Service to receive copies of the leaflet during the first half of April. Persons on assistance are already informed by the Board about the refund procedure.

    National Assistance
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many National Assistance recipients suffered a reduction in supplementary grants when their retirement pensions were increased in April.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: About 1,079,000.
    Mr. Jeger: Is that not really disgraceful? Will the Minister look at this question again in conjunction with the National Assistance scales? Is he not aware that many old-age pensioners, amounting, as he himself said, to more than 1 million, expected from the Government's propaganda and information that they would receive a 7s. 6d. or 12s. 6d. a week increase? They now discover that they receive anything from 6d. to 3s. 6d. per week. Since this hits hardest the poorest section of the community, will not the right hon. Gentleman immediately take steps to increase the scale rates under which they are allowed National Assistance?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member will be aware that the procedure follows that taken on previous occasions, except that by ensuring that assistance scales were increased simultaneously with National Insurance scales it has been possible to secure that all supplemented persons, if their circumstances remained the same, received an increase in their total income from the two sources. The hon. Member will also be

    881
    aware that, comparing the situation with what it was in 1958, when the last general change of both benefits took place, the total increase in income is greater and a little higher for the supplemented than for the non-supplemented cases. Finally, the hon. Member's supplementary question is quite out of line with the complaint perpetually made from the benches opposite about the proportion of persons receiving supplementation.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Power Stations, Durham County
    Mr. Pentlandasked the Minister of Power whether his attention has been drawn to a report, issued on 28th March, 1961, by the North Regional Board for Industry, regarding the unsuitability of the siting of power stations in the County of Durham; and if, in view of the urgent need for consideration to be given to the siting of a new power station, or power stations, on or near the Durham coalfield, he will make a statement of his policy in the light of the report.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The choice of sites for new power stations is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Board is building a station at Blyth, which will be completed in 1965, and has no immediate plans for another new station in Durham or Northumberland.
    Mr. Pentland: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when it became known through this report that his Ministry had decided that the County of Durham was geographically unsuitable for power stations it caused widespread dismay, to say the least, in the county? In view of the fact that this decision cannot be substantiated on those grounds in any way, will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at it to see about siting a power station in the county near the coalfield?
    Mr. Wood: I should like to make clear that the advice from my Department never suggested that there were no suitable sites for power stations in the county but merely said that the problem of building power stations was not so easy as it looked. The Department did not recommend that no power station should be built there. As the hon.
    882
    Member knows, the National Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board are continually in touch and no doubt will take notice of what he has said.
    Mr. Pentland: Could we have a categorical assurance now that the Central Electricity Generating Board will at least consider siting a station on the Durham coalfield?
    Mr. Wood: It will no doubt take notice of what the hon. Member has said.

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    Transatlantic Passenger Traffic
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Aviation what percentage of air passenger traffic between the United Kingdom and the United States of America was carried by British operators and United States operators, respectively, during the last full year for which figures are available.
    The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I do not think that I should publish commercial information that could be of competitive significance.
    Mr. Farr: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's point of view, may I ask him to resist any blandishments of the American airlines through the Civil Aeronautics Board to reduce any percentage of B.O.A.C. traffic obtained by pooling arrangements with Commonwealth airlines at the moment?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of these points. That is one of the reasons why I do not want to go into publication. There is no agreed basis for these statistics. They are always very controversial in negotiations.

    Internal Services
    Mr. A. Robertsasked the Minister of Aviation if comprehensive plans have been prepared by his Department for the development of internal air services between the cities of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The Ministry of Aviation does not operate air services.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister intend in the near future to give financial aid to some of our domestic airports? He

    883
    will appreciate that there are one or two airports in the north of England which require financial assistance from the Ministry for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: At present, the airports as a whole in this country are being run at a loss—remedied somewhat, we hope, by the very proper decision to put up landing charges—but no one can say that they are not receiving some form of Government assistance at present.
    Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a certain dissatisfaction with the services presently provided by B.E.A. on a monopoly basis? Should not these things be looked into in due course by the new Licensing Board?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The decision of Parliament to establish the Air Transport Licensing Board is, of course, the answer to any suggestion of a monopoly position.

    Croydon Aerodrome
    Mr. Goughasked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on his plans for developing Croydon Aerodrome as a centre for business and private aviation.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is considering the represenations made at the public inquiry held in October, 1960. These included suggestions that the aerodrome should be operated by a commercial organisation for use by executive aircraft.
    Mr. Gough: Yes, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has now taken several months? Is he fighting the battle on behalf of aviation in this connection? Does he realise that since the end of the war 18 airfields in the vicinity of London have been closed down and that it would be a calamity if Croydon also were closed down?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate my hon. Friend's view, but it is not the only view which has been expressed about Croydon. I think it right that full consideration should be given to these matters. A number of technical aviation points were raised at the inquiry and it
    884
    may be necessary to have some further inquiry into these.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: If Croydon is not allowed to remain open, will my right hon. Friend consider backing a syndicate which proposes to try to purchase Blackbushe Airport, which has many facilities of great use to executive and private aircraft?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises a separate point. Perhaps my hon. Friend would put down a separate Question.
    Mr. Gough: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Airport Facilities, Tees-side and South Durham
    Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Aviation if he will list the civilian airports in England; how many are operated by charter companies; and what plans he has for making civil airport facilities available for Tees-side and South Durham.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Of the 71 civil aerodromes in England, 14 are operated by companies which also provide either scheduled or charter air services. I will, with permission, circulate a list of the aerodromes in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The provision of an aerodrome for the local needs of Tees-side and South Durham is a matter for the local authorities.
    Mr. Slater: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not sure whether he knows this area to which I am referring, but from the point of view of the provision of airport facilities it has been neglected for a long time? Is he aware that we once had such facilities at Greatham, but they were closed down? Is he aware of the growth which has taken place in the population and the gathering momentum of public opinion on Tees-side? In view of this, does not he think that the time has come when he should enter into consultations with the local authorities and attempt to provide the accommodation which is needed in the North-East, especially in view of the concentration of such facilities in other parts of the country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The North-East is a fairly large area. There are a number of local authorities around Newcastle which are combining in establishing or developing aerodromes, and with regard to areas further south, I should have thought that the initiative ought to come from the local authorities.
    Mr. Slater: Is the Minister aware that I endeavoured to direct my question to him from the point of view of the local authorities? I asked whether he was prepared to invite local authorities

    AERODROMES IN ENGLAND (1ST MAY, 1961)

    AERODROMES OPERATED BY THE MINISTRY OF AVIATION

    London (Heathrow)

    Bournemouth

    London (Gatwick)

    Land's End

    Stansted

    Scilly Isles

    Blackpool

    Southampton

    Accident, Southend
    Mr. Cooperasked the Minister of Aviation if he intends to order an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the accident to an aircraft belonging to Air Condor Ltd. at Southend on 22nd April, 1960.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): No formal inquiry was held, but the Ministry looked into the circumstances of the accident and followed up those matters where action was required in the interests of safety.
    Mr. Cooper: Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer is wholly unsatisfactory?
    to consultations on the technical points involved in order to try to provide the necessary facilities?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am never averse to consultation with anyone who chooses to approach me in this matter, but it would be very wrong to give the impression that the Ministry or the Government are prepared to support the provision of a local airport whenever a suggestion is made. That would be indeed a very expensive project.
    Following is the list:
    Is not he aware that the most serious allegations have been made concerning this flight, that the aircraft was understaffed and the pilot had flown in excess of the permitted hours? Is not it in the best interests of the flying public that an accident of this sort should be properly investigated?
    Mr. Rippon: It was an accident in which there were no serious injuries. The question of the pilot's competency and whether there was a breach of Air Navigation Regulations was inquired into. The Director of Public Prosecutions looked at the matter and decided to take no action, though we sent a warning letter to the operator. All these

    887
    matters were looked into most carefully and the necessary administrative action taken. I cannot believe that it is really necessary to have an inquiry all over again.
    Mr. McAdden: Does my hon. Friend realise that the inquiry made one hundred per cent. clear that no responsibility or blame rested on the administration at Southend Airport?
    Mr. Rippon: Well, there were some matters to which we drew the attention of the Southend Corporation, in particular to the delay in the dispatch of fire and rescue vehicles. I think that action has now been taken to ensure that this will not happen again.
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    London Airport (Passenger Accommodation)
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to provide additional passenger accommodation for internal airline traffic at London Airport.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The concourse and the airside waiting room are being enlarged. The work will be completed by the end of this month.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: May I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Has he received a request from B.E.A. to erect its own facilities at London Airport, and, if so, when does he expect to give the Corporation a reply?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This raises a slightly different point. We are extending the present facilities at London Airport and there is a suggestion from B.E.A. that it might provide its own. This would, I think, have to be looked at in the context of any decision taken with regard to the general question of management at London Airport.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the present extension will be adequate for the immense increase which is now taking place in internal traffic?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly not adequate for all time. If air traffic continues to grow, as we hope it will,
    888
    obviously we shall be continually faced with the need for more accommodation; but this is a proper increase to meet the present problem and will, I think, assist in the matter.

    Abbotsinch Airport
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation whether he has yet appointed an architect to proceed with the planning of Abbotsinch Airport.
    Mr. Rippon: I regret that this has taken rather longer than we had hoped, but I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend will make the appointment as soon as possible.
    Mr. Rankin: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that I regret it too, because in February of this year, which is quite a long time ago, the hon. Gentleman told me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—the hon. Gentleman told me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—
    Mr. Ross: Wait for it.
    Mr. Rankin: I started with a question—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is giving a reason for requiring some information and I do not think he is out of order yet.
    Mr. Rankin: I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether he remembered that, from the Government Dispatch Box in the month of February, quite a long time ago now, he told me that an architect would be shortly appointed. Does he think that three months is a short period, and can he now say when the architect will be appointed? Will his right hon. Friend stand by the statement made at the Government Dispatch Box by his predecessor that Abbotsinch Airport will be available for use in 1963? Does he still stand by that promise even though so far he has broken his promise about the architect?
    Mr. Rippon: Perhaps the last part of the supplementary question is the most important—
    Mr. Rankin: Yes.
    Mr. Rippon: We have no reason to believe that the airport will not be ready when required at the stated date. The hon. Member will recall that before we can appoint an architect we must draw

    889
    up the detailed requirements for the airport as a whole. The architect is primarily concerned with the terminal building which has to be established in relation to the whole of the facilities. There have had to be a considerable number of discussions with other people. These preliminary matters should be dealt with in a matter of weeks.

    British European Airways and British United Airways
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Aviation to what extent it is his policy that British European Airways and British United Airways should come to a private arrangement with regard to certain British airways routes.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Such arrangements form no part of the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation. There are no legal objections to such arrangements. There is equally no obligation on the Air Licensing Board to adopt them.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in reports in the Press he has been attached to these negotiations and they have been successful with B.O.A.C.? Is it the case that pressure is being put on B.E.A. in order that the independent operators may get a slice of its existing traffic, and does the Minister say that he is not in any way lending his authority and influence to these proceedings and that they will go de novo to the Licensing Board in due course?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have nothing to do with them at all.

  HOSPITALS

    Solihull Hospital
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Minister of Health if he will give the expenditure on repairs and improvements to Solihull Hospital during the three five-year periods 1946–51, 1951–56 and 1956–61.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): My right hon. Friend has no record before 5th July, 1948; expenditure was £21,345 from that date to March, 1951; £59,823 in 1951–56 and £109,900 in 1956–61.
    Mr. Lindsay: Is the Minister not aware that this is pitifully little expenditure in view of the importance of this hospital?
    Miss Pitt: It is nearly £200,000 over the period. My hon. Friend will no doubt be glad to learn that the Regional Hospital Board is preparing long-term plans which include provision for a maternity unit to cost £370,000 and, later on, for a new hospital estimated to cost £800,000. I know this hospital and that it is old and needs further improvement.

    Hammersmith Hospital (Appointment)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction among hospital administrators following the recent appointment of a house governor without previous hospital experience at Hammersmith Hospital; whether he regards this appointment as consonant with the recommendations of Sir Noel Hall as accepted by him; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health, in view of the continuing concern in the hospital service about this matter, if he will set up a committee of inquiry into the circumstances in which the appointment of a new secretary to the Board of Governors of the Hammersmith Post-Graduate Teaching Hospital Group came to be made; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): The Institute of Hospital Administrators have expressed to me concern about the circumstances of this appointment and have asked for a committee of inquiry. I will announce my decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Robinson: While no one objects to the introduction of fresh blood into the hospital service, is the Minister aware that this is one of the twenty or thirty top jobs in the Service? Is it not a fact that this appointment was made by the narrowest majority and against the advice of the assessors, and will he, when considering this matter, let us have his decision at the earliest date?
    Mr. Powell: For the reasons given in my Answer, I should not add to it at this stage.
    Mrs. Butler: May I add my representation that the Minister should make a decision on this matter as quickly as possible in view of the concern at all

    891
    levels in the hospital service at the nature of this appointment, which seems to suggest that knowledge of hospital administration is no longer a prerequisite for a top hospital appointment?
    Mr. Powell: I shall not avoidably delay my decision.

    Mental Nurses
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that his recently announced policy on the future of the mental hospitals has given rise to anxiety on the part of mental nurses, and has had an adverse effect upon recruitment; and what steps he intends to take to restore the confidence of the mental nursing profession in their future career prospects.
    Mr. Powell: I have no evidence of any fall in recruitment. As I told the hon. Member on 13th March, there is no reason to anticipate a diminution in the total effort needing to be devoted to mental treatment.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that my information is that not only has recruitment fallen off but that mental nurses are beginning to leave the Service because of their fears for the future? Does the Minister not appreciate that his whole policy of modernisation in our mental hospital service, which we on these benches support, will be in jeopardy if this trend continues, and will he take every opportunity of allaying these anxieties?
    Mr. Powell: These anxieties are indeed, as the hon. Member says, quite groundless, and I am glad of any opportunities so far as they exist of helping to dispel them.
    Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whether they be groundless or not, I and others have received a delegation from mental nurses in my constituency who have very real, even if groundless, anxieties on this subject, and does not he feel that something more ought to be done about it, because we want nurses?
    Mr. Powell: I am not aware of the approach to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he cares to pass the representations on to me, I shall endeavour to answer them.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that, as my hon. and learned Friend said, many hon. Members have been approached on this matter and that the fears among mental nurses are genuine and widespread? Does not he think that he should supplement his speech on 5th March by stating at some length in a public statement at an early date how he visualises the detailed effects upon the staff of his now policy?
    Mr. Powell: I lose no opportunity of illustrating and enlarging upon what I regard as one of the most important developments in the whole of the National Health Service. I am sure that as this becomes more fully understood such fears as exist will be allayed.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    District Nurses and Midwives, Devon
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a shortage of district nurses in North Devon; and if he will take steps to ensure that pay and conditions of district nurses are improved.
    Miss Pitt: My right hon. Friend is aware of the shortage. The salaries and conditions of service of district nurses are matters for the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council.
    Mr. Browne: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my part of the world, although a house is available in many cases and there has been a considerable amount of advertising, it has been impossible to get district nurses? Is not this a very serious situation? Cannot the hon. Lady or her right hon. Friend try to improve the conditions and pay? Is it not a fact that most of these people would rather go into the routine hospital service than the district nursing association in view of the increased expense of running a car and so on?
    Miss Pitt: I am aware of the shortage in Devon, but it is the case that the Whitley Council reviewed the salaries of nurses and midwives in 1959 as well as the grading, and increases were given of 25 per cent. at the maximum to district nurses, who also benefited from the 5 per cent. increase in December last year.
    Mr. P. Browneasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there is a shortage of midwives in Devon, that one Bideford nursing home has had to close down and that there is a danger of a maternity hospital in the area closing shortly; and what further proposals he has for dealing with the situation.
    Miss Pitt: A nursing home has closed temporarily owing to staff sickness, but cases booked there have been accepted elsewhere. Vacancies for the matron and midwife at Torrington Cottage Hospital which has four maternity beds, arise at the end of May, and the posts have been advertised.
    Mr. Browne: This does not help very much. Is my hon. Friend aware that one midwife whom I know in my constituency worked for 72 hours and was paid for a 48-hour week and chat she left this hospital because the Whitley Committee said that she could not be paid for the overtime? Is it not time that something was done about this? Has my hon. Friend had an answer to the memorandum sent out to the hospital authorities, which she mentioned in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) on 6th February?
    Miss Pitt: The memorandum to which my hon. Friend refers has gone to all hospital authorities and all domiciliary employing authorities and they have been asked to report back to us by the end of the year. Perhaps it would help if I sent my hon. Friend a copy of the memorandum.

    Prescription Charges
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Health what reply he has sent to the letter he received recently from the East Ham National Health Executive Council recommending that all retirement pensioners should be able to claim the refund of prescription charges from the Post Office, and drawing attention to the large number of cases of hardship which would not be relieved by the existing arrangements.
    Mr. Powell: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my reply.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister acknowledge that this letter has come to him from a body of people of all political views and no political views, including
    894
    doctors and others of day-to-day experience in dealing with Health Service matters, and would he not at least acknowledge that it adds to the growing volume of informed opinion that the present arrangements are hopelessly inadequate from the point of view of preventing hardship?
    Mr. Powell: I am seeing the Association of Executive Councils later this month.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will, in conjunction with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, keep these arrangements for dealing with hardship under review and look at them again in six months' time to see whether they are really doing the job of alleviating hardship?
    Mr. Powell: I am willing to look at them at any time without waiting for six months, and if there are any improvements which can be made which are practical and fair, I shall not close my mind to them.
    Mr. Monslow: Would the Minister not agree that it would be far better if we had an income scale fixed below which no prescription rates would be paid?
    Mr. Powell: The present arrangements are based on scales which are designed to ascertain hardship, and I think that that is the right approach.

  UNITED NATIONS (REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND AGENCIES)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will furnish a list of the regional arrangements or agencies at present operating under Articles 52 to 54 of the United Nations Charter, giving in each case the date of their registration as such with the Secretary General of the United Nations.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): These articles of the United Nations Charter do not require such registration and no arrangement or agency of the kind envisaged in them is registered as such.
  Mr. Warbey: Does that mean that the Organisation of American States, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred last week as an agency within the United Nations competent to deal with the

  895
  Cuban situation, in fact is not competent to deal with it at all and that this is really only a pretence, or, if that is not the case, will he in any event bear in mind that nothing in Article 52 impairs the right of the Security Council to deal with any situation likely to lead to international friction?
  Mr. Heath: No, Sir. It means nothing of the sort. It means that there can be an organisation or agency which can act under Articles 52 to 54 but they do not have to be registered in accordance with the United Nations procedure.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the Lord Privy Seal not accept the point of my hon. Friend that Article 52 lays it down in terms—
  "This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35".
  In other words, an attempt to refer a dispute to the Organisation of American States cannot override the absolute right of a State to have its dispute heard by the Security Council or the Assembly of the United Nations?
  Mr. Heath: That is perfectly true, but if the right hon. Gentleman also looks at Section 3 of Article 52 he will see that States are encouraged to settle their disputes through the regional organisations.

  CONGO (U.N. OPERATIONS)
  Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the financing of the United Nations operation in the Congo to date.
  Mr. Heath: Since the reply is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Johnson: I recognise the heavy burden that has already been accepted by this country, but in view of the very real danger that the whole Congo operation may break down through lack of funds, would Her Majesty's Government be prepared to consider making an additional grant over and above the usual United Nations percentage for this special purpose?
  Mr. Heath: If the procedure outlined in the Resolution passed by the Assembly on 21st April is followed, I hope that that will satisfactorily deal with the financing of the operation in the present
  896
  year. We did give an undertaking that we will contribute another 2 million dollars provided that the other countries undertake their obligations.
  Mr. Fell: As my right hon. Friend's figures will show that this country is bearing a very large part of the burden of the cost of the Congo operations, will he immediately make the most urgent representations to Mr. Hammarskjoeld to intervene in the release of Mr. Tshombe, otherwise Katanga as well may collapse?
  Mr. Heath: That is a much wider question, but as this conference has been taking place at Coquilhatville, as we have no representation there, and as I understand that the leaders have not yet returned to Leopoldville, it has not been possible to find out exactly what the situation is. As soon as we do so, we shall naturally consider what action should be taken.
  Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are more concerned with the fate of the two missing British officers of the United Nations forces than with the fate of Mr. Tshombe? Has the Lord Privy Seal any information on this matter?
  Mr. Heath: We are naturally most concerned about it. We have as yet no information.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: On the narrower question of the financing of the United Nations operation, will the Government give urgent consideration to stopping any further payment of British money which may go to those United Nations forces whose presence in Katanga has been subverting the régime of President Tshombe, has indirectly let to the deaths of the British officers referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and has also led to the subversion of the Katanga experiment in non-racial partnership and the endangering of the frontiers of British territories in Central Africa?
  Mr. Heath: If my hon. Friend tables a Question of that nature. I will deal with it in detail.
  Mr. Paget: Without going into any question of the rights and wrongs of the régime in Katanga, have not we sufficient interest in the United Nations task in the Congo to make very strong representations that the kidnapping of the head of

  897
  a province who was attending a conference under safe conduct in the capacity of a herald is a most disgraceful thing and certainly ought not to be done?
  Mr. Heath: I told the House that we are awaiting full information about this, but we have constantly urged that there should be a meeting of leaders from the Congo in order to reach agreement about the future of that country. Anything which interferes with conciliation between leaders is regrettable.
  Following is the reply:
  The United Nations Operation in the Congo has been under way since July 1960; its financing therefore falls under two United Nations financial years—1960 and 1961.
  1960
  The General Assembly, by its resolution 1583 of last December, acknowledged that the 1960 costs of the operation, reduced by airlift waivers from $60 million to $48·5 million, were expenses of the Organisation and apportioned them among Member States according to the percentage payable by them to the regular budget of the Organisation. In addition, this resolution provided that the burden on the poorer Members should be lessened by partial rebates, met from voluntary contributions announced by certain Members.
  1961
  The Resumed Session of the General Assembly resolved on the 21st of April to finance the costs of the operation for the first ten months of 1961, estimated at $100 million, by opening a new ad hoc account and apportioning these expenses among Member States according to the percentage they contribute to the regular budget but with provision for rebates to be granted to the poorer members. The resolution adopted stated that these expenses were essentially different from expenses under the regular budget and, therefore, subject to a different financing procedure. It urged Permanent Members of the Security Council to make sizeable additional contributions, sought voluntary contributions and called upon the Belgian Government to make a sizeable contribution. The voluntary funds from these sources were to be used to offset the cost of the rebates of from fifty to eighty per cent. provided for in the resolution for the poorer members.

  DISARMAMENT
  Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent it is still Her Majesty's Government's policy to seek agreement on the control and limitation of arms and forces in an agreed area of Europe.
  Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government stand by the proposals for the control of arms and forces in an agreed zone in Europe put forward in the Western Peace Plan at the Geneva Foreign Ministers' Conference in May, 1959.
  Mr. Johnson: Arising from that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative Party Election Manifesto in 1959 contained an undertaking that the Conservatives would work in Europe for the inspection and reduction of armaments in areas to be agreed? Is there any substantial evidence that a very real effort has been made to achieve that since the election?
  Mr. Heath: I think that we have made a very real effort not only to deal with this, but also to deal with disarmament problems in general.
  Mr. Healey: As there are now proposals before N.A.T.O. for the control of arms and forces on the Western side of the Iron Curtain, would it not be a good idea to make this arrangement multilateral and try to reach agreement with the Russians about controlling arms and forces on both sides of the Iron Curtain?
  Mr. Heath: That is a matter which can be considered.

  UNITED NATIONS (CHINA)
  Mr. Marshasked the Lord Privy Seal (1) What progress he has made towards agreement on seating the Peking Government in the United Nations;
  (2) in view of recent statements by the Chinese Foreign Minister, if he will state the current policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the representation of Formosa in the United Nations.
  Mr. Heath: The views of Her Majesty's Government on the general question of Formosa were given by my hon. Friend in the House on 12th December last. As regards the general question of Chinese representation, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18th April to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. C. Osborne).
  Mr. Marsh: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in this country are fast coming to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government

  899
  ought to have a policy in this matter and that, having decided on a policy, they should pursue it actively? Does he not agree that if the British Government were to press for the admission of the Peking Government to the United Nations it would have a far more beneficial effect upon Asian opinion than the recent pachydermatous activities of the Foreign Secretary in India?
  Mr. Heath: I shall ignore the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of his sentence. The position of the British Government as regards the Chinese seat in the United Nations has been broadly stated on a number of occasions in the House. It is not, in our view, appropriate that on a matter which will be discussed again in the autumn I shall make a further detailed statement at this stage.
  Mr. Marsh: We are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to make a detailed statement at this stage. Five months ago the British Government said that they believed that the admission of the Chinese Government would be to the advantage of world peace. So far they have done nothing about it. We are merely asking when they are going to do something about it.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has absolutely no justification for saying that Her Majesty's Government have done nothing about it.

  LAOS
  Mr. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government have yet invited the international Commission to enter Laos.
  Mr. Heath: The Commission has now met in Delhi and completed its initial report which we have not yet received. The Commission is ready to proceed to Laos. The arrangement between the two Co-Chairmen on which the Soviet Government have insisted, however, is that it must await the entry into force of the ceasefire.
  Mr. Healey: Whilst strongly condemning the continuation of the fighting in Laos now that an appeal for a cease-fire has been issued, in view of the uncertainty about the exact military situation
  900
  in Laos and the known unreliability of some of the sources of information about that situation, is there not an overwhelming case for getting the International Commission into Laos immediately in order to report on the exact state of affairs?
  Mr. Heath: For our part we would be very willing for the Control Commission to go straight to Laos, but that is not the view of the other co-Chairman and his Government.
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the situation in Laos, with special reference to the cease-fire arrangements.
  Mr. Heath: A cease-fire has not yet been arranged. On 25th April, Prince Souvanna Phouma, claiming to speak as Prime Minister of Laos, invited the Royal Laotian Government to send representatives to the Pathet Lao Headquarters at Xieng Khouang; while the Royal Laotian Government at the same time invited the Pathet Lao to hold talks at the Royal capital of Luang Prabang which remains in their hands. In order to resolve this deadlock, the Royal Laotian Government then suggested that the other side send military representatives under a flag of truce to Ban Vang Khi between the two lines on the road north of Vientiane. No Pathet Lao representative appeared and the Government reiterated their offer for eight o'clock this morning.
  I do not yet know whether this meeting took place. This is doubtful, however, as Prince Souvanna Phouma has now proposed a meeting at another place in the same area of no-man's-land, Ban Na Mon. Unfortunately, he proposes that the purpose of the meeting should be to consider the formation of a government as well as to arrange a cease-fire. This can only lead to delays while difficult political matters are discussed. The purpose of any truce meeting should be to put an immediate stop to the fighting; other internal matters should be left for discussion between the Laotian leaders as soon as the ceasefire is in force. The Royal Government have not yet reacted to this appeal.
  As far as the military situation is concerned, the Pathet Lao forces continued their pressure on a number of fronts after the Co-Chairmen's appeal for a

  901
  cease-fire. Their forces have made gains to the north of Luang Prabang, and in the south of the country they have captured some ground which would facilitate an advance. On the Vientiane sector their recent gains leave them in a position to threaten the capital. While no serious fighting is going on at present, the Pathet Lao appear to be seeking to establish positions from which they could drive forward towards the Mekong River on several sectors if they decided to open an all-out assault, although there is no evidence that this is their intention at present
  Mr. Warbey: Is not the latest proposal of Prince Souvanna Phouma for a meeting place for cease-fire negotiations a perfectly reasonable and suitable one, and is it at all clear that Prince Souvanna Phouma is insisting that the negotiations for a cease-fire should be conditional upon there being negotiations for the formation of a new Government? Is not all that he is proposing that these matters should be dealt with successively? Therefore, can we not still hope that a cease-fire may very soon be announced; and, in the meantime, will the Lord Privy Seal deprecate all this alarmist talk of U.S. or S.E.A.T.O. intervention?
  Mr. Heath: The proposal of Prince Boun Oum and General Phoumi Nosavan for a meeting in a place in no man's land in the first instance was a perfectly reasonable proposition. Now that both sides have moved away from their original proposals for a meeting in their respective capitals, Luang Prabang and Xieng Khouang, to two places which are comparatively close together in no man's land, I very much hope that it will be practicable for the two sides to meet. At the same time, I do not think that it will be practicable at this sort of meeting to have discussions on the wider question of a broader-based Government. We believe that the most urgent question is that of cease-fire, and that negotiations between the Laotian political leaders could follow.
  Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the statement he did not make on the Congo was longer or shorter than the one he did make on Laos?
  Mr. Healey: While I strongly agree that it would be a great mistake to mix
  902
  political questions concerned with the future of the Laotian Government with the particularly urgent question of establishing a cease-fire, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the statement made by his noble Friend in another place on Wednesday, namely, that the airlift by Soviet aeroplanes to the Pathet Lao forces had ceased from last Saturday, was contradicted the same day by Mr. Dean Rusk, speaking in Washington? Do the British Government still maintain that the Soviet airlift has stopped?
  Mr. Heath: As far as we can find out from the best sources of information available to us, the Soviet airlift has been continuing intermittently since the co-Chairmen called for a cease-fire.

  OMAN
  Mr. D. Healeyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent discussions between officials of Her Majesty's Government and representatives of the Imam of Oman.
  Mr. Heath: I welcome this opportunity of drawing attention to the statement which I made in answer to a Written Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) on 15th March, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. Healey: But does not the Lord Privy Seal really agree that it is an absurd anachronism that British troops should be supporting a local ruler in Southern Arabia in what is purely a personal and private war? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any serious discussions are under way with the Government of Saudi Arabia and other interested Governments in order to solve the problem in the Buraimi oasis, which is really the key to the whole of the British policy in Southern Arabia?
  Mr. Heath: First of all, there are no British troops permanently stationed in Oman. The Sultan has his own forces there. As is known, we give some assistance to him both for civil development and for the purposes of his forces. The Buraimi oasis is not the key to this problem; there are two separate problems. With a view to finding a solution

  903
  to the problem there were these talks earlier in the year to which I referred in my statement, which were broken off at the time by the rebels. If the rebels say they are prepared to begin them again I am sure that we would welcome a solution.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Lord Privy Seal secure the publication of the Treaty of Sib on which the relations of the Imam of Oman to the Sultan of Muscat are based? Since we have twice sent British troops into battle in support of the Sultan, is it not desirable that we should know what the Treaty contains?
  Mr. Heath: The treaty is an internal document of the Sultan of Muscat covering the internal arrangements between him and the Shiekhs responsible in that area.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Since we have twice sent British troops into battle in alleged support of the arrangements contained in the document, ought we not to know what the document says?
  Mr. Heath: It is a very much wider question than sending troops into Oman in support of an internal arrangement. That is not the question at all.
  Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that the whole issue is whether or not the Sultan of Muscat has sovereignty over the Imam of Oman? Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that the British Government have repeatedly given armed support to the Sultan in pursuing his claim to sovereignty, and is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to publish to the House, so that the country may know whether, in fact, the claim which the Government are supporting is a just one?
  Mr. Heath: There is no question about the sovereignty of the Sultan of Muscat and Oman over the whole country of the Imam of Oman. The Treaty of Sib deals with internal arrangements under that sovereignty.
  Mr. P. Noel-Baker: What have the Government to hide by refusing publication of this Treaty?
  Mr. Heath: The Government have nothing to hide.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    United States Service Men (Motor Cars)
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, so that United Kingdom sales of motor cars to United States service men can continue, he will seek an alternative method for the control of Purchase Tax exemption in place of the existing method under which exemption for a period exceeding one year can only be obtained if the order is placed through PX.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): The history of this matter goes back to 1949. My right hon. and learned Friend has written to my hon. Friend setting out the Government's views at length.
    Mr. Lindsay: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very full letter he wrote to me when he saw my Question on the Order Paper? Is my hon. Friend aware that the point is that while the twelve months exemption is adequate in the case of the American Service man who can take the car back to America with him and not pay Purchase Tax, it is quite useless for those who are over here for two or three years and who will not, therefore, take the British car and pay Purchase Tax when they can take an American car without Purchase Tax or duty? Therefore, not only because we want these sales to go up but because of their good advertisement value, would my hon. Friend be good enough to ask his right hon. and learned Friend to look closely into the matter?
    Mr. Barber: As my right hon. and learned Friend has explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay), the provision in Section 22 of the Finance Act of 1946 concerning temporary residents in this country who wish to purchase motor cars here but intend to export them was an exceptional provision. To extend the period of such use beyond one year would really be a major extension of what is, as I say, already an exceptional provision. As at present advised, my right hon. and learned Friend does not feel able to agree to such an extension. I am sorry that I do not feel able to go any further than that, but my right hon.

    905
    and learned Friend shares the concern of my hon. Friend at the action that has been taken by the United States Government. I think the next thing is to see what will be the result of the approach that has been made to them.

    Central Office of Information (Press Information)
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Secretary to the Treasury what Press clippings service is maintained by the Central Office of Information; which fields this covers; and how many staff are involved.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): No central Press cutting service is maintained: but the regional offices of the Central Office of Information supply Departments with cuttings from local newspapers. No staff is exclusively employed on this work.
    Mr. Irving: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that he rejected the suggestion I made in February to negotiate the purchase of the News Chronicle Press clippings service because he said that the Central Office of Information arrangements were adequate for the twenty-four Government Departments and the House of Commons Library? In view of his Answer today, is the hon. Gentleman still satisfied with that previous Answer, and will he not look at this again?
    Sir E. Boyle: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise that point, but, in fact, my two Answers can easily be reconciled. Most Departments have a special staff for dealing with cuttings on a daily basis, but look to the Central Office of Information for coverage of provincial newspapers and so on. I believe that the present system does work satisfactorily; I have made inquiries into this since the hon. Gentleman put down his original Question.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Judges' Rules (Review)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give an assurance that, in connection with the review now being conducted by Her Majesty's
    906
    judges of the Judges' Rules, those desirous of making representations on the subject will have an opportunity of doing so; and what procedure is contemplated for this purpose.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend undertook in his reply to the hon. Member on 30th March, he has been in touch with the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice has authorised my right hon. Friend to say that while the judges—who have themselves the widest experience of the operation of the existing Rules—do not propose to invite evidence, they will take account of any representations which may be made to them in writing, through the Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice at the Royal Courts of Justice.
    Mr. Fletcher: While appreciating that reply, may I ask the Joint Undersecretary to consider the desirability of people who so desire making verbal representations to the judges, in the same way as they would have been able to do if this matter had been left within the purview of the Royal Commission on the Police?
    Mr. Renton: No, this would not have been appropriate. This is not a public inquiry. It is the desire of, my right hon. Friend to obtain the opinion of the judges about this matter in the light of their own very great experience, but if anybody has any information which he thinks may be of help to the judges and delivers it to them in writing, the judges will be glad to consider it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this matter has certain urgency and is of very wide public interest? Has his attention been called, for instance, to a recent capital case in which the defendants were ultimately acquitted, in which a principal police officer confessed in the witness box, and defended his action, that he had refused to allow the defendants' solicitor or counsel to interview them except in his presence? Does this not show a very wide ignorance of what even the existing Rules are?
    Mr. Renton: I should have thought that we could safely assume that the judges will not ignore that case.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I invite your attention to Question No. 45? The point that I want to submit for your consideration is this. The Question was originally accepted by the Table Office and appeared on the Order Paper as a Question to the Attorney-General, who normally answers for his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in matters relating to the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction. This Question has been transferred from the Attorney-General to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
I recognise, of course, that you have ruled on more than one occasion that it is within the discretion of the Departments or the Ministers concerned to transfer Questions as they think fit and that you have no locus standi in the matter. Nevertheless, I want to submit that this particular instance represents a novel and undesirable extension of that convention; that in connection with the gravel chalk pit in Essex the conduct of the Minister of Housing and Local Government was called into question, and, as a consequence, was referred to the Lord Chancellor by the Council on Tribunals, that the Lord Chancellor, in his quasi-judicial capacity, made a statement on the subject and, as a matter of fact, is still considering the matter at the request of the Council on Tribunals.
In those circumstances, I feel that it is quite reprehensible that a Minister whose conduct has been called into question by the Lord Chancellor, acting in his quasi-judicial capacity, should have this very matter transferred to him for answer by him, as one of the parties implicated in the case. I want strongly to urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of practice ought not to be tolerated, that where Questions addressed to the Attorney-General about the activities of the Lord Chancellor are accepted by the Table, those Questions should not be transferred to a Minister who is directly implicated in the matter so referred.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has so accurately stated the position of the Chair in the matter that I need not add to what he has pointed out—the fact that it is all nothing to do with me.
Mr. M, Stewart: May I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that when it is a question of transferring Questions for administrative convenience, or because the Question appears to relate more properly to one Department than another, we all agree that it is a matter for Ministers and not at all for the Chair; but when a Question which has a judicial nature is transferred from a Law Officer to a Minister who, with respect to him, is in the position of the accused, as in this matter, does not that make it something in the nature of an abuse of the procedure of the House and, therefore, a matter for the Chair?
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not accept that it is a matter for the Chair, and I do not intend to involve the Chair in judging about the propriety or impropriety of transfers. That is a matter for those who procure the transfer. I wish to adhere to that view, because there are circumstances when the Chair would not have enough information or knowledge to be able to judge of a matter of that kind. That is why I want to adhere to the rule without deviation of any sort or kind.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to a slightly different aspect of the same point? As I understand from the Question on the Order Paper, this was a Question about something that the Lord Chancellor had done and the original Question was addressed to the Attorney-General for that reason. If the Question had originally been put down to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, it would, presumbably, have been refused by the Table as being addressed to a Minister who had no responsibility for what the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General had done. Is it not a little outside the custom of the House, or even the right of Ministers, to refer a Question to a Minister who has so little responsibility in the matter that if the Question had been originally put down to him it would not have been allowed?
Mr. Speaker: I am so sorry to be firmly insistent, I hope without discourtesy. I do not propose to rule at all on a hypothetical situation whether or no the Question would have been accepted had it been put down to some

909
other Minister in some other circumstances. What I am saying is that I will not accept—I do not think that I ought to—any responsibility for transfer which does not rest with me.
Mr. G. Brown: I think that we all understand the position that you are seeking to uphold here, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, may I submit to you, further to the point of order, that there is an issue of considerable importance to the House, especially to those on this side of the House. This is not the normal sort of case of transfer. This is is a special case, a case which is exciting great interest and a great deal of concern in the country. A Question is put down to a Law Officer and it has become a matter for the Law Officer. That is transferred by Government mechanism to the Minister who, as my hon. Friend has said, is in the position of being the accused.
You may—I understand why—want to preserve the rights of the Chair. Therefore, would it not be a good thing if the Leader of the House were to take note of these exchanges and undertake to look into this absurd situation in which one cannot ask a Law Officer of the Crown about the actions of a Minister whose conduct is under examination not only in the House, but in the country at large?
Mr. Speaker: Here, really, is the difficulty. I have tried to be indulgent, but I cannot allow hon. Members to make speeches about the merits as they conceive them to be in this matter on the basis of getting me to reject what is the position of the Chair to which I must adhere firmly. I dare say that everything they have said has been noted by those present, but what the Leader of the House should or should not take notice of in this field is also not a matter for me, for the same reason.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I had no notice of this objection by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), or the point raised by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). The best thing I can say, in the circumstances, is that I ought to look into it, and I will certainly do so.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gresham Cooke.
Mr. Lipton: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether your permission has been sought by the Minister of Housing and Local Government now to answer Question No. 45?
Mr. Speaker: It has not been so sought.

LONDON DOCK STRIKE
Mr. Gresham Cooke (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the London dock strike.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): Yes, Sir. I have personally satisfied myself that the London Dock Labour Board was entirely within its rights in permitting the use of listed labour, and it appears to be the fact that the strikers themselves accept this. At the same time, given the resumption of normal work, there is nothing to prevent the men from raising through their union any objection with the Board, including their wish for a further investigation of their complaint about Lower Oliver's wharf.
I am informed that this is the advice the men have been given by their union. I understand that the immediate reason for the stoppage, that is, the use of listed men at Lower Oliver's wharf, has disappeared for the time being, as no unloading work is taking place there at present; in fact, the work involved is only two days a month, or, occasionally, two days every three weeks.
In the interest of the country, the men, and the future of the Port of London, I would, therefore, urge the strikers to return to work at once and take up the matter through constitutional channels.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this unofficial strike of 13,000 men is, of course, contrary to an arrangement made with the Dock Labour Board, on which the trade union representatives were consulted and to which they agreed, and that, as a result of the strike, an immense quantity of food and vegetables is slowly going to rot and our exports are being held up?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a strong feeling in the country that, to avoid a repetition of the experience we had with the tally clerks'

911
strike, which lasted 27 days, the Government should not allow things to drift and will before long have to step in and do something about it?
Mr. Hare: I think that the whole House will agree that strikes which are unconstitutional are highly regrettable not only from the point of view of the employers and the men themselves, but for the country as a whole. I think that that view is shared by most hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The situation is that within the docks there are about 30,000 tons of food in all, but at the moment the only commodities for which immediate concern is felt are onions, oranges and lemons. Of course, if the situation continues to develop adversely, the food situation will be more serious.
Mr. Lindsay: With the appalling waste of these recurrent unofficial stoppages not only in the docks, but also in the motor industry, are not we reaching the position when, however reluctantly, we should consider whether the State should underwrite agreements between employers and labour so that when employers break agreements the companies will be fined, and when labour breaks agreements the workers will not be able to draw P.A.Y.E. refunds, strike pay, unemployment benefit, or National Assistance?
Mr. Hare: I think that we should be very careful what we say. Dealing with the situation as we find it today, I think that both sides of the House must surely have this in common, that we are anxious that these men should be given a chance of responding to the call of their union.
Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that almost everything that he has said is warmly supported on this side of the House. He is looking, as I am sure we all are, for a formula for these men to go back to work. Nevertheless, reverting to the point he made about an investigation, may I put this to him—without, I hope, causing embarrassment to anyone who is trying to do a very difficult job at the moment?
I believe that this particular firm has quite a history. Would it not be a good thing if the Minister would be a little more forthright on the question of an
912
inquiry, not only on the question of this particular strike, but, as it were, on earlier activities? If he were to emphasise that, and get such an inquiry going, is it not likely that the men would go back first thing in the morning?
Mr. Hare: I have already made it clear that if the men go back, they will have every right to take up their desire for an investigation with their union leaders.
Sir P. Agnew: In spite of the fact that some of these perishable foodstuffs may have been dumped here and to that extent are injuring our own horitcultural producers, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless take note that the public are very gravely inconvenienced by this strike, and will he consult with his colleagues in the Government with a view to taking a more robust attitude about this matter which, in the time of the Labour Government, culminated in their putting the Services in so that the public of London and the rest of the country were not put to this very great inconvenience?
Mr. Hare: I assure my hon. Friend that our desire at the moment must be to get the men back; but, of course, if the situation deteriorates the Government will watch it extremely carefully and will take the measures which the particular circumstances indicate are necessary.
Mr. G. Brown: May I express to the Minister our hope that he will stand up robustly to those on his side of the House who are giving him advice which would turn out to be quite disastrous in this situation? Those of us who know Mr. O'Leary know that he is standing up very courageously in a very difficult situation. Will the Minister continue to support the claims of those who are trying to work through the proper machinery, because, in the long run, that will pay us much better than what looks like more courageous action now?
Mr. Hare: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman will realise from what I said in my original Answer that that is my view. Against that, it is our duty, as a Government, to watch the situation very carefully. If it does deteriorate, it may be necessary for us to take action which, obviously, is not applicable to the present moment.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. G. Johnson Smith: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a personal statement.
On Thursday, 27th April, at a meeting of the Primrose League, I made some remarks intended to be of a purely humorous character about hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. These remarks of mine had no malicious intent whatsover. However, I very much regret it if they have caused any offence or hurt, and I withdraw them unreservedly. I particularly wish to apologise to those hon. Members opposite to whom my remarks applied. I hope that the House will accept my apology.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.47 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  For many years, the Cunard Steamship Co., Ltd., has operated an express weekly passenger service across the Atlantic with the two vessels which are known as the "Queen" ships, the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth". The "Queen Mary" first sailed in 1936, and the end of her life is expected in 1965, in four years. The "Queen Elizabeth" is four years younger and, therefore, ought to last at least a further four years.
  The story started two or three years ago, when Cunard told the Government that it could not find enough capital, either from its own resources or by borrowing on the market, to replace the "Queen Mary" by a ship of the same class at current shipbuilding prices. The choice facing the Government was quite clear. Sooner or later, our express passenger service across the Atlantic would cease or Government assistance to build a successor ship to the "Queen Mary" would be necessary.
  At this point, it might be convenient to the House to examine the facts and nature of the express passenger North Atlantic service. I wish to distinguish between that express passenger service and the ordinary service across the Atlantic, because the express passenger service takes the cream of the passengers who go across the Atlantic by ship. In most of my speech, I shall be referring to the express service rather than the slower service.
  In the first place, it is the most travelled long sea route in the world. Secondly, it is the best known service in the world, and it gives British shipping and shipbuilding a unique chance to prove their worth in maritime activities, be they shipping services or shipbuilding skills.
  Thirdly, it is the most heavily subsidised service in the world, and, later, I will give details of the subsidies which various Governments give to their ships.

  915
  Fourthly, this route earns currency of all sorts—hard currency, dollar currency, and so on—for this country, which assists our balance of payments.
  Therefore, the previous Administration made two decisions. First, that this unique British service should not be allowed to die out because Cunard could not itself raise all the capital. The Government decided to assist, provided—and I said provided—there were genuine commercial prospects of a successful service, and provided, also, that reasonable financial arrangements could be made with Cunard. Accordingly, in the 1959 General Election Manifesto, the previous Government announced that, if returned, they would support the continuation of the North Atlantic British express passenger service. That was the first action they took. They pledged themselves, subject to these two provisos.
  Secondly, in September, 1959, the Government appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Viscount Chandos to advise them on all the complicated issues involved. These included many questions, for example, what were the commercial prospects, what was the best size and type of ship, and what should be the extent and form of the Government's assistance. Lord Chandos was the Chairman of that Committee, which took evidence from Cunard, from other ship-owners and from many other interests.
  The Committee used the Economist Intelligence Unit to make a long-term survey of the probable trends in sea traffic. It asked Research Services, Limited, to analyse the reasons why passengers travel by sea, and also to assess whether those reasons might continue to prevail in the future. With the help of the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department, known as Y.A.R.D., it examined several different types and sizes of ship and various types and patterns of service. Many technical aspects were given exhaustive study.
  I think that it would be appropriate, at this stage, if I said that the Government are very grateful for the thorough way in which this Committee tackled a rather difficult job, with all its complications and complex issues.
  Mr. E, Shinwell: Why did you not publish the Report?
  Mr. Marples: That question was addressed to Mr. Speaker, and not to me, but I can say that the Report was not published because, when he was given the terms of reference, Viscount Chandos was told that the evidence would be confidential, and that the Report would be confidential, too. If Viscount Chandos and his Committee took evidence in confidence, and, if afterwards, they were to break that confidence, that is something which the right hon. Gentleman will surely know is a breach of faith. I am sure that he will be the last person to say that a breach of faith of that sort should be committed, and I am quite certain that I shall carry him with me in that particular respect.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: On this very important point about the Chandos Committee, would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, in the terms of reference of that Committee, it was not allowed to go into other aspects of this problem?
  Mr. Marples: The terms of reference were announced and were accepted by the House, and the Committee went to work on these terms of reference. It is rather pointless now to say that the terms of reference should be altered. They were accepted by the House, and it was made quite clear to Lord Chandos, who carried out these terms of reference, that that is what the Committee was asked to do.
  Sir Peter Agnew: My right hon. Friend has said that the terms of reference were accepted by the House. Was there ever a Motion before the House?
  Mr. Marples: The Government announced the terms of reference to the House in the time of the previous Administration, and the time to raise objections was then, and not after the Committee had reported. After it has reported is rather too late. Therefore, I say that the Government are grateful for the thorough manner in which the Committee tackled its task.
  On 1st June, 1960, a summary of the recommendations was circulated in HANSARD. In brief, the Committee recommended a ship of 75,000 gross tons, with a service speed of 29½ knots, 990 feet overall length, and with a passenger capacity of 2,270. The total cost was not to exceed £30 million, Cunard providing

  917
  £12 million and the Government the remaining £18 million as a loan bearing 4½ per cent. interest from the date when the ship came into service. There were provisions dealing also with depreciation, the security of the Government loan and its redemption.
  Finally, the Committee recommended the construction of the ship by competitive tender. These recommendations were acceptable to Cunard. All this made it clear that the Government could redeem their election pledge and ensure the continuation of the Atlantic service on reasonable terms. The Government accepted the recommendations subject to some financial modifications which I will explain later. In November, 1960, the details of the Government's decision were announced to the House.
  In Clause I of the Bill, the Government seek Parliamentary authority to give effect to that decision, and the way in which the Government propose to use that authority is explained in the White Paper, which sets out the memorandum of points of agreement—what I call the heads of agreement—between Cunard and the Government. The final details of the legal formal agreement will be laid before Parliament, and will, of course, be based upon the memorandum in the White Paper.
  At this stage, I should like to compare the Chandos Committee recommendations and the Government's proposals. The recommendations about the characteristics of the new ship and the basis of tendering are accepted as they stand, and I will explain them later. The new ship will be owned by a separate company, and this will be Cunard White Star, Limited, an existing wholly-owned subsidiary, but the ship will be maintained and operated by Cunard. That is important. The agreement will provide for the maintenance of British control of both Cunard and Cunard White Star, Limited, and in view of the take-over bids from other countries, it is necessary to have these provisions in our agreement.
  There were four modifications to the Chandos Committee's financial recommendations, and I should like to explain them. First, on the form the assistance should take, the Committee recommended that the loan should bear
  918
  interest at 4½ per cent. per annum. The subsidy element is obviously the difference between 4½ per cent. and the rate of interest normally charged by the Public Works Loan Board. The Government agreed that the amount of assistance should be calculated in this way, but we considered that the expedient of giving an artificially low rate of interest was, in effect, concealing the actual subsidy. We did not wish to conceal the subsidy, and, therefore, we prefer the usual interest at the rate normally charged by the Public Works Loan Board. The difference between that rate and the 4½ per cent. recommended would be given to Cunard by way of an outright grant. In this way, the size of the assistance is not concealed. It is there for all to see. As recommended by the Committee, Cunard would get the amount of assistance recommended, but in another form. It is not concealed. Everybody can see it, and I am sure that it is better, if a subsidy is given, that we should all know what the sum is, rather than that it should be at an artificially low rate of interest. In practice, this is how it would work.
  Let us assume that the total cost is £30 million, and that the Government loan is up to £18 million. The £18 million loaned by the Government will not bear interest at 4½ per cent., as suggested by the Chandos Committee. It would be split into two parts. First, a loan of £14¾ millions at 6¼ per cent., which is the rate now ruling, and, secondly, an outright grant of £3¼ million, which would enable Cunard to have its subsidy.
  The second alteration was on how to meet the cost of the ship, which, as the House will recall, was estimated to be not more than £30 million. The recommendation of the Committee was that Cunard would pay a fixed sum of £12 million and that the Government would raise the rest of the cost up to a maximum of £18 million. The new arrangement is that the Government and Cunard will contribute in the proportion of three to two up to a maximum of £30 million. If it costs more than £30 million, Cunard will pay the excess, so that under the new arrangement it is in the interests of the Cunard Company to keep down the cost of the ship. That did not apply in the arrangement suggested by the Committee.

  919
  The third alteration was concerning the date when payment of the interest on the loan was to start. The recommendation of the Committee was, broadly, that it should start from the date when the ship entered service. The new arrangement is that interest will be charged from the date when the cash is actually advanced, and I think that this is a much more businesslike arrangement than the one the Committee recommended. But as the ship cannot earn anything until it is in service, the interest accruing during construction will be added to the loan and will be repayable on the same terms.
  The fourth alteration was this. The Committee recommended that if profits on Cunard's investment were less than 3 per cent. per annum there should be a reduction of the interest charges received by the Government. This has been abandoned. Now there will be no reduction in the Government's rate of interest, even if the Cunard's investment earns less than 3 per cent. The Committee also recommended that if profits were greater than 7 per cent. repayments of capital should be accelerated. This rate of 7 per cent. has been raised to 7½ per cent., partly as a quid pro quo for the previous concession. Apart from these differences, depreciation and redemption of and security for the Government loan are as recommended.
  Those are what I call the facts of the story. I should like to examine in greater detail some aspects of that story. First, I wish to deal with the size and type of ship and the type of service which should be provided. It has been suggested in many quarters that the new ship should be smaller. Critics have put forward differing sizes, ranging from 30,000 tons to 70,000 tons. On this question we must bear in mind what is our object. It is to provide a weekly service with two ships or a fortnightly service with one ship. This is the standard of the express passenger service provided by the "United States" and the "France" as well as by the existing "Queens". To provide a weekly service means that a crossing must take five days or less because of the time taken in the turn round. A five day crossing of the Atlantic requires a high service speed. This can be attained only by a ship of about 1,000 feet in length if we want reasonable passenger comfort especially in the winter.
  920
  A technical formula which can be understood by laymen was set out in the leading article in the Shipbuilding and Shipping Record of 13th April. It is that the square root of the length in feet should be not less than the speed in knots. That is easy to work out. A speed of 30 knots demands a minimum length of 900 feet. The "United States" is 917 feet in length and has a normal service speed of 30 knots, although she can do more than that. The "France" will be 1,035 feet in length and will also have a service speed of about 30 knots. The new ship which we propose will be 990 feet in length, with a speed of 29½ knots.
  The Chandos Committee examined every possibility concerning the size of ship with the aid of the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department. For example, it examined the possibility of a ship of 52,000 tons, which would be the largest and, therefore, the most economic ship propelled by twin screws. This was unsatisfactory in several ways. The reduction in capital and operating costs would not be sufficient to offset the decrease in accommodation and earning capacity. Moreover, it could not be relied upon to keep a decent service in the winter. A smaller ship with the same engine power would be even less economic. A smaller ship with a reduced engine power and, therefore, reduced cruising speed could not provide an express passenger service of the same standard as that now provided either by Cunard or by its main competitors.
  These considerations also rule out a dual-purpose ship operating, shall we say, on winter cruises. Many people suggested that we should have a ship of a certain size which, in winter, could take people on "summer cruises" to the West Indies. But if it was to be used for summer cruises to the West Indies and berth at certain places it would not be able to fulfil the requirements of a ship crossing the North Atlantic. Any ship which can operate on the Atlantic express passenger service is bound to be unsuitable for other trades.
  Another suggestion is that nuclear propulsion should be used. I wish that this were possible, but it is not. Nuclear

  921
  propulsion is not yet sufficiently developed and we cannot delay the building of the new ship because the life of the present ship, the "Queen Mary", will be finished in 1965 and she will become extremely expensive to operate after that date. The main initiative and responsibility rests with Cunard. Its long experience of the Atlantic makes it the best judge of what is wanted, and the technical assistance provided by the Admiralty Research Department will help in making sure that a really fine ship is built.
  I think that it would be right if I made a comparison between the subsidies which are paid by various nations on this specialised express service. We must remember that if we ask a private enterprise firm here to compete with other ships which are heavily subsidised and say to it, "We will give you no subsidy", it is obvious that it will not live in the competitive race. We must bear that in mind. There was a letter in The Times today which asked why a firm should have a subsidy. We must compare like with like. If it is to meet competition which is subsidised, it is folly to think that it can do so without a subsidy. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will contain himself for a moment, which he always does so easily in the House, I will try to analyse the subsidies which are paid.
  Subsidies can be of two sorts: first, on the capital costs; and, secondly, on the running costs. First, I wish to deal with subsidies on the capital costs. America provides a subsidy of 58 per cent. of the capital costs of her ships. France is providing 20 per cent. of the capital costs. The subsidy which we propose under the Bill, £3¼ million, is equal to a subsidy of 11 per cent. of the capital costs. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that we are subsidising Cunard excessively compared with other countries abroad.
  Mr. John Diamond: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one relevant point concerning the comparisons that he is making? Are the cases that he has mentioned strictly comparable? I bear in mind particularly such things as investment allowances. Do they apply in other countries?
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Member, who has been a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, knows very well that an analysis of the position in America, France and this country would take several hours. From the point of view of the cash given to this company by way of subsidy on capital costs, it is obvious that we are giving far less than is given by our competitors abroad.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the assets of the United States and French companies compared with the assets of the Cunard White Star?
  Mr. Marples: That is a very complicated thing to deal with by question and answer across the Floor of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to table a Question on the matter. Although I am not responsible for the assets of the American and French companies, if he tables a Question I will do my best to enlighten him if he does not know the answer.
  Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman is making the fair argument that it is necessary and right that this ship should be subsidised by the Government. May we take it from that that it is being said from the Government Front Bench that all future shipbuilding in this country will carry a subsidy?
  Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. What I said was that this is an express passenger service across the Atlantic which is unique, because every other country subsidises this route more heavily than any other route in the world. We therefore have either to get out of the route or to give a subsidy which, at any rate, gives the private enterprise firm a chance to compete with the higher subsidies given by other countries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not read into what I have said the interpretation that he indicated. I shall be very disappointed if he does.
  So much for the capital costs of the ship. A ship has running costs, too. The Americans subsidise the running costs of their ship, the "United States", to the extent of 28 per cent. The French provide a sum equal to any losses of the company. In our case, we are providing nothing for running costs. Therefore, I

  923
  think that it can be said that the subsidy which we are giving for this ship is less than the subsidy given by other countries for their ships, in respect of capital costs. We give nothing for running costs, and they give various amounts. While we may argue about subsidies, therefore, it is clear that the arrangement which has been made is a hardish bargain by the Government in these circumstances. The present subsidy is roughly comparable with the 1934 subsidy to the present "Queens".
  The Atlantic crossing has always been subsidised, from the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania" onwards. In the special circumstances of this route, we cannot expect Cunard, without a little subsidy towards the cost of the ship, to compete with France and America, who give a much bigger subsidy on the capital cost and also a subsidy on running costs, which we do not give.
  I turn to the question of the security and the repayment with interest of the Government loan. The first half of the new ship's life is likely to be the most profitable, and by the end of that time the earnings of the ship should have been enough to provide cover for repayment of almost all of the Government loan, in addition to the interest due. Until the loan has been repaid the return on the equity capital payable to the Cunard shareholders is pegged at a level of 7½ per cent. less Income Tax, and any excess will accelerate repayment of the Government loan. The Government will have a specific charge on the ship itself and the depreciation fund, too, and a floating charge on all the other assets of the Cunard White Star Company. The one exception to this is the revenue of the depreciation fund, on which the Government will have a floating charge and not a fixed charge.
  It has been suggested that the Government should take an equity interest in the new company, but we do not want to expose the taxpayers' money to any greater degree of risk than is necessary to secure the Government's object, which is the continuation of this service. In fact, with the insecurities which lie ahead the terms which have been secured are a good deal more favourable to the Government than any equity interest which would rank on equal terms with the Cunard equity shareholding.
  924
  I turn to the tenders. The Committee recommended that the ship should go to competitive tender to all the appropriate yards in this country, and invitations to tender were sent out by Cunard at the end of March to the six appropriate shipyards in this country—John Brown's and Fairfield's, on the Clyde; Harland and Wolff, of Belfast; Cammell Laird, of Birkenhead; and Swan Hunter's and Vickers-Armstrongs, on the Tyne. The Ministry, again with the advice of the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department, will be associated with Cunard in the assessment of the tenders received and the contract will be given to the firm which submits the best tender. The best tender will not necessarily be the lowest priced. It will be the best all-round proposition in terms of value for money. There are such things as delivery dates and many other technical details to take into account, and the acceptance of any tender depends upon Parliament passing this Bill.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit? He has said that it will not necessarily be the lowest price and that all kinds of conditions may be attached. Recently, he announced in the House that another facet would be that the shipyard must be sited in a local unemployment area. Does that still apply? If a shipyard is sited adjacent to a local unemployment area, such as Swan Hunter's, will it be considered equally with the others?
  Mr. Marples: The hon. Member's basic question is made on a false assumption. In answer to a supplementary question I said that the normal procedure for a Government contract was that, other things being equal, it should go to an area scheduled as an area which required more employment.
  This is not a Government contract. It is being given by Cunard with the assistance of the Government. In any case, in a ship of this complexity and size it is highly improbable that other things will be equal. I am certain that some firm will produce a tender which will be acceptable, and I cannot believe that in so complex a ship costing £30 million two tenders will be identical. I hope that that relieves the hon. Member's anxiety.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: In answering a Question a few weeks ago the Minister suggested that Cunard would have the final word in deciding the acceptance of the tender. May we be assured that Cunard will have the decisive say in which tender it will accept?
  Mr. Marples: If the Government are giving a loan of this sort, Cunard will naturally initiate it and will decide it, but Cunard will have the assistance of the Ministry and the Admiralty Research Department; and, naturally, we shall all have to reach an agreement together. Where £18 million of Government money are involved, we must be certain that the tender goes to the right person.
  Dame Irene Ward rose—
  Mr. Popplewell: This is every important.
  Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Member has had one go.
  Mr. Popplewell: Do I understand that the Minister is renouncing the impression which he created in the country a little while ago when he said that the decisive factor would be the siting of work within a local unemployment area? Is he withdrawing that? Does he mean that those yards which are not within such an area, but are adjacent to it, will be considered on equal terms with all the rest?
  Mr. Marples: That point arose many weeks ago. I will send the hon. Member the record in HANSARD, SO that he can study it. It was said many weeks ago. The hon. Member has not read his HANSARD; otherwise, he would not ask that question.
  Mr. Popplewell rose—
  Mr. Marples: I give way now to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
  Dame Irene Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way to me. How much will the House of Commons know when the tenders are received and when the decision has been taken? How much information are we to be given so that we may be assured that the tender has been awarded on the basis which my right hon. Friend outlined to us? This is
  926
  a very important matter to all rivers, and we want as much information as we can possibly be given.
  Mr. Marples: Tenders coming to the Government are always treated as confidential. This is the usual practice of all Governments on contracts, whether for roads, houses, schools, or anything else, and this will be treated in precisely the same way. The final form of legal agreement will be presented to the House and the House will be able to see it.
  May I turn from the North-East Coast to the insurance of these ships? The Government have provided insurance for both Queens.
  Mr. Percy Collick: The impression prevailing in shipyards throughout the country is that the sole criterion is price. On the basis of the Minister's previous statement, the empression was that the decision about the tender would be given by the Government solely on price. I am sure that many of my colleagues will agree that that was the opinion in the country, whatever it may be in the Government. The opinion is that the decision on the tender would be on price. Today, the Minister has added one or two other considerations. He ought to make it abundantly clear to the country what the other considerations are.
  Mr. Marples: The impression has never been created that it was solely a matter of price. It is a matter of value for money. If a certain yard, on a £30 million contract, tendered £10,000 cheaper and a five-year longer delivery date, does the hon. Member imagine that the Government would accept the lowest price? Not on your life. The Government will accept the tender which is the best value for money, technically and in terms of delivery date and in terms of price, quality and many other things. I do not wish to take too long on this matter, because the House has not very long to debate it.
  I turn to the question of insurance. The Government provided insurance on these lines for both the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth". From Clause 2 it will be seen that the value of the new ships will be such that it is likely that the normal insurance market will be unable to cover all the insurance. Therefore, the Government intend to

  927
  provide insurance for such part of the value of the ship as the normal insurance market cannot cover. This will apply to the usual marine risks on the hull and the machinery and also to war risks and third party liability risks. Normal commercial rates will be charged and that is precisely what happened with the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth". That arrangement was a separate arrangement from the financial assistance which the Government provided some four years later by way of subsidy in 1934, and it turned out that the Government made a considerable profit from their insurance of those ships.
  I must emphasise that the insurance proposals do not constitute financial assistance to the Cunard Company since full payment will be charged for risks underwritten by the Government. Nor will the Government be competing in any way with the normal insurance market. The market will have first refusal of the business, and the Government will only underwrite such part of the risk as the market is unable to accept. The insurance agreement will be subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
  I have concentrated on this issue of a subsidy for a North Atlantic ship and the Cunard Company. It has been asked if the Government are committed to a second ship. The proposed arrangements relate only to the replacement of the "Queen Mary". The "Queen Elizabeth" will have several years of life even after the new ship enters service. The question of her replacement will not, therefore, arise for some time. The Chandos Committee explicitly refrained from making any recommendation on a second ship because it recognised that by the time it became necessary to make a decision about it conditions might be quite different in two respects. First, the commercial prospects of the service and, secondly, in the type of ship which it might be feasible to introduce. The present proposed arrangements for the replacement of the "Queen Mary" therefore leave the question of the "Queen Elizabeth" entirely open. The Government have entered into no commitment on the point, stated or implied.
  I would finish by saying that it would be wrong to draw from the Bill—and
  928
  this is the answer to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—any far-reaching conclusion on the Government's policy either towards the shipping industry or on the general question of investment in private industry.
  The object of the Bill is to secure the continuance of the British express passenger service across the North Atlantic, and the Government have considered this to be a proper object of national policy. This North Atlantic express passenger service is a unique matter in both the intensity of subsidised competition and the peculiar significance to the nation of the express service which the Cunard Company has for so long and so splendidly maintained.
  I have tried to cover as many of the points as I could in this Second Reading speech in the shortest possible time. I hope that I have explained it reasonably fully, but I want to make it quite clear that this ship, we are convinced, will make a contribution. The crucial part is the first half of its life. The Chandos Committee did think that this trend to travel by sea would continue for some time. Naturally, more people will go by air, but the point is that more people are travelling more frequently; in the affluent society they tend to spend more money on travel.
  Therefore, the Chandos Committee, consisting of very eminent and distinguished people, and backed by expensive research, was convinced that it would be possible for the sea to attract a number of passengers over the next ten to fifteen years. Some people go for a holiday for health reasons and go because they like, for instance, to get away from the telephone. It is fortunate that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is not here, but sometimes it is a comfort to be away for five days and not have the telephone ringing.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will there be no telephones in the new ship?
  Mr. Marples: Yes, there will be telephones there, but they will be so expensive that people will not use them.
  Having explored this subject exhaustively, and having gone into all the technical aspects of what I consider the reasonably good terms, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading without a Division.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: We have listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that I have ever heard a speech by a Minister, speaking from that Front Bench, which was received with as little enthusiasm from his supporters behind him as this one. There was not one murmur of approval when the right hon. Gentleman sat down. Indeed, there was what has been called "a resounding silence", which was most impressive.
  I wonder what we shall hear during the rest of the debate. We know from past experience—on Wednesday afternoons—that a number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House axe critical of the proposal, as they have been sniping at the Minister at Question Time at every opportunity. Today, looking at the serried ranks of hostile faces behind him, and seeing that nearly all hon. Members opposite have speech notes in their hands, we wonder whether we are to witness a grand assault. It will be very enjoyable to us on this side of the House to witness this new split in the Conservative Party.
  I suppose, from the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting next to the Minister of Transport, that it is he who will answer this debate. He will find that he will have a number of important and difficult questions to answer, some of which I hope to put to him, and others by my hon. Friends, and some which will, no doubt, be put to him from hon. Members sitting behind him. We had rather hoped—anyhow, I had, personally—that the new Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport would have taken his plunge today as a Front Bench speaker and given us his views.
  However, although the is not to speak, apparently, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him warmly on his promotion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—which, in the opinion of all of us, I think, is well deserved, not only on the ground of the qualities he has shown as a Parliamentarian, but because of his distinguished naval career. We hope that he will be able to inject into his Ministry a sense of urgency on the problems concerning the shipping and shipbuilding industry, a sense of urgency which seems to so many of us, I think on both sides of the
  930
  House, to have been so gravely lacking during recent years. What we hope to get from the Ministry in future is action and not excuses for inaction.
  Some of the underlying troubles of the shipbuilding and shipping industry will, no doubt, be raised during the debate this afternoon by hon. Members, but I propose to confine myself to the substance of the Bill before us in the hope that we shall be able to have, before long, another debate in which we can concentrate on the broader problems of these industries.
  We are being asked to endorse a Government proposal to grant a subsidy and a loan to the Cunard Company to enable it to replace the "Queen Mary" by another prestige North Atlantic liner of the same type. Two questions arise, therefore, which have to be considered today. Is it wise, in these days, to use substantial national resources for such a purpose at all, and, if so, are the financial terms of which the Government propose to do so fair to the taxpayer?
  Let us consider, first, the wisdom of building a new ship of the "Queen" class. The Minister told us the grounds on which he and the Government believe this to be desirable, but when we are considering this matter it is important to appreciate the manner and the timing of the Government's decision. The Government have developed the strange habit of making a decision on highly technical matters, announcing them, and subsequently appointing an authoritative and expert committee to consider the wisdom of the decision and its consequences.
  They have recently done that on two occasions. They did so over the break-up of the British Transport Commission. The Prime Minister announced that in the Government's view it was desirable to alter the structure of British Railways. He announced that, as far as we know, out of the blue. It was contrary to the subsequently published views of the Select Committee that was sitting on the matter at the time.
  The announcement was made and then, afterwards, the right hon. Gentleman set up the expert Stedeford Committee to consider how this could be done. Again, another bad habit of the Government in this matter is that when such an expert committee is set up the

  931
  House of Commons is deprived of an opportunity to study its report and is so put at a great disadvantage. The Government have behaved similarly in the matter which is before us today. Without, as far as we are aware, seeking the advice of any independent authority, the Prime Minister announced—in the course of the General Election, be it noted—that the Government had decided to give financial support for the replacement of the "Queens".
  Mr. Bence: The Prime Minister said that in Glasgow.
  Mr. Strauss: At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman announced that an expert committee was to be set up, consisting of a senior partner in a shipping company and of a chartered accountant, with Lord Chandos as chairman, to report on the "best and fairest" way—those were the words used—of giving this financial support.
  As I have said, this decision was announced during the course of the General Election. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was largely concerned at the time in putting forward in the election manifesto some matter which appeared attractive to the electorate. But it is all the more necessary now, when we are in calmer political waters, to examine very carefully the merits of the proposals then put forward and to consider, in particular, whether, since that announcement was made, events have not developed which cast doubts on the wisdom of the original decision.
  The success of the North Atlantic passenger sea transport service depends primarily on the number of passengers who, during the next twenty years or so, are likely to cross it in luxury liners. An article in the Daily Telegraph last week, which some hon. Members may have read, recited the pessimistic forecast, which later proved to be false, when the Government, in 1934, agreed to help with financial resources the completion of the "Queen Mary". Since then, conditions have changed fundamentally. We are now living in an age of air transport, and all experience shows that this is not only growing with amazing speed, but it is steadily displacing the more leisurely form of transport by sea. This is particularly true of the North Atlantic crossing.
  932
  Let us consider some of the figures which have been published recently. In 1948, 637,000 people crossed the North Atlantic by sea and only 240,000 by air. Ten years later, in 1958, more people crossed by air than by sea. The number of sea passengers was 958,000 and the number of air passengers 1,193,000. The change since 1958 from sea transport to air transport has accelerated considerably, and it is an important factor to bear in mind that this acceleration has been particularly marked since 1959, when the Prime Minister announced the Government's decision.
  Sir James Duncan: Are these international figures or British figures, and are they confined to luxury liners?
  Mr. Strauss: I am quoting them from a letter which appeared a little while ago in The Times and which have not been contradicted by anybody. I accept them as correct. If they are false, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will give other figures.
  According to that same source, during last year the number of air passengers rose to nearly 2 million while the number of sea passengers crossing the North Atlantic dropped to 866,000. There is, therefore, a decline in the number of sea passengers crossing the North Atlantic and it is also stated in the same letter, and I assume it to be correct, that the number of passengers who crossed in the "Queens" last year dropped by 6 per cent.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman should remember, in relation to that last quotation, that the dock strike had a considerable effect on the number of passengers on the "Queens" last year.
  Mr. Strauss: That may be so, but even taking that into account I think that the trend is quite clear and I do not think that anyone will deny that it will continue and probably accelerate considerably during the coming years.
  Mr. John Howard: I have figures from Southampton Docks. The passengers going to the United States and Canada in 1959 and 1960 were 163,000 and 169,000 respectively.
  Mr. Strauss: I was talking about the double journey.
  Mr. Howard: These figures relate to the double journey.
  Mr. Strauss: It may be that the hon. Gentleman's figures are correct. I have been quoting from the letter in The Times, which has not been contradicted and which said that there has been a 6 per cent. fall.
  The House will have noted that in view of the greater desire of passengers crossing the Atlantic to travel faster by air in greater numbers, air fares are coming down rapidly. They have been reduced and are to be reduced further. According to the proposals of many of the airlines they will be reduced substantially in the next year or two. One must therefore accept the fact that the chances of increasing the number of passengers on ships crossing the Atlantic in the next twenty years or so are very bleak indeed.
  The Minister of Transport made a number of points in favour of the Government's proposals. He said that all other countries subsidise the trans-Atlantic passenger service.
  Mr. Marples: The express services.
  Mr. Strauss: If we want to compete, we must do it, also. I do not think that anyone can deny that. I certainly do not. America, France and Italy do so, and I understand that Russia is now likely to try to put a ship in this service. But this means that with the new ships built by these countries there is likely to be increased capacity on the North Atlantic to meet a falling number of passengers. Competition therefore will be more difficult and more intense than ever.
  Mr. John Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend not recollect that his own figures have shown that the total number crossing the North Atlantic by air and by sea has vastly increased since 1947 and that the figures which he has given show that the traffic is there?
  Mr. Strauss: I will give figures year by year if my hon. Friend would like to have them, but I have tried to show that the sea crossings have fallen. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] All right, perhaps somebody will give authoritative figures later which will be contrary to mine.
  934
  The question is whether, in view of all this, it is desirable to compete in this trade or to leave this very hazardous business to other countries and to use our resources on more modern ventures which are likely to be commercially more successful and in every way nationally more advantageous.
  The same considerations apply to the arguments put forward by the Minister of Transport, and others outside the House, about the prestige of maintaining this service. Many maintain that it is desirable, for these purposes, for Britain to have these ships. I wonder? Compared with other potential achievements, will Britain really gain so much by having a fine, possibly the finest, liner on the North Atlantic route? Is it really worth trying to maintain what has been described as an "out-moded status symbol"? One has the feeling that people who think that way are living in the past, are indulging in nostalgic images of bygone glories—with their minds attuned to the first part, rather than to the second part, of the twentieth century.
  Mr. Howard: Would the right hon. Member not agree that, according to his argument, the Canadians and the Americans are apparently living in the past, although they provide 70 per cent. of the passengers for the "Queens"?
  Mr. Strauss: If they are indulging in folly, that is no reason why we should do likewise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Whatever may be said, I know that the view is taken by many hon. Gentlemen opposite that this form of investment in the present age is very doubtful.
  Mr. Bence: May I inform my right hon. Friend that the "Empress of Britain" sailed on her maiden voyage from Greenock last week, and that she was loaded with passengers?
  Mr. Strauss: That may be so, but I do not know what subsidy the "Empress of Britain" received in her building. We are at the moment considering the placing of our resources, and, of course, of the taxpayers' money, on a particular venture.
  I believe that Britain's prestige in the eyes of the world will depend in the coming years on such things as our social and cultural achievements: our attitude to commonwealth and world affairs and

  935
  our contribution to the advancement of science, rather than to the maintenance of our competitive position in this highly difficult and contracting business.
  Two arguments advanced by the Minister must receive special consideration. First, in spite of what appear to be the highly unfavourable economic prospects of any new North Atlantic luxury ships, the Cunard Company takes a different view, since it is prepared to invest £12 million of its shareholders' money in this enterprise, on condition, of course, that the Government put up a large sum with a subsidy attached. If this proposal is such a good commercial proposition I wonder whether it would not have been possible for the Cunard Company to have put up all the money that was required for this venture. It is clear, from a study of the company's last balance sheet, that its reserves for ship replacement and other general purposes amounts to £38 million. It seems that the company is not short of money, or at least its credit is good, and that if it wanted to borrow the necessary money it could have done so.
  The other argument in favour of the Bill is a powerful one, that the building of a "Queen" replacement will provide badly needed work in one of our shipyards and additional work for many of the ancillary shipbuilding trades. We are all aware that the prospects for our shipbuilding and ancillary industries over the next five years are poor. The cause of this sorry state of affairs has been due in part to world conditions over which our industry had no control and, in part, to internal defects for which responsibility does rest with the industry and which, we hope, Government pressure will soon remedy.
  But whatever the causes, the fact remains that the tonnage likely to be built in Britain's shipyards during the next five years will be well below capacity, and some of the yards may be wholly or partially idle. This, of course, will have serious consequences to those who work in them, many of whom may not be able to get employment elsewhere.
  For this reason alone, we propose not to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, but to try to remove most of its objectionable features at a later stage. In this connection, the first question we
  936
  would like to be answered is whether it would not have been better for the interests of the shipbuilding industry, if those interests rather than sentiment motivated the Government, to have built several smaller ships, so spreading the work to a number of shipbuilding yards.
  Many people in the shipbuilding industry support the view that a number of first-class smaller ships might have served their interests better. Two fine liners, the "Canberra" and the "Orion" have recently been built by P. & O. at a cost of £30 million—without that company having to obtain any subsidy from the Exchequer.
  If the major consideration of the Government is to help the British shipbuilding industry, hon. Gentlemen are bound to be wondering whether that help could have been given by a number of other means, such as fiscal policy, which would not have singled out one company for assistance, and such policy would have obviated the need for a Government subsidy which we so deplore when indulged in by other Governments.
  Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is deploying his argument against the Bill in a masterly way, yet he has told the House that he does not intend to vote against the Second Reading.
  Mr. Strauss: The value of the Bill to the nation is in grave doubt. Nevertheless, it has some favourable objectives, one of which is the work it will provide for our shipbuilding industry.
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that his party is not given to honouring an election pledge. That is where the right hon. Gentleman is luckier than are we.
  Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member made an exceptionally important statement in that last remark. The Conservative Party is bound by a pledge given at election time, possibly partly for electioneering purposes, and although subsequent events have produced arguments contrary to that pledge the Conservative Party feels bound to proceed with the matter. That does not prevent hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House from feeling free to criticise the Bill. Because of certain advantages which will accrue from the passing of the Bill, my hon. Friends and I do not propose to

  937
  vote against its Second Reading, out we hope to remove many of its objectionable features at a later stage.
  Mr. John Peyton: Am I correct in thinking that the sole reason for the right hon. Gentleman taking a neutral attitude towards the Bill is for employment considerations in the shipbuilding industry? If that is the case, it would seem a very locally confined view to be taking.
  Mr. Strauss: Definitely yes, as far as I am concerned. The employment factor is so important that we feel we cannot oppose the Bill.
  Mr. John Rodgers: While the right hon. Gentleman says that his main consideration is that of employment in the shipbuilding industry, can he say what concessions he hopes to wrest from the Minister which will meet the objections that he has to the Bill?
  Mr. Strauss: We hope to improve the Bill by altering for example, its financial provisions which, we think, are entirely wrong, although I will deal with that matter later. It seems to us that there are other ways in which the Government could have helped the industry if they had so desired, but that would not have contained the many objections which this Bill possesses.
  I turn now to the financial side of the Government's proposal. In spite of what the Minister said, we must anticipate that in a few years' time the Cunard Company will come to us with very strong arguments for demanding a similar subsidy for a second Queen. The reason why it will do that is one known to everyone connected with the shipping industry. It has been stated by the Cunard Company spokesman that to run an express North Atlantic service successfully two ships are necessary. For that reason, the American Government are at the moment authorising the building of a sister ship to the "United States". We must, therefore, anticipate that before long the Cunard Company will ask for a further subsidy. The Government may not give it, but when we are considering the financial provisions in this case we must assume that we shall be asked to agree to similar financial provisions for another ship.
  938
  The £18 million which the Government will provide by way of loan and subsidy amounts to about 60 per cent. of the cost of the ship. My first comment is that at the proposed 4½ per cent. rate of interest—if one considers it solely from the interest point of view—the terms are far more favourable than the Government are prepared to accept for financing the nationalised industries or local authorities for essential public services.
  The next point—we must bear this in mind when considering this proposal—is that this is another example, a striking one, of the different attitudes which the Government take to the spending of public money for social purposes and for helping private industry. Patients under the National Health Service will now have to pay more out of their own pockets for the drugs that they need when they are ill, but the Treasury can always find sufficient money to help private industry. No doubt this is all good Conservative doctrine. The Government are certainly applying it to a rapidly increasing extent.
  The Economist, in its 22nd April issue, gave some interesting figures which serve as a background for this debate. It did so in an article entitled appropriately "Public assistance to industry". It showed that in the previous Budget £378 million was provided for this purpose, and that this year—of course, nothing is included for the "Queens"—the figure has risen to £401 million. Most of this goes to the farming industry, but of particular significance in relation to this debate is that the aid given this year to industry proper amounts to £77 million, which is six times greater than the amount actually paid out three years ago. The present Administration may, therefore, be "of the people and by the people", but it is certainly "for big business".
  The objection that we have to the Government helping industry by loan or subsidy is not so much that it does so, but the way it does so. The worst features of the Bill are the terms, so patently disadvantageous to the nation, on which the Exchequer support is to be provided. In no previous case, as far as I am aware, with the possible exception of Colvilles, has it been so shameless. If the State provides 60 per cent. of the money—without which the ship could not be built—if, as the

  939
  Cunard Company presumably believes, this venture is likely to prove profitable, why should not the State participate in those profits? Why should there not be real partnership between the State and private industry?
  The Minister of Transport dealt with that point, in passing, in, I thought, a most extraordinary way. He said that he refuses to accept this principle, because he does not want to "expose taxpayers' money to any greater degree of risk than necessary". This is really most extraordinary. If a finance house in the City proposed a big scheme for financing an industrial development, it would never accept the terms which the Chancellor has accepted in this case.
  I could give the House many examples of the quite proper demands of banks and finance houses undertaking financing operations of this sort which ask for—and have their demands accepted—some equity in the venture and some chance of getting the money back and making a little profit if the venture succeeds.
  Mr. J. Howard: This is interesting. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the finance houses in the City which ask for a share in the equity and, at the same time, guarantee not only as a first charge the repayment of the mortgage, but for equity shareholders the repayment of the £18 million as a first charge?
  Mr. Strauss: I think that I can help the Government from my own knowledge. A little time ago, just before the iron and steel industry was nationalised, the Steel Company of Wales required £35 million, a sum similar to that required for the building of the new "Queen". The Finance Corporation of Industry said that it would advance this money on debentures, but on the condition that it had an option on equity shares. That condition was accepted. The result of the condition was that the State had to pay the Finance Corporation of Industry, when it nationalised the industry £2¼ million, the value of the equity shares which it had acquired as a result of the condition it had laid down. That is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman and also a complete answer to the Government.
  Mr. Howard: It is nothing of the sort. That was an option to acquire equity
  940
  shares. In the case of the Cunard Company it is a guarantee by the Cunard Company that in the event of the Cunard White Star, the subsidiary company, being unable to repay the whole of the £18 million, the Cunard Company, the parent company, will repay the funds.
  Mr. Strauss: The fact is that in the case that I mentioned there were debentures which the Finance Corporation of Industry held, and on top of that—I could give hon. Members opposite other examples—an equity interest was demanded. Sometimes that is demanded in participating debenture shares. If it is right for the Finance Corporation of Industry, which is a semi-public body, to make such a request, why is it not right for the Government to do so, too?
  What reason can there be for putting such huge sums of the taxpayers' money in a venture of this sort and saying that if it turns out profitably the profits are to go only to those people who put up 40 per cent. of the money? It seems to me to be utterly inexcusable. The Minister's statement that he does not want to risk the taxpayer's money unduly is wholly irrelevant. There is no greater risk in asking for an option of this sort or in demanding participating debentures.
  I must add, because this is an exceedingly important point, that the Government's refusal to ask for some participation in possible profits has—the Minister probably knows this, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, too—surprised most respectable pillars of the Conservative Party. I should like to quote comments by The Times and the Financial Times on this matter. I think that in this respect I could not be in more respectable company.
  The Shipping Correspondent of The Times wrote on 1st July, 1959, which was before the announcement of the Government's decision:
  "If the new Queens are built with Government money the only proper method would be to detach them from the remainder of the Cunarder Group. Either the Government could build the ships and let the Cunard manage them, or a new company could be set up with Cunard and the Government sharing the equity."
  The Financial Times said, on 6th June, 1960:
  "If there is a prospect of a profit why should not the Government participate in the

  941
  equity? Once again, as in the £50 million loan to Colvilles, it appears that public loan capital is providing gearing for the equity. A change of plan here would go a long way to allaying any public disquiet which may develop in the matter."
  Public disquiet has developed, and we hope and believe that the House will support us in the view that, in this respect, the agreement reached between the Government and the Cunard Company is highly objectionable and utterly indefensible.
  To sum up. We doubt the wisdom of providing millions of pounds from our national resources in building a replacement for the "Queen Mary". The Chandos Committee considered the trends in the numbers of passengers who are using the "Queens", but we wonder whether that Committee took into account the latest figures available, which show the trends to be unfavourable. We feel that it is an anachronism to spend so much money in building this new ship in this age of air transport, and that there might be better ways, with greater long-term effects, of helping the shipping industry, perhaps at less cost to the taxpayer. We have, also, strong objection to the financial provisions of the Bill, which we consider to be an unjustifiable betrayal of the public interest in favour of private industry.
  5.2 p.m.
  Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: Talk about the vote following the voice! The speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) was the strongest speech for a Motion of censure which is not to be followed by a vote that I have ever heard. He gave a long list of objections and, in his view, only one minor advantage in favour of voting for the Bill. Many of us who dislike this Bill intensely—our dislike is no secret to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport—feel ourselves very much hampered by the General Election pledge, and, if it had not been for that pledge in our manifesto and in the speeches that were made at the election, my right hon. Friend would have had to face a vote at the end of this debate. But the right hon. Member for Vauxhall has no such ground for disliking the Bill as we have.
  Mr. Collick: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) made
  942
  the case in this House when he said that nothing stuck in the Tory election manifesto committed an incoming Tory Government?
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I am afraid that I do not feel like that. No doubt the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) will be able to make a speech on this subject. I must be frank. Many of us think that the Conservative Party's election manifesto's pledge on this subject was entered into lightly and irresponsibly, and that should be said here and now from these benches. Many of my hon. Friends entirely agree with me in that view.
  I agree with those who hold that a subsidy to any industry, public or private, should be regarded with suspicion, though not all are bad.
  Mr. Bence: What about agriculture?
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is it the Labour Party's policy to disagree with agricultural subsidies? As I was saying, many subsidies to industry are bad, and many are good, but they should all be examined with a tooth-comb for their economic, social or political purposes, to see if they are entirely justified.
  Most of the subsidies which Parliament approves—and this applies to agriculture—are general subsidies. The one we are discussing, however, is to go to a particular firm and not to an industry as a whole. It is for a particular company, a particular route and a particular ship. If it had been the question of a general subsidy to the shipbuilding industry, tiding it over a difficult period of reconstruction in order to make it more efficient—as, in the opinion of many experts, it conspicuously is not—there would be a very different case, as there was for the Cotton Industry Act. But it is not, however, and the answer to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall about unemployment is that this means one order which will keep one yard busy and still leave the rest with the dwindling order books of today.
  My right hon. Friend will have some support from hon. Members who have shipyards in their constituencies, but one of the things he may have noticed today is that he will get into trouble when the order is placed in one yard and the other yards have not got a slice. So let him

  943
  be careful of those who might support him at the moment. I am as delighted as everybody at the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) as Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. It is a brilliant piece of posting, but it will not be an adequate compensation to those yards that are not to get a crack at the £3¼ million involved.
  If this Bill were to help the shipping industry as a whole to fight the discrimination and the unfair competition which it is having so disgracefully to face on the high seas, it would be a different matter. I, for one, would not question a Bill or a Vote that would help that industry which is, frankly, suffering so unjustly at the present time. But this Bill is not of that nature. It favours one line, leaving the others to struggle unaided.
  Of course, we must recognise, as my right hon. Friend said, that there is a long tradition of subsidy for the Cunard Company. It has been in receipt of Government subventions of one sort or another for fifty-eight years. Amongst all the respectable matrons of the shipping industry, it stands out as the one scarlet woman. Can it be any surprise that the Chamber of Shipping, speaking for the respectable matrons, is beginning to wonder whether the wages of sin are not worth while after all. No wonder, in its report, after stating what is to be done for the Cunard Company, it says:
  "It follows that the Government should consider other cases where equally urgent reasons can be shown for Government help."
  Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he winds up the debate, will say whether he supports that view. If so, he will have a very big bill to face, because this is not the only route that is subsidised. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said that it was the most highly subsidised, but there are others which have subsidies. What is the policy to be towards them?
  Of course, this proposal will receive much support from the shipbuilding areas, and I do not blame them. I would take the same view if I represented a shipbuilding area. It will also
  944
  receive support from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard), for Southampton, not unnaturally, has some interest in the future of the Cunard Company. He is a friend of mine of many years standing, and also a constituent. I hope that after today I shall still retain both his friendship and his franchise.
  What are the other arguments deployed in this matter? One is that it will help the tourist industry. That is fair enough, at a price, and I do not want to enter into an argument about statistics. Perhaps we can have more accurate ones before the end of the debate. But it is worth remembering, if we are to subsidise the Cunard Company, that not all of the Cunard passengers come to England. Many of them go to France, and many of the passengers on the other subsidised ships come to Britain at the expense of the taxpayers of other countries. But I still agree that shipping has an important, if dwindling, contribution percentagewise to make to the tourist traffic over the next ten years.
  As other hon. Members have said, more and more people turn to travelling by air. I speak with some slight knowledge of and interest in trans-Atlantic travel. I and my family have been crossing the Atlantic for over twenty-five years. Perhaps I should explain that America is my mother-in-law country. At least one of my family goes over every year. I have a sentimental regard for the Cunarders. I went over on the "Britannic" to get married, and I have travelled on nearly all the ships.
  As I have said, one or other of my family goes over to America almost every year, but for ten years or more we have not gone by boat. Last year I crossed the Atlantic by air in six hours which was less time than my wife once spent on New York dock waiting to get through the American Customs. That is what is known as progress.
  My right hon. Friend referred in his speech, and in a rather surprising answer to a Parliamentary Question the other day, to the fact that many people travel for health reasons. That is a rather surprising one to me—this added burden to the National Health Service. It is true enough that many businessmen, having found in America that exporting is not fun but absolute agony, choose this form

  945
  of travel for the purpose of relaxation, and, I suspect, as a further respite from the household chores. But is it really for the taxpayer to subsidise the transportation across the Atlantic of tired tycoons?
  Coming back to the tourist trade, could not my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade use the money many times over to far better purpose? Could he not use an even more increased subvention for the British Tourist Association? Could we not give some help to improving conditions at London Airport, an improvement which is much needed? Should we, in fact, subsidise tourism any way, whether by sea or by air? The best comment on that matter came from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation on 21st November last year when he said in another context:
  "However I am certain that airlines have to pay their own terminal charges. We cannot make them part of the Welfare State…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st November, 1960; Vol. 630, c.750.]
  That was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, and I think that what he then said goes for the Cunarder of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport as well.
  If we are committed to this subsidy—ship or ships; I am not quite certain which after hearing my right hon. Friend's speech—is this the right size of ship or not?
  Mr. Diamond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? This is a most important point. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he is not going to vote against the Bill because of an election pledge, but the election pledge was to replace the "Queen" liners in the plural.
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I agree. I am asking my right hon. Friend to clarify what the future position is.
  Is this the right size of ship any way? Are we, frankly, catering for the right kind of traffic? In a year in which the "Oriana" has been launched—a brilliant credit to British craftsmanship and design, and a dollar-earner unsubsidised—we come forward with a project for a larger ship with no greater carrying capacity.
  The reason given, which I must say I sometimes find a little perplexing, is that one needs more room when crossing the
  946
  Atlantic than when crossing the Pacific, which is a longer journey. One of my hon. Friends has been into this point in great detail. It is quite true that a certain cubic footage per passenger has to be provided on the Atlantic run to compete with the other lines. As far as I can make out, it boils down to this. If people travel on the Atlantic, they must all have their meals at one sitting whereas if people travel on the Pacific they can have their meals at two sittings. Quite candidly, is that really what we should be subsidising? Is it really true that we have to have this enormous amount of accommodation?
  My right hon. Friend talked about it being necessary to provide comfortable conditions in the winter. But the "Queen" liners are half empty in the winter. There is plenty of room any way. Incidentally, if any hon. Member ever wants to travel on a "Queen" liner on the cheap, the thing to do is to book on one of the other Cunarders. The sailing is usually can celled at the last moment and one finds oneself travelling on a "Queen" much cheaper. That, of course, is strictly with in these four walls, and I hope that not too many hon. Members—
  Mr. Burden: Of course, that is a very good advertisement for the big ship which sails on time.
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I am all for travelling on the big ship—it does not always arrive on time even if it sails on time—but not, if I may say so, at the taxpayers' expense.
  Quite frankly, I think that we are completely missing the boat with the tourists of today. Cheap transportation is what is needed—and for which there is a demand—in competition with air travel. The American tourist of fifty years ago who went abroad for three months with several of those enormous cabin trunks still exists, but frankly, he is not the important factor that he was. Why subsidise him, or the tired tycoon? Why not concentrate on the new tourist?
  The other argument is the need to maintain a weekly service. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will deal more fully with this point when he winds up. I suspect that that is outmoded too. Surely the weekly service was a necessity in the days when the mails were carried by the Cunarders.

  947
  Was not that the primary object of the weekly service, and does it now apply to the same extent, if at all? To comply with this business of the weekly sailing and with this curious matter of the accommodation, we have to have a ship that will be empty half the winter and which will not take part in the profitable winter trade. In short, I think that we are backing the wrong horse. It has been entered in the wrong race any way, and probably we ought not to indulge in betting.
  Then there is the argument about prestige, which it is very difficult to assess. The Russians launch a man into space and the British launch a white elephant on to the ocean. Is our prestige really enhanced by this? My right hon. Friend referred to the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth". I was in New York in those early days of 1940 when the Queen Elizabeth arrived on its maiden voyage, at the beginning of four or five years of wonderful national service. But those arguments do not apply now, however, and I question very much whether our prestige is really enhanced by just trying to have a bigger boat on the Round Pond than the other boys. If the Americans and the French choose to spend their money in this way, I see no reason why we should necessarily follow suit. We started the business of subsidisation and we are the people who ought to take the lead in getting out of the contest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) summed it all up when he described this as an obsolescent status symbol. We could all find ways of spending £3½ million to that end. When all is said and done, as far as I am concerned there is only the one reason of the election manifesto. I could not vote for the Bill in any circumstances. I would abstain if there were a vote, but I could not agree that it was a good or a wise Bill. We have this millstone round our necks and some of us feel very unhappy about it.
  To turn to the details of the Bill, I give enormous credit to my right hon. Friend for what he has done to improve upon the recommendations of the Chandos Report. My half-term report is, "Marples has done well, but could do better if he tried". Many of us on this side look forward to co-operating
  948
  with my right hon. Friend in Committee, perhaps to improve the Bill even further.
  We must remember that Lord Chandos was probably inhibited by his terms of reference. I regret very much that we are not to see the Chandos Report. I respect the reasons, but I should have thought that it would be worth while publishing at least a bowdlerised report, if that is the right word. My right hon. Friend has, however, produced a better bargain than was originally put forward.
  I regret the Bill very much indeed, but let me end on another note. However much we may criticise this project, if it goes through and the ship is built let us wish success and prosperity to all who sail in her.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) on his elevation to Ministerial appointment. It is, however, within the recollection of hon. Members that for a considerable time, in reply to Questions in the House, the Minister of Transport claimed that he could undertake the whole of our transport responsibilities without assistance. It would appear that he must have accepted the appointment of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East with considerable reluctance. The purpose for which he proposes to use the hon. and gallant Member is not quite clear. In due course, we shall have to have the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibilities defined.
  It is obvious why the Government produced the Bill. It was because a reference to it was contained in the Tory Party's election manifesto. It was obviously a vote-catching device. There was fear of a recession in Belfast and there was the prospect of unemployment on the Clyde, on the Mersey and on the Tyne, in our great shipbuilding centres. Therefore, the Government produced this item in their election manifesto to provide some assurance to those concerned with the shipbuilding industry in the places I have mentioned by a promise that some day a new "Queen" would be constructed.
  People in Belfast, on the Tyne, the Mersey and elsewhere all expected that

  949
  when the "Queen" was constructed, they would have the sole responsibility. Now, we have this squalid competition. What is to be the end of it all? Whoever gets the tender, there will be trouble for the Government. Possibly, Belfast may get it. I would say that on the whole, because of the dim prospects that face Harland & Wolff, who have hardly anything on their order book, and because of their vast capacity and the growing unemployment in Northern Ireland, their claim to have the construction of the new Cunarder is probably greater than the claims represented by other shipbuilding centres.
  Suppose that Harland & Wolff secure the order. What will happen? They may be precluded from undertaking other orders for smaller vessels which might have come their way, and in four or five years' time, when they have constructed the "Queen", there will be an even more serious recession in Northern Ireland. From the point of view of Harland & Wolff, it would be far better to search for business elsewhere for the construction of smaller vessels than to undertake the construction of a "Queen".
  I want to say categorically and emphatically that I am unreservedly and without qualification opposed to the Bill and I wish that my party would join me in that declaration. We had an excellent speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), who made a vicious, devastating attack upon the proposals in the Bill. I respect his opinion that the only reason why we support the Bill is because it will provide employment somewhere or other. I can imagine a much better way of spending the taxpayers' money to provide employment. Some day, we shall have a debate on shipping and shipbuilding. We cannot in the course of this debate discuss all the consequences of the recession that has accompanied these twin industries for several years.
  There has been a gradual dwindling of our strength and influence in shipping and shipbuilding over the past half-dozen years. Our share of world trade, for example, has diminished substantially. The facts are well known to hon. Members. Our capacity in shipbuilding is vast and it can undertake a
  950
  vast number of additional orders, but they are not available. This is because of the competition from foreign shipbuilding centres.
  What is the situation as regards the advantage obtained by foreign shipbuilding interests? The facts are simple. Foreign shipbuilding firms in Scandinavia and elsewhere on the Continent can offer credit terms much more favourable than the terms offered in this country. I understand that many of the foreign shipbuilding firms can offer credit facilities of 80 to 85 per cent. over a period of eight years. The very best we can find in this country is around 30 per cent. for a period of five years. Obviously, advantage accrues to the foreign shipbuilder and British shipbuilding interests are suffering very seriously.
  However, we are not to discuss the general question of shipping and shipbuilding in this debate. I want to concentrate, as other hon. Members have, on the proposal that the Cunard line should have the opportunity of constructing this vessel. The question is: does it need this subvention, this form of national assistance? That is what it is. Hon. Members opposite turn up their noses when it is a question of providing National Assistance for poor folk and question the propriety of spending vast sums of taxpayers' money in that way, but this is a form of national assistance. The question is, does the Cunard line need it?
  I have availed myself of some statistics. They are bound to be accurate because they are extracted from the balance sheets of the Cunard line. Reference was made by my right hon. Friend who opened the debate from this side of the House to the vast reserves at the disposal of the Cunard line, but there are some particulars which he did not mention. One is that its investments at the latest available date were £15½ million. Those are substantial investments, but that is not all. It is not often that one finds an item of this kind in contemporary balance sheets. Cash at bank equals almost £6 million. I presume that that is available after depredation has been provided for.
  That is not all. Properties owned by Cunard White Star amount to nearly £4 million. Cunard White Star owns a considerable amount of real estate in the

  951
  United States, the United Kingdom, Italy and other parts of the world. Much of that—I use the expression used by the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan)—consists of "white elephants" where very little business is done, but they are maintained in order to preserve prestige. No doubt they contribute to increased overhead costs. These are some of the facts.
  Mr. J. Howard: Before the right hon. Member leaves those very interesting figures, can he tell us about liners already under construction to which these capital commitments may apply?
  Mr. Shinwell: I shall do my best to furnish the information about future capital ships replacements. The company has vast reserves for that purpose, but, as far as I can gather, it is not building many ships.
  Mr. Burden: I am sure the right hon. Member would not like to mislead the House. In fact the Cunard Company has spent £30 million on building new ships, quite apart from the "Queens", since the war.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is that remarkable? It is quite obvious that the hon. Member is not acquainted with the shipping position in this country. Take the case of the Royal Mail Line. That company is not obtaining a subsidy from the Government or anyone else. It has to raise capital in the open market, but in the last few years it has had three ships constructed by Harland and Wolff at a cost of more than £16 million. The British Commonwealth Line, associated with the P. & O., has spent vast sums—I believe much more than Cunard has spent since the war—in the construction of its vessels.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I think that earlier the right hon. Member was implying that no further passenger liners would be built by any company when the "Queen" is finished.
  Mr. Shinwell: I admit that that is an assumption, but it is probably well founded in view of the inability of British shipbuilders to obtain further orders from ship-owners, for reasons I shall advance in a moment, and because they are in keen competition with builders
  952
  abroad. These are facts which are established. It is not certain that ship-owners will be busily employed in the coming years. I wish it were otherwise, but we have to face the facts, which are very unpalatable.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Member considered that it might be well if the shipyards gave up this order for the new Cunard liner, because they might get other orders. Now he is saying that they could not get other orders.
  Mr. Shinwell: I shall come to that in a moment. Remind me of it if I do not do so. I want to maintain the sequence in my remarks, in spite of these interruptions.
  I was about to ask: who are the best judges of the future of the Cunard line on the matter of ships? I should say that they are the Cunard line directors themselves. I say that because the line is now going into the air business, very substantially, with Eagle Airways. Perhaps I had better quote from what the company said, because that may reinforce the case which was presented by the hon. Member for Reigate. I had better also say a word about the directors. How do they fare in this business? On the last available date they had £130,000 in emoluments. That is not bad. That was the average over a period of years. They do quite well.
  They are in process of acquiring Eagle Airways Limited and associated companies and one of the leading private aircraft operators in the United Kingdom. This is what they said:
  "The Eagle have converted an extensive international network of scheduled services in Europe and in addition are operating an extensive route network in the Western Hemisphere."
  The company is going in for aircraft on a grand scale and trying to attract passengers who travel by air in competition with itself. I think that hon. Members can depend upon it that, one of these days, when air travel has been further developed and fares have been reduced—as is certain to happen because our aircraft industry is in competition with air services of other countries—the Cunard line will reduce its fares for travelling by sea. Then losses will be sustained and it will come to the Government and say, "We are very sorry,

  953
  but we cannot pay what we owe you. What about another subvention?" By that time we shall have had another General Election and, without a doubt, the Government will again promise assistance to the company.
  Are we concerned about the Cunard line in isolation, or are we concerned about the well-being of the shipbuilding industry as a whole? I maintain that the generality of hon. Members are concerned about the latter. I have said elsewhere, and repeat here, that if we have money to spend clearly it would be far better to provide as part of our shipbuilding policy—only as part of our shipbuilding policy—some subvention in the form provided in the Bill on reduced interest rates instead of going into the market and paying 6½ per cent.—interest rates of 4½ per cent. backed by the Government, which is a subsidy—for some of the other shipping companies.
  From the point of view of Belfast, the Tyne, the Mersey and the Clyde it would be much better in the next few years to have the opportunity of building a vessel of 22,000 tons, 23,000 tons or 24,000 tons when, as under this Bill, some of them would be excluded. Three out of the four will be excluded from participating in the construction of the new Cunarder. That is one way to deal with the position.
  Moreover, it seems to me that, if they can find subventions of this kind, the time has come when the Government might consider the position of some of the smaller shipbuilding companies and ship-owning firms. Here may I quote a passage, to which the hon. Member for Reigate referred, from the Chamber of Shipping Report. I think it should be placed on record, so that the public, or at any rate hon. Members, may know what the Chamber thinks about this proposal in relation to the general position of the shipbuilding industry:
  "An example is that of the Cunard Steam-Ship Company Ltd. in relation to the maintenance of an express passenger service on the North Atlantic. With the heavily-subsidised competition which the Cunard Company has to face in the North Atlantic, British ship-owners were not surprised that the company found it necessary to place its position before the Government."
  Here I pause to make this observation. Reference has been made to this country having subsidised shipbuilding and
  954
  shipping long before other countries. That is not true. Many years ago, indeed before the First World War, I recollect that Matson, one of the United States lines, was heavily subsidised by the United States Government which has gone on subsidising its shipping ever since. Without heavy subsidies, United States shipping would find it impossible to carry on, as is well known. But it is obvious that when we in this country are faced with heavily subsidised foreign competition, something has to be done for our industry.
  I want to make it clear that I do not regard it as inherently unsound for the Government to provide subsidies, even for private industry, if that be in the national interest. I would rather see the Government take over the industry and administer it, but looking at this assembly, and at hon. Members opposite, I shall not cry for the moon. I know that such a state of affairs is unlikely for a long time, but some time it will come. In a way, this proposal is the beginning and that is troubling some hon. Members opposite. They are afraid that if subsidies are provided, the question of control will arise. If a measure of control is agreed upon, then the question of ownership arises, and that is what hon. Members opposite are afraid of. I can understand it. In the future more firms will be concerned. Do not let us make any mistake about that. The quotation continues:
  "There are, however, other British shipping interests which are having growing difficulty in meeting government-aided competition in one form or another and equally have had, or will be required to incur, very great capital expenditure for the construction of new tonnage The General Council submits that the Government having decided that aid to the Cunard Company is desirable in the national interest, it follows that the Government should be ready to consider other cases where equally cogent reasons can be shown for Government help. The General Council considers that it is logical and reasonable to suggest that, although one British shipping company may have problems greater than another, the Government cannot, justifiably, assist one interest within an independent industry without being prepared to consider, on merits, the need to help others."
  I think that that is a logical position. Why single out this particular company, with its huge reserves, with its substantial investments and with its property interests—and all for the purpose of building another vessel which in the course of the

  955
  next ten years, may, as was rightly said by the hon. Member for Reigate, become a white elephant?
  In those circumstances, one might expect that hon. Members opposite opposed to this proposal will vote against it. I tell the House frankly that the reason I cannot vote against it is that my party has for cogent reasons, relating to the need for providing more employment, and on an assumption which I believe to be false, decided not to vote against it. What is the position of hon. Members opposite? The hon. Member for Reigate told us truthfully—I pay tribute to him for stating the facts as he knows them—that the reason why many hon. Members opposite, although opposed to its provisions are not prepared to vote against the Bill—despite the fact that they dislike the Bill and its financial provisions—is that in 1957 or 1958, or some time or other whenever it was, the Tory Party issued an election manifesto and promised that a vessel of this kind would be constructed; so that on the Merseyside, on the Clyde and on the Tyne—and in Belfast—people thought that they were going to have the opportunity to build it. What a shocking state of affairs.
  I do not believe that it will be possible to make much amendment of this Bill during the Committee stage. I am not much concerned about the financial details. Probably they are as good as any that could have been devised. But I enter one caveat. I cannot understand—the Government having appointed the Chandos Committee which went into the matter thoroughly, and they must have expected repercussions from this scheme on the shipbuilding industry as a whole—why we cannot be provided with a copy of the report so that we may understand exactly what was discussed. There must be some reason for the concealment
  The Minister adopted in his speech that flighty manner which he usually adopts as if he knows more than anybody else. I sometimes wish that I were as clever as the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is. He has a style to which we are habituated. Sometimes it goes very well and sometimes it is a bit boring. But when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Chandos Report was confidential one might suppose that it was a defence matter; that he was a defence
  956
  Minister telling us that in the interests of security we cannot see what is in the report. The next will be that when it comes to parking meters the right hon. Gentleman will say, "I cannot tell you the reason why we have parking meters in this street and not in the other, because it is confidential."
  I am not opposed to this Bill because I am opposed to the subsidy. We have become used to subsidies. They are provided for the agriculture industry, and private industry must have subsidies. We cannot carry on without them—State assistance, national assistance, hon Members may call it what they like. The fact is that, as the years go by, Governments of whatever complexion are bound to come to the assistance of industry. It is happening all over the world. It will happen more and more in this country. So I do not object to that. But do not let us pretend that this will solve the problems of the shipping and shipbuilding industry. One of these days, perhaps as a result of the appointment of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East as a Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, we may yet see the formulation of a much more satisfactory and reasonable policy within the Ministry than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Williams: The House always throroughly enjoys a contribution from the right hon. Member from Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on the subject of shipping and shipbuilding, more especially as he always attempts to promote British interests in this matter. I hope, in that connection, to be able in some degree to follow the right hon. Gentleman. Unlike him, I oppose the general principle of State finance being provided for private industry. To me, that seems wrong in principle and unfortunate in practice, because when there is a private subsidy of this nature inefficiency tends to creep in and sterilise that dynamic form of management which one would hope to see in private industry.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport referred to the inability of the Cunard Company to provide the capital for this development out of its own resources. Perhaps it would be worth while looking for a moment at this state

  957
  of affairs in a little more detail. How is it that the Cunard Company cannot find the capital needed for this development? Is it because the cost of replacement is so much higher than the original historic cost? If this is so, surely that shows in some small measure that our economy, more particularly in relation to shipping companies, is so over-taxed that the replacement of ships at the normal rate is now well-nigh impossible.
  There is a very strong feeling—I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of it, in preparation for his next Budget—that the chances of replacing ships now is small as a result of punitive taxation over the years. Indeed, the shipping industry must be grateful for the Chancellor's confirmation of the 40 per cent. investment allowance in this Budget, and of its continuance over the lifetime of this Parliament. It was a notable step that he committed himself or any future Chancellor for the lifetime of this Parliament.
  But the point surely is that British shipping now is so highly taxed that the chance of replacing the ships is reduced very considerably. For British shipping, and this is true of British industry in general, we are building up such a highly taxed economy that it is beyond the ability of industry, of shipbuilders, ship-owners, engineering, whatever hon. Members wish—to replace and modernise at a competitive rate of knots by comparison with our foreign competitors.
  If we accept the principle, as apparently the Government do, that private industry deserves a subsidy—that is a principle which I personally do not accept—they have not yet, to my mind, sufficiently accepted the point made by the right hon. Member for Easington, which, I think, was a very valid one, that they are discriminating in favour of one particular company over and above other types of transport and other types of companies within the shipping industry. To me, that is a thoroughly repulsive doctrine. It is as though we singled out one hon. Member of this House and treated him preferentially in relation to his Parliamentary salary because he takes a particular interest in promoting the tourist industry, or something of that nature. It is a complete non sequitur to pick out one firm within one industry.
  958
  If the shipbuilding industry deserves support, and if one can accept the Government's offer, surely it would be better to try to find some way of supporting success—supporting those companies which out of their own resources, manage to provide replacements, such as the P. & O. line with the "Canberra" and the "Oriana". If we are to enter this field of support for private industry, surely it is all the better to support the successful rather than the less successful.
  Mr. Bence: Does the hon. Member realise that this and previous Administrations have subsidised MacBraynes?
  Mr. Williams: Of course I do, and it is for a particular social purpose and a very limited parochial Scottish purpose.
  One looks at the whole question of the Cunard Company from the point of view of this principle. Cunard's take the view that the trans-Atlantic service, which is an express service, is, in fact, itself a profitable venture. I should like to hear whether that is true; I am told that it is. If it is a profitable venture, this removes completely, lock stock and barrel, every argument for subsidy for this venture. If it is profitable, surely the Cunard Company could have found some other way of raising the money, either from the resources which the right hon. Member for Easington read out from the Stock Exchange card—I note that he uses the Stock Exchange card for reliable information—or have gone elsewhere to finance its venture.
  What I find more difficult than anything else to understand is that at a time when the State is putting money into the Cunard Company to build ships the company is putting its own money into aviation to buy up an air company and, presumably, to buy new aircraft, because it cannot possibly go on operating with the aircraft that the Eagle Company had before. It seems to me that it is a completely illogical position into which the Government and the Cunard Company have got themselves.
  The Cunard Company has come to the Government for money to build ships while, at the same time, using its own money, resources and management to get into the air. I would have thought that this alone excuses the Government, if they really want an excuse, from any embarrassment which they may have felt

  959
  about their election pledge. The situation has changed since the election of 1959. Since then, the Cunard Company has got into the air and this, I believe, wipes the slate clean of the election pledge. I had considerable doubts about the consultations that went on, and whether or not they went on within the Conservative Party. I think that we want a better justification from the Government as to why they want to put their money, and, therefore, the taxpayers' money, into the Cunard Company when Cunard's is using its own money to get into the air.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but he is not quite accurate in giving the impression that he has tried to do. Practically every shipping company has gone into the air. The Cunard Company is unique in regard to ships.
  Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about Cunard Eagle. He says that every shipping company of size is going into the air. That is true, but they are doing it with their own money and not with the taxpayers' money. My hon. Friend says that the Cunard Company is not doing it with the taxpayers' money. Apparently there is a difference between taking the taxpayers' money for building ships and using its own resources for getting into the air.
  That is the point on which the House should stick. It should demand a better explanation from the Government why they did not inquire a little more into this matter. I do not want to elaborate further on this question of the Cunard Company except to say that I think there was a time, and I think that this may have changed last week, when there was danger of the Government shuffling off their general responsibility for shipping and shipbuilding by saying, "We provide this subsidy and support for the Cunard Company". For too long our administrators have had too little regard for the general maritime interests of the nation. I hope, like right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, that we shall have a general debate on shipping and shipbuilding in the near future. In the meantime, this Bill can only be a sop to shipping and shipbuilding.
  960
  In welcoming the appointment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) to his position as Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I hope that he will support the general view that this matter should not be treated as an excuse for taking no further interest in British shipping and shipbuilding, but as a spur to providing a dynamic policy which will face up to the flag discrimination policies, to flags of convenience, or more insultingly, the flags of necessity policies and the taxation and other policies used by other nations. I hope that we shall see a more positive view of help for British shipping and shipbuilding. For this reason, I could not ever possibly support the Bill and I should like to think that it may well be strangled in Committee.
  5.59 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Popplewell: We have heard quite a lot today from hon. Members opposite to the effect that the only reason why they support the Bill is because of an election promise. That is not the reason, and they know it. That is simply the excuse they are giving, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) reminded the House a little while ago, their own leader said that an election promise given during an election does not bind a Government when in power. They accepted that philosophy when the Labour Party was in office during the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill. Now they are in some difficulty. They want a shield to prevent the world at large knowing the intense bitterness and difference of opinion they have with the occupants of their own Front Bench, and they are now utilising the outworn adage of saying, "If it were not for the election pledges".
  We have some serious charges to make against the Government on this matter. I, with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, strongly resent the Government appointing committees to examine the affairs of industry or other undertakings and giving the committees terms of reference so narrow that when they report the Government can say that they are acting in accordance with the recommendations of the committees, without giving Parliament the opportunity of knowing what the committees have recommended.

  961
  As one of my hon. Friends has already said, we have been bought twice like this. There is the example of the transport system, in regard to which the Stedeford Committee made certain recommendations. When this brilliant mouthpiece called Marples at the Ministry of Transport—where is he?—he is missing from his duties—wanted to defend the break-up of the transport system, he hid behind the Stedeford Committee. Now when he wants to defend giving a huge sum of money to private enterprise, he shields himself behind the Chandos Committee and says what the Government are now doing is broadly in accord with the recommendations of that Committee.
  Parliament is entitled to much more courtesy than that. It is obvious from its investments that the Cunard Company is profitable. Indeed, it has been able to branch out from its normal trading activities and engage in air traffic. It has sought still further avenues of high profitability. In these circumstances, the nation should know why it is necessary for a huge sum of public money to be given to this company.
  Under the Bill the Government will provide 60 per cent. of the cash involved in building the new "Queen". They will provide £18 million out of the total of £30 million. In an unguarded moment the Minister of Transport said that the rate of interest would be 4½ per cent. We are told that the Chandos Committee recommended the same rate. When challenged that this is exceedingly unfair to publicly-owned undertakings, which have to borrow money for modernisation at the market rate of 6½ per cent., the Minister rather altered his tone and said that the money advanced to build the new "Queen" would be at the current market rate. That was a complete change.
  According to the Bill, the Minister's words are technically correct. It says that if Cunard's borrowing has to take place at current market rates of interest, the Government will subsidise the difference between 4½ per cent. and the current market rate. This takes us back to the Minister's original statement. In effect, the Cunard Company will get this subsidy at 4½ per cent., whereas publicly-owned and local authority undertakings have to borrow on the open market at 6½ per cent.
  962
  We on this side have a very deep-rooted objection to such a procedure.
  The Minister then said that it has always been usual for the shipping industry, or the Cunard Company, to be subsidised in providing these wonderful ships. He said that this has been so through the ages. He took refuge in that. However, in addition to the subsidy, there is also the fantastic fact that the Government will be the insurers of the vessel. They will be the underwriters. They will accept all construction insurance risks. They will accept the operational insurance risks. This is additional assistance to a company which is engaging in outside activities and showing a good profit.
  My hon. Friends and I feel that there is a case for a new "Queen" of this size. We must face the fact that the "United States" and the "Ile de France" are wonderful ships. The present "Queens" are facing keen competition from these ships in trying to maintain their share of Atlantic traffic.
  There is a lucrative traffic backwards and forwards across the Atlantic, and it is likely to continue for a considerable time. I say this with due deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss); but the figures he quoted showed that there is a general increase in travel, both in air travel and in sea travel. The present trend, which is likely to continue, is that travel by sea is not increasing at the same rate as travel by air.
  In spite of this, I think that there is a case, and will be for some time to come, for a ship such as this operating on the North Atlantic route. Anyone who has travelled on this type of ship will undoubtedly agree that it is a very good type of ship on which to travel. Therefore, there is a case for such a ship, apart altogether from its prestige value.
  If shipping companies find it difficult to produce the capital themselves, why should the Government subsidise such a company to the tune of £18 million? Under the articles of agreement for operating the ship, a new company called the Q.3 Company will be established specifically to operate the new ship. Why cannot the Government themselves build the new ship? Why cannot they provide all the cash, instead of 60 per cent. of it? Why cannot they allow a shipbuilding company to act as agent for them, in the same way as the

  963
  Minister of Transport employs various companies to act as his agents in connection with his new roads? Where public money is involved to this extent, why should not all the profit resulting from the venture go back to the taxpayer, who is providing the bulk of the money? Why should not the taxpayer receive the profits which are likely to accrue? Neither Cunard nor any other shipping company would undertake such a venture if it did not expect profits to result from it.
  What intrigues me more than any thing is the opposition from the Government back benches. "Election pledge" is just an excuse, and the Government know it. The cause of the opposition from the other side is the pressure being brought on those back benchers by interests that know they will not share in the rake-off from Government money. They do not like the idea of public money going to a single company and not to the industry as a whole—
  Mr. P. Williams: Would the hon. Member be rather more specific about what he has said? He is using rather wild phrases which to me are absolutely meaningless.
  Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well what I mean. He has been subjected to much pressure from that direction, as have most hon. Members opposite. It is no good their acting as injured innocents; most hon. Members have been subject to this sort of pressure. That is the real root of that trouble.
  I share the general opposition to subsidies for industry as a whole that has been expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). The transport subsidy is entirely unnecessary, and the responsibility for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the present Administration. I oppose the whole idea of subsidies for private enterprise. It is not even necessary in this case. Even if financial assistance were necessary to get a prestige ship to withstand the unfair discrimination shown by other nations, the whole of the cash should be found by the Government. This should be a Government undertaking, and a company should run the vessel in the same way that the special Q.3 Company is to run this show.
  964
  I wholeheartedly agree that this is not the way to deal with shipping as a whole, and I do not think that the Government themselves think that it is. It is a special instance, but instead of their handing out the taxpayers' money to private enterprise in this way, I would have preferred the Government to have put forward proposals that would have shown their interest in trying to get some world agreement on the problem of flags of discrimination, and so place our shipping on terms equal to those enjoyed by the shipping of other nations.
  The Minister of Transport said this afternoon that the U.S.A. is providing 58 per cent. of capital costs. He mentioned that in connection with our guaranteeing 60 per cent. of the capital cost of the new "Queen". He said that France guarantees 20 per cent. of capital costs, but added that it was rather difficult to estimate exactly how much subsidy goes into the running costs of the shipping undertakings of the various nations. Far from his having difficulty in estimating the figures, I hope that he has the information in his Department, and that, before very long, the House will have an opportunity of getting down to the basic difficulties of our shipping industry.
  We can, do and will produce passenger-carrying ships second to none in the world. Even today we can far outstrip any of our foreign competitors in the production of passenger liners and that type of vessel. As a whole, the shipbuilding industry suffers more from competition in the production of the tanker class, where so many difficulties and semi-skilled jobs are involved. When it comes to construction needing the skilled craftsman, the skilled tradesman, we can still compete in price, in quality of commodity, in delivery times and all the rest, even in the face of the favourable terms given by other nations to their shipbuilding industries.
  I wish that the Government had taken a wider view instead of saying that Government assistance in the building of a new "Queen" was an election pledge. That idea was hurriedly thought up during "MacWonder's" election tour of Scotland. It was the sort of sop that we are used to from this Government. Instead of presenting us with this Measure, I would rather the Government had come forward with proposals

  965
  to deal with the biggest evil attaching to the shipping industry—the concessions and flags of discrimination, which present a greater threat than do flags of convenience—and I hope that as a result of today's debate we may soon have an opportunity to discuss that aspect.
  I have no hesitation in saying that had there been a vote tonight I would, for the reasons I have given, have supported this Measure. I do not agree with the Government's method, but there is a case for Britain to own a vessel that can challenge the "United States"—the American trans-Atlantic flagship; that can challenge the "Ile de France", the flagship of the French line, and which will not only uphold the nation's prestige—there is more than that involved—but which will prove remunerative. Only in this way can we get and keep our fair share of the market.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: First, I should like to offer my congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) on his appointment as a Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport with a special interest in shipping and shipbuilding. I left school in 1946 and went into the Navy. I was a very humble ordinary seaman who had not been home on leave at all until some of us were offered five days' leave if we went on a course in what was then the new Electrical Branch. I went to that branch, in which my hon. and gallant Friend was my absolute superior officer.
  I eventually got the title of P.E.M. and went home on leave. A friend asked my mother how I was getting on. My mother said, "He's doing famously—he is a P.E.M., you know." When her friend asked what that meant, my mother had to admit that she did not really know, and shouted upstairs to me, "What does P.E.M. stand for?" When I answered, "Probationary Electrician's Mate," it stopped her ever again boasting about my naval prowess.
  I am surprised that some of my hon. Friends object to the Bill, because our election manifesto said that we intended to support the building of a new "Queen"—
  Mr. Strauss: "Queens".
  Mr. Montgomery: I beg pardon—"Queens".
  There is a very famous shipyard in my constituency, and I used that fact in my election manifesto to help me in my campaign—[Interruption.] Well, my majority is still only 98—hon. Members cannot really begrudge me that. That being so, if the Government had not implemented this pledge I am afraid that I would have been on their bones just as much as some hon. Members are now.
  Several hon. Members oppose the Bill on the ground that aircraft will destroy the economy of fast passenger ships. I am not altogether convinced by this argument, because I believe that there will always be some people who will prefer to travel by sea. I had the good fortune, last summer, to go to America as a guest of the American Government. I had to travel on an American ship, because the Americans were paying my fare. The ship was absolutely crammed, and there were many people who had travelled from America to Europe on the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth" and who were returning to America on the "United States". Many of them were loud in their praise of the "Queens", which they preferred to the "United States", which was, perhaps, jazzier and bigger, but not better.
  One has heard the argument that two airliners costing £4 million could carry more passengers across the Atlantic in a year than an expensive ship, and much more quickly. This is not a straightforward argument, because allowance is not made for the fact that one good ship is worth ten airliners.
  I should declare my interest in that I have in my constituency a Vickers naval yard, one of the firms tendering for this contract. One of the wonderful things that has happened in connection with this venture is that Vickers naval yard, together with their traditional rivals, Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson, have joined together to submit a joint tender for this contract, and I believe that this good will and co-operation which has been devised with the object of ensuring that the Tyne builds the next "Queen" liner is a good thing. It also shows the determination of Tyneside to

  967
  do all in its power to get this contract on to our river.
  I would not say that we have been altogether helped by certain statements which have been made. The Minister's statement on 29th March, that if the tenders were equal the contract would go to a development district, which would exclude the merger of Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson and Vickers-Armstrong, caused a furore on Tyne-side. I was delighted when the Minister recanted and, on 11th April, said that the best tender would be accepted and this would be determined by purely commercial considerations.
  It is necessary that that should be said, because there was also another unfortunate statement by Sir John Brocklebank, the Chairman of the Cunard Line, who said that he expected that John Brown, Clydebank, would be asked to reserve a berth for the Cunarder. I think that was a remiss statement, to give the impression that it was a foregone conclusion that John Brown would get this contract. It should be made clear that John Brown has no divine right to build the next "Queen" liner.
  If the Cunard Line had supplied all the money, it could be said that the choice should automatically rest with that company, but, as has been said, a great deal of public money is to be spent and, therefore, in all fairness, we must ensure that there is no favouritism, and all that the other shipbuilding companies are asking is that they shall have a fair chance to tender for this contract.
  It has been said by some people that Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson and Vickers-Armstrong may have less experience of building passenger liners than other firms, but that is not necessarily so. Both of these shipyards have an excellent record. Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson have built such fine ships as the "Dominion Monarch" and, in fact, they built the original "Mauretania". Vickers-Armstrong built the "Empress of England"—
  Mr. Shinwell: Suppose that Belfast were to get the order. Would the hon. Gentleman be in favour of the contract going there?
  Mr. Montgomery: Yes, provided that I believed that the tender which came
  968
  from Belfast was the best one. I believe that most shipbuilders will support that view. All they want to be sure of is that it will all be fair and square and that one particular area will not get an unfair advantage over another.
  Recently, Vickers-Armstrong built a new liner called the "Empress of Canada". A well-known shipping journalist has described this as the finest fittted out ship that he has visited for twenty years. I dare say that he has also visited Clydeside in the last twenty years, so this is quite a feather in the cap for Tyneside. Vickers-Armstrong and Swan Hunter have spent a lot of money on modernising their plant and facilities, and without doubt they are amongst the most modern and progressive concerns anywhere.
  All that the shipyards ask is that they shall get a fair deal, that the tenders are judged according to merit and price, and that justice will not only be done, but will be seen to be done. At this point, I wish to make a plea to my right hon. Friend. I suggest that a small independent committee should be set up to examine these tenders and to award the contract.
  I welcome the Bill because I believe that, all things being equal, Tyneside can produce a highly competitive tender. I also believe that if awarded the contract Tyneside would build a ship of which not only the North-East but the whole of Britain could be proud, because we have the skill, the resources and the necessary ability to do the job. All that we ask from this Bill is a chance to prove our ability.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Diamond: The City of Gloucester has many obvious advantages, but it does not include among them shipbuilding facilities of the kind which have been mentioned by several hon. Members. It indeed has a very fine river, the River Severn, but, so far as I am aware, nothing larger than petrol tankers use it. Therefore, I may perhaps address myself to the Bill with a little more objectivity than can some speakers.
  It is clear that until the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) spoke, there were at least two reasons for supporting this Bill. The first was the election pledge, and the

  969
  second was the Chandos Report. We can now add a third reason, the fact that we are indebted to this Bill for the hon. Member's presence. Had the election pledge not been made we should have been denied his presence and we should have had with us the gentleman who previously represented the constituency.
  Perhaps we should consider the two main arguments to see where they lead us. The first one intrigues me because it is the first time, so far as I am aware, that a Minister has said that the reason for introducing a Bill has been an election pledge. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, it was said by the Prime Minister, and it was included in the election manifesto. But this is not accurate, and we should get it cleared up. What the Prime Minister said and what the election pledge said was that the two "Queen" liners—in the plural—would be replaced. The right hon. Gentleman has made a long and careful speech demonstrating that, although he is in favour of this Bill which deals with the replacement of one "Queen" liner, he wants it to be clearly understood that this is not to be taken as an argument for replacing the second one which has another five years' life and, therefore, consideration need not be given to that for the time being.
  We should like from the Government Front Bench an authoritative reply as to where we stand. Whose word weighs the more—that of the Prime Minister and the election pledge, or that of the Minister of Transport? Or are we going to be driven to the new Conservative philosophy that we should in all circumstances carry out precisely 50 per cent. of our election pledges?
  Mr. Burden: That is a very naive argument. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is and there will be no question of replacing the second "Queen" until after the next election anyhow, so it is quite clear now that only one can be dealt with.
  Mr. Diamond: We understand the niceties of pledges. We understand that no Government can pledge their successor. We understand also that there is here not a question of a Government but of a party at election time making a promise to the electorate, on the basis of which a candidate in a particular constituency might be returned. Indeed,
  970
  the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East told us that as a result of this pledge he secured the considerable majority of 98 at the election. I am not pulling his leg when I say that. I sat in the House at one time with a majority of 42. I regard a majority of 98 as very substantial. We should have clear what the Tory Party said in its pledge and what it intended by what was said in its manifesto. It is still the same Conservative Party, and it will, presumably, put forward candidates at the next election. We want to know what reliance is to be placed on Conservative Party pledges at election time.
  The second argument is based on the Chandos Report. The right hon. Gentleman really cannot expect us to put much weight on this Report, for several reasons. In the first place, as he knows very well, it was not a report on what should be done. It was a report on how a particular decision should be carried out, a totally different thing. The election pledge had been made, and the terms of reference were, "We have made this promise. Which is the best way of carrying it out?" No consideration, therefore, could be given to whether it was a wise promise or not, to alternative means of travel, to how much time had elapsed since the promise was made, and so forth. There were many fundamental considerations to be taken into account which anyone examining the matter would have wished to consider. That is the first reason why we cannot place much reliance on the Chandos Report.
  Secondly, the Minister really cannot have it both ways. Either one has a report and puts it on the table so that hon. Members may look at it, or one does not rely on it. Hon. Members are charged with the responsibility of reading reports and making up their minds on the basis of evidence put before them. It is not our job merely to follow behind the Minister because he says that he has read a report, the report says such-and-such and comes to certain conclusions. We are entitled to see the evidence. We are entitled to know exactly on what considerations the conclusions were based. We cannot perform our functions as Members of Parliament unless we do those things, and the right hon. Gentleman must not be disappointed if nobody places great weight on the Report. (a) because of the

  971
  narrow terms of reference, and (b) because we are not allowed to see it. Therefore, the two arguments which have been advanced in favour of the Bill seem to be very thin indeed.
  Several arguments have been advanced against the Bill. I shall not go through them all. It is within everyone's knowledge that the matter is full of doubt. It would be very difficult for anyone without the fullest possible direct first-hand information to decide a whole host of difficult questions about, for instance, whether it ought to be a ship or an aircraft which should be built, whether it ought to be a ship of this size or of another size, whether the money to help relieve unemployment could be used much better in other ways, and so forth. A host of fundamental questions require answering. I have mentioned some of them, and I am not at all satisfied that the answer we have before us is correct.
  I am perfectly satisfied, however, that the means for implementing the Government's decision are wholly objectionable and inadequate. It seems that the Conservative Party realises from time to time that there has to be public subsidy for private enterprise. We accept and understand that and we have developed machinery for giving it effect. The Conservative Party is always in the philosophical difficulty that, having decided that it is necessary, it rejects or recoils from accepting the means to give effect to the decision. What is put before us now must be judged by Tory philosophy, not by ours. Our philosophy would have moved us to approach the matter in a different way. That is understood, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) explained, and there is no point in crying for the moon and trying to persuade hon. Members opposite to accept what we say because, obviously, they quite sincerely cannot do so. However, let us judge what is proposed by Tory philosophy.
  We have before us a proposal to build a ship. The proposal has been examined, and the report has been that it is worth while. We are told not that it is not worth while but that it is worth while building the ship. Why does not the company which wants to build a ship like this get on with it? The answer is
  972
  that the Government, apparently, are prepared to subsidise it, but not on any social grounds, not for reasons of unemployment, not on some grounds as were present in regard to steel or Colvilles, where it was said that the new facilities would not be put where they were, that is, in areas where there was unemployment, unless the Government were prepared to assist, because it would be uneconomic to do so. Those are not the reasons advanced here. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the matter is to be dealt with on a purely commercial basis.
  We are told that the winning tender will be decided on purely a commercial basis. Then why is not the contract to follow a purely commercial basis? The purely commercial basis, as the Minister knows, would mean, "Heads I win, tails I lose". It would not mean, as this contract means, "Tails I lose, and heads I cannot possibly win". It will be "Tails I lose" because, of course, if the venture does not succeed, if the new ship is not a success, the Government will lose their money, that is to say, the taxpayer will lose his money. They will lose some money. It is impossible to say how much. Certainly, they will lose up to £3¼ million if the venture is not a success, and that is taxpayers' money.
  Incidentally, the £3¼ million, it should be noticed, is just about the right amount which Cunard Eagle would require to buy two American aeroplanes in which to carry across the Atlantic all the passengers which it is proposed should be carried by this new £30 million ship.
  Mr. Burden: Nonsense.
  Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman says that, will he say what the right figure is?
  Mr. Burden: When the hon. Member talks of aircraft in the same sense as he talks of shipping, he should remember the capital investment. He must take into consideration the life of the aircraft, the cost of replacement, etc. All manner of other considerations should be taken into account. He is an accountant and he should realise that very well.
  Mr. Diamond: It is true that a ship lasts longer than an aircraft, but aircraft last a great deal of time, as anyone interested in the second-hand aircraft

  973
  market knows. There are a great many aircraft available for sale on the secondhand market, and aircraft last a long time.
  Mr. Burden: There again, the hon. Member is on a false point. There are so many second-hand obsolescent aircraft for sale because people are not buying them.
  Mr. Diamond: One of the reasons why aircraft are for sale second-hand is that people are not buying them. I merely make the point quite simply that aircraft do last rather longer than one might have expected. They become obsolete but not worn out. They become obsolete because there are new models, new designs, with new speeds, and so forth, but they do not wear out quickly. They last a very long time. If the hon. Member wants to be technical—he appeals to me on that basis—he should take into account the fact that aircraft last a long time, although they do not last so long as ocean-going liners.
  The fact remains—the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has not denied it, and I understand that he is a director of Cunard Eagle himself, so he should have the information—that the amount of the subsidy now proposed is sufficient to buy two American aeroplanes of a size suitable to transport across the Atlantic in one year precisely the same number of passengers as it is suggested are likely to be transported by the "Queens", and the total amount involved in the new "Queen" is £30 million as opposed to the £3¼ million involved in the subsidy.
  I return to the main terms on which this is being negotiated. The terms are that in certain circumstances the Government and the taxpayer will lose. The terms are that in no circumstances can the Government or the taxpayer win—in no circumstances at all. If the scheme is utterly successful, if the ship is utterly successful, if an American company or a Greep ship-owner buys it out or takes over Cunard, whatever the circumstances which one can envisage, the most that can happen is that the Government will receive back their money—the loan and the subsidy. That is the best that can possibly happen. The worst thing that can possibly happen is that the whole lot will be lost.
  974
  There is the probability that only the subsidy will be lost—the £3¼ million—but nobody can tell. It is precisely because nobody can tell that I fail to understand why the Government are not prepared to do what would be done in any ordinary commercial transaction; that is, to say "We cannot foresee the future with certainty; it may be brighter than we think, or it may be less bright than we think, but we want this new ship built for a variety of reasons"—which I personally cannot accept—and that we should be doing it on the basis that if things do not go quite well, the Government, which has contributed and which has in fact been persuaded of the need to build the ship, will lose, but if things go well the Government should share in the profits. What is wrong with a simple commercial contract like that?
  Mr. J. Howard: I wish to refer to only one of the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), and that is when he said that we may lose the whole of the money put into this transaction. If he will refer to the Memorandum in paragraph 3, he will see that the Cunard Company will pay to the Government the amount of the deficiency. He will surely agree that in these circumstances the Cunard Company stands to lose a very great deal of money, and that the Government are in fact indemnified?
  Mr. Diamond: I heard the hon. Gentleman make that remark earlier in an intervention. I do not know where that is, and if he can tell me where it is—
  Mr. Howard: On page 3, at the end of paragraph 3.
  Mr. Diamond: The paragraph says:
  "Cunard will undertake with H. M. Government that if the Q.3 Company are unable to pay the full amount which they may be required to pay as aforesaid, Cunard will pay H.M. Government the amount of the deficiency."
  The terms of the transaction as set out clearly show, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, that in certain circumstances the parent company guarantees the repayment of the loan, but only in certain circumstances. These circumstances are, for example, purchase by an outside

  975
  body, but only in these circumstances is it guaranteed. It is not guaranteed in all events.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will contradict me if I am wrong, but as I read it, it is only in a limited set of circumstances that the guarantee of the parent company subsists, and, in the generality of circumstances, if the money is lost through trading or in a variety of ways other than special ways, the guarantee does not come into effect. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that there are many circumstances in which the whole of the money might be lost, and that there is not a single circumstance in which the Government can gain any advantage whatsoever.
  I say to the right hon. Gentleman that that needs explanation according to Tory philosophy. He needs to explain to us why, if it is right to enter into a commercial contract for tenders which will be decided by commercial grounds, and not on full employment or other social welfare grounds, it is necessary to have an agreement under which, if things go one way, the Government lose, and if they go the other way, the Government cannot possibly gain.
  I think there are other points to be considered. There is nothing whatever here about representation on the Board of the new company. Why not? What is the difficulty about that? Here is a new company, as I understand it, specially incorporated for the purpose of running this ship. Its accounts and activities can easily be identified and separated from all the other activities of the Cunard Company, and it is not to be confused, as this is subsidy money, with the air activities which have been undertaken by Cunard with its own money and with no assistance from the Government. The whole of the profits of these air activities will go to the Cunard shareholders, because it is a separate organisation. What is the difficulty about having an interest in this separate organisation? What is the difficulty of having seats on the board of a separate organisation? We still have our directors on B.P.; I am not aware that they have all resigned. If we are putting public money into this, why not have directors there also?
  976
  Let me repeat, in case anybody did not hear what my right hon. Friend said, that I know of no finance house that would think of putting up money on terms like this without requiring, not only a seat on the board, but the possibility of controlling the board, and some interest in the equity in the form either of convertible debentures or some real interest in the equity, so that if things go well the people putting up the risk money, albeit with some kind of security, will get a share in a successful business being carried on. I do not understand at all why the right hon. Gentleman chose to speak so shortly today and why he hardly dealt with this point at all. It is a perfectly valid point on perfectly good commercial grounds. I hope that we shall get a full answer. There are other points which can be dealt with on the Committee stage more fully, and I will not detain the House with them now, but will leave it there with these few comments, with the request that the Minister should give the fullest attention to what has been said.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Rodgers: As the House is aware, I have the gravest doubts and misgivings about the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) is not present, because the misgivings and doubts which I express have nothing whatever to do with any pressure brought to bear on me from any quarter whatever. I am sure that that is the view of every hon. Member on this side of the House, whatever view he takes about the Bill. I had hoped that the time had long since passed when the Opposition would impute base motives to hon. Members on this side. It is a childish thing to do, and in this case I am convinced that it is not true.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), in what I thought was an extremely brilliant, witty and somewhat devastating speech, deployed all the arguments that I would wish to deploy against the Bill, and, therefore, I do not wish to detain the House very long. I wish, in summarising my opposition to the Bill, to join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), who is the new Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the

  977
  Ministry of Transport, on sitting for the first time on the Front Bench, and on joining the Ministry on the shipping side.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister kept referring to the fact that this subvention to the Cunard Company in replacement of one of the "Queens" was really historical. We have done it before, therefore it was nothing new, and there was no reason why we should not go on doing it again, but this is not quite the case. There are many differences now from the time when we agreed to build the "Queen Mary". Then, there was mass unemployment, and anything which would create employment was to be welcomed. There was the strategic concept, which might justify the subvention, and the idea that the ship could be used as a troop carrier if war came. No such necessity arises in this case.
  Again, air travel had not developed to anything like the extent to which it has developed now. When one boils down the arguments of my right hon. Friend I must say that I see no reason whatsoever for Government subvention, except on the grounds of pure prestige—that we ought to keep our place in the trans-Atlantic shipping industry. But we are already losing it. In the last ten years Cunard's share of the trans-Atlantic trade has dropped from 60 to 30 per cent., while that of all the other main lines has increased. What is the reason for this?
  I am not a shipping man, but I am worried because nearly all the other shipping companies which are doing much better than the Cunard Company are operating ships which are much smaller than the "Queens". We are told that the ship proposed is the only sized ship which can maintain a regular express service across the Atlantic. However, as far as I know, the United States lines have never missed a sailing yet. They may have been delayed for a few hours. I do not understand why the French, the Italians and the United States can operate ships which are much smaller than the "Queens" and still, first, make bigger profits, secondly, get more of the traffic, and, thirdly, keep regular sailings.
  Mr. J. Howard: In 1955, 201,000 people crossed the Atlantic, 84,000 of them in the "Queens". That is 42 per cent. of the total. In 1960, 169,000 people crossed the Atlantic, 73,000 of
  978
  them in the "Queens". That is 43 per cent. of the total. Over those five years there has been a slight increase in the percentage of people carried by the "Queens", but, no doubt, figures can be made to mean anything.
  Mr. Rodgers: Today, I have been foxed by statistics given from both sides of the House. I propose to produce some quite different figures which I believe to be accurate. They are based mainly on Board of Trade figures and therefore, I have some belief in them. According to my information, in the last full year, 750,000 people have crossed the Atlantic by air and less than half that number have gone by sea. It would, therefore, appear that the number of people travelling by air is going up while the number travelling by sea is going down all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right, the number travelling by sea is not increasing at the same rate as the number travelling by air. Far more people are travelling by air than by sea. I do not think that anyone will quibble with that.
  The number of people travelling in the "Queens" last year fell by 6 per cent. The total decline in Cunard passengers was 21,286, which is a quite substantial decline, while over the same period the number of people travelling by air increased by 24 per cent.
  Sir J. Duncan: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, realise that there was a long strike in America.
  Mr. Rodgers: That would equally affect the other ships, like the "United States".
  I have on a previous occasion referred to this vessel as an obsolescent national status symbol, and I think that that is what it is. A ship of this size could be used on no route other than the North Atlantic route. It has no alternative use. I believe that, if the facts were examined objectively, it would not be proceeded with. It is obsolete before it sails. One reason for this is that the number of passengers travelling by air is increasing and the other reason is that far more tourist class as against first-class passengers are crossing the Atlantic by sea and air. This also has to be borne in mind. If the ship is proceeded with—and I am afraid that it will be—I hope that it will not be called after Her Majesty. It

  979
  would be much more fitting if it were called the "Queen Anne".
  If the argument is that the reason for the Government wanting to give a new subvention is to help shipbuilding, I agree with the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that this is not the right way to tackle it. If my right hon. Friend were asked candidly how he would use the £18 million to benefit the shipbuilding industry, I am sure that he would not for one moment say that this is the way to do it. He is far too intelligent to believe that this proposal will be of real assistance to the shipbuilding industry. It is true that it will help a particular shipbuilding firm, or firms, in one area for a very limited time, but there is a need for us to tackle the whole problem of shipbuilding and shipping industry and to marry these two industries.
  In my view, the concern of the Government should be directed at the reorganisation of the shipbuilding and shipping industries and to bringing them together. They should ensure that management is improved and they should encourage amalgamations, much though it is disliked by hon. Members opposite. They should ensure that the restrictive practices which bedevil the industries are abolished so that we can produce ships at competitive prices. All this should be the concern of a Minister of Shipping and of his colleagues, not this miserable subsidy.
  I believe that the Bill should be rejected. I shall not vote against it. Apparently no one is to propose that it should be rejected and, therefore, I shall probably abstain. In view of the speeches which we have heard from hon. Members opposite, I fail to understand why they did not move the rejection of the Bill.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Let us do it now.
  Mr. Rodgers: I think that I have said enough to show why I object on principle to the subsidy to the Cunard White Star, particularly because it has enough assets to pay for this ship itself. As many hon. Members have said, it is spending millions of pounds on Boeing aircraft and is expanding in the aircraft industry with its own money. Yet it expects the Government to provide some
  980
  of the capital for the "Queens". If we go ahead with the Bill I hope that, in Committee, we will modify the financial terms which have been suggested. One possibility is to make the £3½ million subsidy, a straight gift, as a loan at the same rate of interest as is granted by the Public Works Loan Board.
  Secondly, I do not understand why the assets of Cunard White Star could not be set off as collateral against the loan and not, as proposed, only in the event of it being taken over by a foreign owner. I believe that the whole of the assets of the Cunard Line should be set off against the Government loan.
  Although I am utterly opposed to the Bill, I have nothing against Cunard White Star Limited. I have often travelled both to and from America on both "Queens" and I have enjoyed my visits. Nowadays, I travel much more often by air. On Friday, I am going to the United States by air. I think that the Cunard Company provides the best service of any shipping company whose ships cross the Atlantic, but I also believe that the time for the "Queens" to flourish is finished and done with.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I have a little regret in that I feel myself compelled to support a Measure for subsidising private enterprise by giving it a preferential rate of interest, but I console myself with the fact that, if this is the beginning of a principle by which when this House or any responsible body in the country decides that some social wealth should be created or something should be created by loans at a modified or differential interest rate, I am all in favour of it.
  We need many new houses and hospitals. It would be for the prestige of this country if we increased our building of hospitals and the redevelopment of our towns by giving a loan at a 4½ per cent. interest rate instead of forcing local authorities on to the market. After all, we have taken Cunard off the market because we think that this ship is highly desirable. Looal authorities cannot hold reserves.
  We are told that the Cunard Company has £38 million in reserve. We must not, however, think that it can spend this money on one ship for the North Atlantic

  981
  run. It has many obligations concerning the replacement of cargo boats and marine services all over the world. This reserve of £38 million must cover a large number of replacement responsibilities in other directions. For goodness' sake, let us be fair to the Cunard Company.
  I enjoyed tremendously the speech of the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan). It was an extraordinarily witty Parliamentary performance. The hon. Member suggested, however, that he travelled by air unsubsidised. I have done a lot of work for the aircraft industry since 1920, and everyone knows that the whole of that industry has been built by the pouring in of thousands of millions of pounds in the construction of aircraft.
  Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I must plead innocent to the accusation. I did not say that air travel was unsubsidised.
  Mr. Bence: You objected to travel ling in a subsidised ship, but you travel by air—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must address his observations to the Chair, otherwise we get into a muddle.
  Mr. Bence: I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker.
  When talking about subsidising the Cunard Company, it should not be forgotten that the aircraft industry, one of the greatest competitors of shipbuilding, has reached its peak only because it has had thousands of millions of pounds of public money poured into this development. Sixty years ago, our shipbuilding industry had the advantage of a huge Navy and huge naval development and research, which the shipbuilding firms could use and pass over to the merchant shipping industry. Those days have gone for this country. Now, we have reached the stage where the Government are compelled, over an ever-widening field, to subsidise private enterprise in some form or other.
  Every industrial nation in the West is living in an age when the so-called organisation of production by private enterprise is failing in every direction. Government finance has to come in. The old traditional measures of financing industry are breaking down. Sir Nicholas Cayzer spoke at the launching of a ship
  982
  at John Brown's, Clydebank. I forget the name of this fine big ship. They are all fine big ships from John Brown's, and the bigger they are the finer they are. Sir Nicholas Cayzer said that the vast majority of international trade and merchant shipping relationships were inter-governmental. All over the world Governments are dominating the shipping policies of their respective nations. Many of the agencies with which traders have to trade are semi-Government institutions. This is happening all over the world.
  I remember the deflation of 1922, when the City of Cardiff was called the city of broken millionaires. The big shipping companies were bankrupt. One of the shipping magnates, Sir Daniel Ratcliffe, shot himself. He was a millionaire one day and was broke the next. He blew his brains out. We seem to have passed the age of voluntary liquidation. Industrial organisations on a big scale in this country do not go into liquidation. They bring the begging bowl to the Treasury to get money to carry them through. Whether it is because the banks and insurance companies have such heavy portfolios of industrial shares, I do not know, but it seems that the age of voluntary liquidation and the writing down of capital has gone. We live in an age when Governments come to the rescue of firms or of whole industries which are in difficulties.
  Nevertheless, I understand some of the opposition from merchant shipping about this subsidy to Cunard. We have had it said here this afternoon—
  Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member is making a wholly unjustifiable statement. In speaking of the opposition from merchant shipping, he is falling into a mistake which already has been made by hon. Members on his side of the House that speeches from these benches are made on grounds of merchant shipping. One of the reasons why I look with disfavour upon the Bill is that the consequence of this kind of action is likely to be a large queue for similar subsidies. The hon. Member must get that right.
  Mr. Bence: I was making the point that there is opposition in the country by merchant snipping houses—
  Mr. Peyton: Which ones?
  Mr. Bence: Runciman's oppose it, do they not?
  Mr. Peyton: I do not believe that the hon. Member has any evidence to suggest that any merchant shipping firm is opposed to it.
  Mr. Bence: All right. It has been said here today that there are strong objections to giving these terms to a specific company, Cunard. It has been said outside this House as well that there are strong objections to the whole principle of the Bill. I am only repeating what has been said.
  Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member must get this clear. The objections do not come from the industry. The industry, I understand, is very much inclined to support the Bill, hoping for a few crumbs to be left over from it.
  Mr. Bence: I have listened to objections from an individual connected with merchant shipping criticising the terms of giving Cunard a special favour. I do not put it any higher than that. It may not be organised opposition, but there are individuals connected with merchant shipping who object to this being done for the Cunard Company.
  I was surprised at the Minister telling us that it was not desirable for the Government to hold any equity interest in the new ship, because we might lose the lot. That is fantastic. The Cunard Company has reserves of £38 million, which may cover the cost of replacing twenty or thirty cargo ships of all kinds. It has other merchant vessels besides the two crossing the Atlantic. It has vast obligations apart from two "Queens". So we must not take the whole of the £38 million. The £12 million that Cunard is putting up is as much as it can spare from those reserves for this re placement. Cunard must have a fleet of 70 or 80 vessels—
  Mr. Shinwell: It is no use my hon. Friend assuming that the Cunard line contemplates, from its £38 million less the £12 million involved in the Bill, building a number of cargo vessels. Why does he assume that?
  Mr. Bence: Cunard has a fleet of 70 or 100 merchant vessels. Some of them may be ten or twenty years old and replacements will be coming along. The "Britannic" was to be replaced a few
  984
  years ago, and the Company was to finance it, but it was cancelled. I am only making the general commercial assumption that any big company with reserves has a lot of obligations outside one ship. That is a fair assumption to make.
  Why cannot we hold an equity share interest in this venture? I was at the launching of the "British Queen", a 50,000-ton oil tanker, from John Brown's. It was launched for B.P. I understand that the Government are an equity shareholder in B.P.
  Mr. Shinwell: They have been for years.
  Mr. Bence: The Government hold 53 per cent., I believe, of the equity shares. I hope that I shall have the pleasure of being invited to the launching of the "Prince Charles", not the "Queen Anne".
  Why cannot we hold equity shares in it? Are the Government preparing for the taxpayer to lose money? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) about not taking equities in it because we might lose the money. In any event, we shall lose the money that we put in. The Government are making a completely wrong assumption. I am surprised that we cannot take an equity interest in this new Cunarder when she is built, especially when we have equities in B.P.
  I want to discuss the tenders for the ship and its possibilities in the future as against air travel. I agree with the Minister that such a venture as this, costing £30 million, must be on what the Minister called a commercial basis. Whatever tender is accepted, however, the ship which comes off the drawing board, from any shipyard, must show techniques in design and in amenities within the ship well ahead of anything that is afloat today. It is better to pay a little more for a ship that is a tremendous improvement on anything now being built or afloat than to pay less money for something similar to what is now being built or afloat.
  Success in an enterprise such as this, carrying across the highly competitive North Atlantic ferry, will go to the nation which puts into service the ship which is at least half a decade ahead of anything at present sailing. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman means by

  985
  a commercial proposition, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Something more than price is involved in this contract. It is not necessarily the lowest price which will provide the ship which will capture—which is what the ship has got to do—the seagoing traffic across the North Atlantic ferry. This is why I am all in favour of the Bill and support it, and support the British mercantile marine wherever it is.
  Since 1945 the British mercantile marine has been under very heavy pressure from the United States and even from India and Argentina. All those nations now want their own merchant fleets. To them a merchant fleet is a kind of symbol, an oceanic symbol, of sovereignty. It is no good, for instance, telling the Indian Government that P. & O. or British India or the Commonwealth Line can do the job more economically than they can. They want their own merchant fleet.
  We are being driven back. The United States, by their subsidising policies, are driving us back. It seems to me that some hon. Gentlemen opposite want to retreat. I do not want to retreat. Although I am a landlubber, I love the sea and ships. I suppose that to every Britisher a ship is a symbol of Britain. I want to see a strong mercantile marine. I believe it is necessary.
  Carriage by sea is to this island nation as vital as agriculture. I believe it is absolutely vital to us, and that we all of us as taxpayers should make sacrifices if need be to maintain our merchant fleet and to show the world that we are not prepared to retreat or to become a fifth or sixth rate maritime nation and that we are determined to hold our own and do all we are capable of in sea transport.
  Mr. Diamond: I apologise to my hon. Friend for this intervention, but his mention of agriculture reminds us all that agriculture is helped not by putting the whole of the eggs in one basket, not by giving to one farmer in respect of one cow or pedigree bull £20 million.
  Mr. Bence: It is perfectly true that the Government have put thousands of millions of eggs into the aircraft basket—for jet aircraft, passenger airliners—but up to the present have put nothing in the shipping basket. It is true that
  986
  over sixty years there have been general financial arrangements with Cunard, and the only Cunarder not built by John Brown was the "Mauretania", which was built at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. That order was given to Newcastle-upon-Tyne because John Brown had not a berth vacant at the time.
  Mr. McMaster: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to give a wrong impression. Many liners were built at Belfast by Harland and Wolff for the White Star Line which later became part of the Cunard Company.
  Mr. Bence: That was before 1920 or 1921, and I was talking about Cunarders.
  However, in supporting this Measure, and notwithstanding that it may well be the forerunner of further Government help to the shipbuilding industry—as, indeed, I hope it is—I hope that we shall hear no more of this nonsense that if it is successful the Government will deny themselves the privilege of taking an equity holding in the project, so that if there is any benefit only the shareholders will get it and the taxpayers only pay the piper. That seems to me quite wrong. But I certainly do wholeheartedly support this Measure, and I hope that the firm which produces the best design at a reasonable price gets the contract, because I know very well that, if that is so, John Brown's will get it.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: One thing which is perfectly clear is that the new "Queen" will not sail from the Medway and it will not be built in Chatham Dockyard. I was very interested to see, in the General Election Manifesto of the Conservative Party, the statement that
  "We also intended to support the replacement of the Queen liners."
  At that time, of course, we in Chatham were, as we still are, interested in building a new type of vessel in this country, a nuclear submarine, and I give my hon. and gallant Friend notice that we shall press on the case for that as strongly as possible.
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have today produced, against these proposals for the construction of the new "Queen", arguments on the basis that they are most strongly opposed to the

  987
  subsidy, and some of them have criticised the proposals on the ground that such a ship as this projected one will be obsolescent before it is built. Those arguments, however, were just as strong and just as valid during the General Election as they are now, but not once did I find that my hon. and right hon. Friends raise these criticisms during the election. Their arguments, which they have put forward today, were just as valid at that time when they fought the election on that election manifesto.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Is my hon. Friend trying to say that nobody in the party at any time in the election disapproved this part of the manifesto, because, in fact, I did?
  Mr. Burden: That appears to me to be an absolutely lone voice in the wilderness. I do not know that there was any general objection at that time. If I had felt so passionately about it as my hon. Friend apparently now feels I should have had to consider very seriously whether I could support a Government who proposed something to which I was so violently and passionately opposed.
  Mr. Diamond rose—
  Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Member allow me to go on just for a little while? Then I will give way.
  Mr. Shinwell: But my hon. Friend only wants to pour oil on the troubled waters opposite.
  Mr. Burden: Now I, also, want to disclose my own position quite frankly. During the election and after it, when this proposal was made, neither I nor the Government nor the Cunard Company had any idea that the Cunard Company would have any interest whatsoever in Eagle Airways, now Cunard Eagle Airways, nor did I have any idea that I should be associated with Eagle Airways, which, ultimately, became Cunard Eagle Airways. I want to make that position perfectly clear. The Chandos Committee and others took this matter into consideration long before there was any question of Cunard taking any interest in Eagle Airways.
  What happened is this. I think that we have to consider these facts. Then, I think, many of my right hon. and hon.
  988
  Friends will come to the conclusion to which I have come. It was perfectly clear that the Cunard Company came to the situation where they said, "The life of the 'Queen Mary' is now coming to an end, the useful economic life of the 'Queen Mary' on the Atlantic, and we have to consider what we are to do in the future." They saw the simple economic fact with which they were faced, and the board considered that, in the circumstances, it could not undertake, with its other commitments, the spending in one sum of an amount sufficient to finance a new "Queen" costing about £30 million. The Cunard Company estimated, quite properly, I believe, that it was just not a proposition without some Government help.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why?
  Mr. Burden: Because it is responsible for running a big shipping company with considerable commitments which it is far better able to judge, with respect, than the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Shinwell: The assumption underlying the hon. Member's argument is that when the ship is constructed the company will have to pay £30 million. Are we to understand that there is no shipbuilding company which is prepared to provide credit facilities, not similar to those provided by foreign builders but approaching them? For example, it could pay the £30 million over a period of years.
  Mr. Burden: Certainly not, and that, obviously, was one of the reasons which were considered when this matter was discussed at top level in the Cunard Company. Then the Cunard people, with all their experience of the North Atlantic, considered the alternatives of smaller vessels as a replacement, but it was perfectly clear to them that it was impossible to replace the "Queen", to do the job for which she was intended, by a very much smaller vessel. In the light of their considerable experience, they decided that it was essential to go ahead with a big liner, but in the present circumstances of the finance required for a vessel of that kind they decided that they must consult the Government, place the facts of the situation before them, and ask that those facts be considered.
  In view of what has been said in the House today, it is perfectly obvious that

  989
  the Cunard Company would have preferred to remain master entirely in its own house and not to have to go to the Government in any way for assistance or guidance in this matter. It is also perfectly clear that the Government were absolutely free to refuse to do anything whatever. No doubt some right hon. and hon. Members consider that that is what they should have done. But it is clear that it is a matter of great national interest that this country should remain in the North Atlantic, and that if it does not, then very cogent reasons should be given at Government level for the refusal of the Government to enable the country so to remain. The Government quite properly considered that Cunard had a case and they decided to take certain action.
  In the first place, in assessing this action, it should be remembered that the "Queen Mary" was laid down, in 1932, at an estimated cost of about £4½ million and that the Inland Revenue allowed a depreciation of roughly 100 per cent. on the historic cost over twenty years, but the estimated replacement cost of the vessel today to do an identical job is not £4½ million, but £30 million.
  It should also be remembered by the House that the Cunard company would have been in a very much better position had it not been for the fact that during the seven best years of the life of the "Queen Elizabeth" and of the "Queen Mary" it was denied the services of those vessels in a commercial capacity and the ships were going across the Atlantic on their strategic duties. They were hired to the Government for 5 per cent. for depreciation plus 2½ per cent. It seems likely that if, in addition to the money that could have been earned by these ships at that time, the Inland Revenue had allowed a realistic figure for the general cost of replacement, the Cunard company would have been in a perfectly adequate position and would have been quite able to construct this new ship out of the company's resources.
  The Government, quite properly, did not promise out of hand to help. The House would have been most upset if the Government had done so. The Government decided to carry out a thorough investigation of the whole position and they set up a Committee under a man well known to the House and very much respected for his ability,
  990
  integrity and business acumen—the present Lord Chandos. The terms of reference of that Committee set up in September, 1959, may be summarised as to consider how best the British express passenger service across the Atlantic could be maintained. I have heard some of my hon. Friends criticise the circumstances, but I do not think that any of my hon. Friends who were here when Lord Chandos was a Minister in the House, and who have seen his record since, would do other than accept that he would go into the matter absolutely thoroughly and would produce an accurate and objective report.
  Mr. Hirst: According to the terms of reference.
  Mr. Burden: But I think that hon. Members know Lord Chandos well enough to realise that if he thought that this project was not a runner at any cost he would have made that perfectly clear to the Government and to everybody concerned. Lord Chandos has shown in his Report that he and his Committee are widely favourable to Government participation in the construction of the new "Queen". Nor would anyone suggest that the Committee did not thoroughly investigate all the scientific and other factors that might be germane to the decision to construct the new vessel.
  We can take it that Lord Chandos considered whether we should build an express trans-Atlantic liner of the largest size possible, or a smaller one. He no doubt considered all aspects relating to size, cost, operation and subsidised foreign shipping. He no doubt also considered to some extent—and we may well be given some information on this today—the likely impact on North Atlantic shipping of the increase in air travel.
  This is a matter of interest not only to the Cunard Company and the Government at this stage, but to the country as a whole. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends take the view, I believe quite wrongly, that the rate of increase in air travel will create in some way or another a situation in which sea travel practically disappears. I do not believe that. They are quite wrong. What is happening, in fact, is that air travel is making people more travel-minded generally and, complementary with that, the standard of living on both sides of

  991
  the Atlantic has increased. Although the number of people travelling by air has increased at a greater rate than the percentage of travellers by sea, I believe that the number of sea passengers will increase considerably in the years ahead.
  I can perhaps illustrate this by an incident that happened to me today. An American client was speaking to me in my office and he had no idea that I intended to take part in this debate, or even that a debate was to take place. He said, voluntarily, that he had always in the past flown to and from Europe on his business trips. He found, after flying, that it took him nearly a week to recover when he returned to America. He said, "I have been in eight European capitals in thirteen days. I shall travel home by sea". He said that he intended to make the sea journey in the "America", and he told me, "I shall be going home by sea because I shall be able to get down to my work more quickly after a relaxing sea voyage."
  That is likely to be the trend in future. As more and more people travel across the Atlantic, many of them will come to realise that by far the best method of traversing this route is to journey one way by air and the other way by sea. People are getting longer vacations and they are finding that two weeks is sufficient to visit a country, and they will use the remainder of their holiday to travel home by sea, which in itself is a holiday.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The Minister gave some figures earlier which showed that in the past four years the number of sea travellers had declined by 18 per cent., but over that same period the number of air travellers had increased by nearly 50 per cent.
  Mr. Burden: I am discussing this matter from a long-term point of view. There has been a considerable recovery in the number of sea travellers during the last year or so, and in the past twelve months, out of 169,000 people crossing the Atlantic by sea, 73,000 of them were carried by the "Queens". That is a point we must keep in perspective when discussing this subject. Of course, that is a great number of passengers. They not only pay their fares to travel by sea, but many
  992
  thousands of them stay in British hotels and spend a lot of money in British shops.
  During our debate today there has been quite a lot of criticism from what I might term the "armchair critics", who really have little or no expert knowledge of this matter. They certainly have not got the knowledge or experience that is possessed by the expertise of the Cunard Company or of the Chandos Committee. How many hon. Members could put as much time and study into this matter as did the experts in Cunard and the Chandos Committee? Those experts spent months carefully investigating the many facets of this subject and, with respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunder-land, South (Mr. P. Williams) cannot claim to have done nearly as much research as did the members of that Committee.
  Mr. P. Williams: Nor have the vast majority of hon. Members of this House. The Government have put before us proposals for the distribution of money. Surely hon. Members are permitted to discuss the matter, even as a matter of political principle.
  Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend has expressed an opinion without having the facts to back up his view.
  The Chandos Committee carefully went into the question of the size and type of vessel that should replace the "Queen" and they were not alone in their recommendations. The Naval Research Establishment came to precisely the same conclusion with regard to the type of vessel. Looking at the facts and figures that are available to any hon. Member who wishes to study this subject, over the last forty years the general trend in shipping has been to use fewer, but larger, ships, and to replace a considerable number of smaller ships with bigger ones. It will be obvious to all hon. Members that in doing this the manning overheads are less costly, operating costs generally are lower and maintenance costs are cheaper. These larger vessels also have a much greater passenger carrying capacity.
  If two vessels are required for the North Atlantic passenger service, both vessels must be capable of speeds of 29½ knots. Thus, they cannot be small ships. It is

  993
  estimated that 900 feet is the minimum length for a ship with the power to produce a speed of 29½ knots and, if the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) doubts that estimate, his hon. Friends in the shipping industry will assure him of its accuracy. Passenger accommodation on these vessels must be comparable with, or better than, any other ship of a comparable nature on this route flying a foreign flag.
  Many hon. Members have argued the case for a smaller ship. At the moment, the French are building a ship of 68,000 tons for the North Atlantic express passenger service. Does any hon. Gentleman wish to suggest that the French, the Cunard line, the Chandos Committee, as well as the Naval Research Establishment, are wrong in suggesting a ship of the size proposed? No other long seat route connects two parts of the world that are so thickly travelled, so highly industrialised and so prosperous as does the North Atlantic and Western European shipping route.
  It is recognised by the maritime countries of the world as the shop-window in which to display their maritime and engineering abilities and their shipbuilding knowledge and generally to reflect the efficiency and ability of their industries. Why have those other countries subsidised the route? It is for that very reason—because they believe that is absolutely vital to their general shipping interests that they should be on that great waterway.
  It has also been for us a vast earner of foreign exchange. Since 1947, the two "Queens" have earned no less than 320 million dollars. In addition to that money spent on fares, we have to add the very considerable sums spent by visitors in our hotels and shops throughout our country.
  Sir John Barlow: That figure of dollar earnings is most interesting. Can my hon. Friend give the net dollar profit?
  Mr. Burden: I am sorry that I cannot give that figure, but it can probably be obtained. It will be realised that one of the important things that we wish to do is to obtain dollars. To arrive at the figure my hon. Friend wants we must also work out the amount spent by visitors in
  994
  our hotels and shops, and so on, in order to ascertain the complete benefit.
  Sir J. Barlow rose—
  Mr. Burden: I cannot give way again. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have every opportunity of being called later, and he will then probably be able to argue that point.
  Some of my hon. Friends argue that this vessel will probably be obsolescent before she is built. They think of nuclear propulsion, and believe that it is just around the corner. But it is really a very considerable way off. No doubt the members of the Chandos Committee, the Naval Research Establishment and the Government considered the possibilities of nuclear propulsion in the near future, but they have given the go-ahead to this traditionally propelled liner. Other hon. Members have argued about the air, but I think that I have made my view on that very clear.
  There is one other point which has not been mentioned in the debate and which I believe to be very important when we are questioning the advisability of constructing another "Queen", and that is the very great and growing importance of fast sea freight. There is possible a very considerable extension of trade between this country and America, and I hope and believe that it will continue to grow. More and more people are sending their goods, particularly consumer goods, by air, but there is a restriction on that because, obviously, articles must be light in weight and not bulky and of a high cost ratio to make air freight pay.
  But there is also a much greater desire nowadays to buy smaller and buy more often, and, thus, fast sea freight is becoming more important than it has ever been. Already, the "Queens" play a very important part in increasing Anglo-American trade. The weekly fast freight service of the "Queens", with all the knowledge that is behind this type of freight by Cunard, can not only help to pay for the "Queens" themselves, but can also help in a very considerable way the general industry and export trade of this country to America.
  When we are considering this matter, we ought also to think of the situation in the British shipbuilding industry.

  995
  As every right hon. and hon. Member knows, the graph of unemployment among the 178,000 shipyard workers is, unfortunately, rising. The new "Queen" will provide work for about 5,000 men for some time, and I believe that that must also be taken into consideration when we are discussing these matters.
  The Government decided, I believe, to grant the Cunard Company help because it was clear that the vessel would not otherwise be built, and this is nothing more than a specific subsidy for a specific ship built for a specific purpose. That is the point which should be remembered by my hon. Friends who object bitterly from the subsidy point of view.
  Outside Britain, the ship will earn us a great deal of foreign exchange in fares, and we must not forget the money which will be spent in hotels, restaurants and shops in this country. When people wish to travel by ship it is surely desirable that they should travel in the finest trans-Atlantic passenger ship in the world, and I believe it is imperative that that ship should be British-built. I believe that the Government were right in giving a promise in their election manifesto, and I believe that they are no less right in implementing it. The opposition among my colleagues has been very vociferous, but I believe that generally today there is very much more support than opposition for the proposal.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: If in the orthodox fashion which is alleged to prevail in this Chamber the votes had to follow the voices on both sides, then I suppose that when we came to ten o'clock tonight the Minister's Bill would be in a very perilous position. I assure the Minister right away that he has my support for the Bill, and that may somewhat lighten the burden which both sides have placed upon his shoulders during the debate.
  I declare my interest right away. As the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said, we cannot at this stage and with this Bill before us ignore the position of the shipbuilding industry, and although we are promised much fuller debate about the industry at some future date, there is no reason why it should not at this stage, even if only superficially,
  996
  engage our attention. The Shipbuilding Conference issued its statistics last week. These show the most serious condition of this great industry. At the end of March, 1957, they had on their books about 6 million gross tons of shipbuilding orders, but by the end of March this year the figure had been reduced to 3 million gross tons.
  That is a most disturbing position. It is one which the House cannot afford to ignore and one which I certainly cannot ignore as the representative of one of the biggest shipbuilding areas in the United Kingdom—Govan, Where nearly 10,000 people are engaged in three great shipbuilding yards. Naturally the continuing decline in the strength of the order books disturbs not only those who are concerned in the work of the yards but those who are dealing, at management level, with the problems involved in shipbuilding.
  Like right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have taken the trouble to consult those persons who enjoy top-level appointments in this industry, who direct its fortunes for good and ill. Their view is not the one which, in some respects, has been put forward today by the Minister. He said that nuclear propulsion had not yet been sufficiently developed. I am certain that, in putting forward that view, he is fortified by substantial advice, but I must put against it advice which I think is equally substantial. It comes from those who are engaged in this work and who have a proposition before the Government, which, I assume, has engaged his attention.
  They believe that nuclear propulsion is with us now, that a nuclear propelled ship is a possibility, and that in this advance in the propulsion of ships, we at the moment have the chance of a leadership which, if we neglect it, we may never again have an equal opportunity to achieve. I hope that the Minister will look again at the question of nuclear propulsion and keep before him the proposition deployed by Fairfield Yard in my division.
  Again, he said that the object of the Bill was to secure the continuance of the Atlantic passenger service. As he pointed out, and as we all know, there are two ships now operating that service, and we assume that it will be necessary for two ships to continue to carry on the

  997
  service, if it is to be carried on as it presently is. That means that the Government must now, to some extent, be looking to the future.
  When the "Queen Elizabeth" reaches the period where her service no longer is economic, then, if the pledge which was given at the General Election, and about which we have heard something today, is carried out, I take it that there will be a successor to the "Queen Elizabeth", just as there will probably be a successor to the "Queen Mary". I do not believe that is looking too far ahead, because, if two ships are necessary to carry on the service now, I think that it will be more than difficult to find one ship which could carry out the work of two ships on this route. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be tempted to prospect a little on that point, or may refer it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who might be invited to look at it when he comes to reply.
  Something has been said about the impact of air travel on the North Atlantic transit of passengers. That is a matter which has engaged the attention of those of us who take an active interest in the work of the Ministry of Aviation. I was interested in the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), which clearly show that there is a greater and greater number of people travelling by air than by sea. I do not think that anyone will dispute the fact that there has been a big transfer from sea travel to air travel.
  My right hon. Friend, if I got his figures correctly, pointed out that in 1948 the number who travelled by sea was 647,000 and the number who travelled by air was 240,000. He said that in 1961—perhaps there is a little obscurity at this point—
  Mr. Strauss: I said 1960.
  Mr. Rankin: Then the fault was mine. My right hon. Friend said that the number who travelled by air in 1960 was 2 million and the number who travelled by sea was 860,000. His figures clearly demonstrate that the number of persons who crossed the Atlantic in toto during 1948 was about 887,000, but that the number who crossed last year was around 2,860,000. That is a vast change, and there lies the opportunity for ships.
  Only a week ago last Saturday I explored that aspect of the problem with
  998
  one of the executives who—it is no secret—will be very interested in this new ship. He said that, in his view, there is a continuing market for a ship of this quality and size on the North Atlantic route. He went so far as to say that there is room for two ships, just as we have two today. He said that the traffic is there and that it is our business to get it.
  While, admittedly, air travel may still continue to be an active competitor, and a very serious one, because the introduction of the DC.8 and the Boeing 707 has attracted, and must continue to attract, an increasing number of people to it, the total market is also expanding, and that is the reason why, in my view—and I am interested in both developments—there is room and ample scope not only for our new types of aircraft but also for our new types of ship.
  I do not want to go into technical details of the type of ship which is necessary for this job. I do not think that it is my business. I am certain that the Minister has considered the matter very carefully. I am sure that he has received the best possible advice, and I should not in any way seek to oppose anything he said in that regard, because it has been substantiated by the advice which I have received. But I should like to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman about a matter which occurs in Clause 1 (9) and again in Clause 2 (9) of the Bill. Reference is made there to the fact that
  "the Minister shall, not later than the end of November following the year, send the account to the Comptroller and Auditor-General who shall examine, certify and report on the account and lay copies of it, together with his report, before each House of Parliament."
  In a matter of this kind it seems to me that a long time will elapse between the termination of the financial year and the rendering of accounts and their appearance in this House for the information and guidance of hon. Members. There may be a substantial reason for that; I do not know. But I hope that the Minister will tell us why such an apparently long time should elapse before this financial information comes under the scrutiny of hon. Members.
  There has been a good deal or argument about the propriety of the subsidy. I find it rather interesting, in view of the fact that for the first time the Treasury has issued a memorandum giving us exact

  999
  details of all the subsidies and loans given by this Government, without any obvious objection whatever from hon. Members opposite. They cover a vast part of the economic life of this country. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, these amount to £400·9 million. My right hon. Friend said £401 million, but what is a decimal point when one is discussing sums of that nature? It is strange that when we discuss a subsidy of £18 million it has caused all the bruhaha—I hope that word is understood by hon. Members opposite; all the tumult and shouting—if I may translate it into ordinary dictionary English—which has ensued. There is all this acquiescence abouts£401 million of subsidy and loans, and all this noise about a subsidy of £18 million.
  Mr. Marples: It is £3,750,000.
  Mr. Rankin: One may call it £3,750,000, but we are to find the substantial sum of £18 million.
  Mr. Marples: As a loan.
  Mr. Rankin: All right. The right hon. Gentleman has not been listening as carefully as he usually listens. I said that the £401 million was subsidies and loans. I hope I said that quite clearly. And the £18 million is in exactly the same position. I hope I am not wrong about that. There is both subsidy and loan embodied in the £18 million. I was trying to compare like with like. If I had not done so, I should have been challenged by hon. Members opposite.
  I wonder why there is all the criticism, all the seemingly implied threat about the advances on this issue, from hon. Members opposite. What is the story behind it all? Will no one talk freely about it? Why should they oppose this bill? Why the emphasis? I myself emphasised the point referred to by the hon. Member for Gillingham. He said that this was a specific subsidy for a specific ship built for a specific purpose, and that is true. I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman to say, "For this particular ship". That was a remark in his aid because of the boisterous unwelcome which was accompanying certain parts of his speech.
  Hon. Members on this side of the House have perfectly clear consciences
  1000
  about subsidies and loans. I believe in them. I believe that the resources of this nation should always be placed behind any project which is essential in the national interest in order to tide it over hard times. But, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I do not believe in just giving away money without receiving some obligation in return. If we are to help by providing loans and subsidies. I demand some form of control.
  I will go a step beyond control. If private industry cannot run its own business properly, efficiently and effectively in the national interest, the Government, on behalf of the nation, are bound to step in and assume the ownership of whatever industry is failing in its purpose. The Government must keep the people of this country employed and keep industry going. Industry must not be run for profit alone. That is the source of the whole trouble. Today industry is being run in order to create private profit. It is not being run in the interests of the nation as a whole.
  We have to face a farcical situation which the Minister of Aviation has had to face in another respect, and which was outlined again by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington, and I agree with what he said. We are to give aid in the form of subsidy and loan to a project of the Cunard Company, which is backing the Eagle Aircraft Company to the tune of nearly £2 million in order to compete with a nationalised industry, British European Airways, which at least at one time was subsidised by the Government in order that it might gain a footing in a very keen market.
  This is rather an absurd position. As a Member of this House one must weigh up all the pros and cons of the situation and it may possibly be difficult to reach a decision. But I have reached mine, after weighing them up and judging them as I see them. I said to the Minister when I began my speech that I would ease his mind, which probably was seriously troubled in the earlier part of the debate. He has my support in this matter for what it is worth. In my division there is danger of unemployment, and, in my view, unemployment and its cost is a graver consequence to the nation than would be the subsidising

  1001
  of the Cunard Company. Therefore, I support the Bill for this and the other reasons I have given.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. John Henderson: I agreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) until he began to introduce support for further nationalisation by claiming that the Government should have some control and eventually complete ownership of a great industry such as shipbuilding. The hon. Gentleman and myself must part company.
  Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I was dealing at that point not with the shipbuilding, but with the ship-owning aspect. The Cunard Company is not a shipbuilding company.
  Mr. Henderson: There is very little difference between the shipbuilding industry and ship owning. If he is advocating control of ownership of either, then I repeat that we must part company.
  The hon. Member also touched upon the question of election pledges. Almost every right hon. and hon. Member has introduced that subject into his speech. When all is said and done, any Government that fail to put into effect their election promises ought to be turned out at the opportunity. The inference is made that, apart from the merits of the building of this great liner, and apart from the merits of the subsidy—it was implied that these merits did not exist—it was only because of the election pledge that the Bill was brought forward. I dissociate myself from those innuendoes or suggestions.
  I believe that the Minister and the Government are looking forward to keen competition for the existing traffic between America and this country and that they have been honest in their efforts to face up to the responsibility of making provision for the future. The question that the full Report of the Chandos Committee has not been submitted to Members of the House has been raised more than once. I am in perfect agreement with the Minister. I do not think that it is desirable that a most confidential document, the findings of this very important Committee comprising experts presided over by one of the most eminent industrialists in this country if not in the
  1002
  world, should be made public to hon. Members or to the public. Firms are competing one with the other and a tremendous amount of damage could be done to their future prospects if confidential information contained in the Report were made public. I think that the Minister is perfectly justified in withholding the Report from hon. Members and the public.
  A good deal of heavy weather has been made by some hon. Members because of the interest of the Cunard Company in an airline. I think that the explanation of that is comparatively simple. Any great shipping company or any airline wants to have relationship one with the other. To provide transport for passengers coming by liner it is bound to face up to the fact that it may be necessary to provide airline facilities for them.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) introduced for the first time the various areas interested in securing this order—Northern Ireland, Tyneside and Clydeside. I hope that the Minister will not merely take into account the cheapest offer; I am sure that he will not. I am sure that he will take the best offer; and that does not necessarily mean the cheapest offer. I think that he must also take into account the record of the firms tendering for this huge order. All the firms are firms of first-class importance. In one area, Clydeside, there is a certain amount of unemployment building up. The same, unfortunately, applies to Northern Ireland, and, to a lesser degree, perhaps, to the North-East Coast of England.
  I suggest to the Minister that when he takes into account the question of unemployment, the question of the prestige associated with the building of a great liner like this, and the question of building a fast-going liner between this country and America, he should give special consideration to the record of the firms which have done such great work in the past. I hope that the House will approve the Bill, that the expectations of those engaged in shipbuilding will be fulfilled, and that this country will again put out on the waters between England and America a ship built by the best craftsmen, built by the best skill, a ship that will not only serve the seas but will be a testimony to the craftsmanship, ingenuity and skill of those who build her.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: I listened with interest to the comments which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson) made, but the timing of this Bill is of interest. When I look back on my entry into the House, I recall that I made my maiden speech in a debate on shipping. In the General Election manifesto the question of the Cunard was trotted around the Clyde, Merseyside, the Tyne and Belfast as a vote catcher. The Government have now no alternative because although the Local Employment Bill was supposed to do so much, the depreciation in the shipbuilding areas is greater now than at the time of the introduction of that Bill. The shrinkage in terms of craftsmen in the Clyde area has been from 10,000 to 9,000, and there is a comparable decrease in apprentices.
  In advancing the case for the Bill, the Minister spoke about value for money. This consideration must be related to the question whether we are to pay unemployment benefit or whether we are to create opportunity. Although the position as regards the interest charges is not as satisfactory as I would like, I must support the Bill, because it is the only instrument at present available which will create any future prospect of a big job in any shipbuilding yard.
  The long-term return is that technicians, craftsmen, skilled men and apprentices in the successful shipbuilding yard will have promotion prospects, and this will help to preserve the shipbuilding craft. Many people come to me and ask me to advise them whether they should stay in shipbuilding or take their skills elsewhere. In view of the migration from the North and other areas to other Continents, there is a need for creative effort of this character.
  One or two people, apart from people within the shipbuilding industry, have spoken to me about their right to tender. The Cunard Company has laid it down that there will be five competitive tenders. Since there is so much public money involved, people in the electrical and plastic industries who have the right to quote for most things want to know what their rights are to quote. How expensive are the tenders? Who determines the schedules? Is this exclusive to Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson and John Brown? If public money
  1004
  is involved, people will want to know how expensive the schedules will be and to which areas they will go so that they may quote on the basis of a fair return. Clause 1 (4) says:
  "The total of any advances made by way of grant by virtue of subsection (3) of this section shall not exceed three and a quarter million pounds:
  Provided that the Minister may by order contained in a statutory instrument of which a draft has been laid before the Commons House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of that House, substitute for the reference in this subsection to three and a quarter million pounds a reference to such greater sum as may be specified in the order."
  What circumstances would justify an increase of the £3¼ million by Statutory Instrument? What circumstances are envisaged? Why cannot the Bill lay down clearly and specifically that the grant is to be £3¼ million?
  In view of the position and needs of shipbuilding yards, the Bill has my support.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: It is with pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), who spoke with such feeling on the fall in employment in shipbuilding yards.
  I want to say one brief word of welcome to my hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I join with more senior Members of the House and say how glad I am as a junior Member to see him on the Front Bench tonight.
  We have heard some interesting speeches in this debate. An attack was made from this side of the House on the Government's policy of subsidising the Cunard Company. I am in agreement with the speakers on this side of the House who criticised the policy of subsidising private enterprise. I agree with the comment of the General Council of the Chamber of Shipping that the subsidy is not the long-term answer to the problems of the shipping or shipbuilding industries. The Council said, however, that it is important to note that there should be an exception in the case of foreign competition when that is subsidised.
  The main purpose of the Government should surely be to end all international subsidy, which can so often lead to a

  1005
  war between different countries to see which can subsidise the most. My right hon. Friend told us how the Americans are heavily subsidising not only the passenger lines but all other lines. They are subsidising them in two ways. The first is by giving them a capital grant—that is, by subsidising the cost of building boats in American yards. The second is by subsidising their operating costs. We know that France also subsidises. My right hon. Friend neglected to mention Italy, which now pays a subsidy of 20 to 30 per cent. on the building cost and also pays a subsidy on the operating costs of her boats. Britain pays no subsidy on operating costs. It would be quite wrong for us to pay any subsidy on operating costs.
  However, we must consider our position very carefully. The choice facing the Government is whether we are to remain in the field and continue to sail ships flying the British flag, and built in British yards, on traditional routes of the world, where we have always sailed them, or whether we are to give in to foreign lines which are so heavily subsidised.
  This is the qualification and this is the necessity for the Bill. We cannot afford to ignore such unfair competition. The first and most important reason why we cannot afford to do so is because of our great position as a maritime nation. Secondly, from the point of view of our export industry, about which so much has been said in recent debates, to lose or weaken our shipbuilding industry would mean not only a loss of ships which we build for foreign countries—we have built many of them, including many at the yard of Harland and Wolff in my constituency—but we should also lose invisible earnings, which have been a very valuable contribution in the past to our balance of trade and balance of payments.
  The third reason, which hon. Members on both sides were correct in stressing, is the employment position in shipbuilding yards at the moment. In Belfast we are faced with very heavy redundancy. Unless the Government step in and help to fill the gap which is mentioned in the recently released Report of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee on the prospects of the shipbuilding industry, we shall be left with no shipbuilding industry in this country at all, because of unfair competition abroad from yards not only in France,
  1006
  Italy and America, but also in Sweden and Germany, which were so heavily subsidised and helped to rebuild after the war.
  I disagree in particular with the remarks of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and also my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), who said that this subsidy can help only one yard. That is complete nonsense as, I think, they themselves later admitted. No matter who gets the contract—whether it be Harland and Wolff or John Brown, or whether it goes to the Tyne—the other yards will benefit because the successful yard cannot do all the work itself and there will be an overflow to the others. As the shipbuilding work will be more spread out, this subsidy will help all the yards. The subsidy is only £3½ million, although there is a loan of £18 million—
  Mr. Mellish: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if a Belfast yard got the order it could do only its own particular job and that any other work would go to other yards?
  Mr. McMaster: I say that a contract like this would employ a very large number of men for three years. Even the shipbuilding manpower resources of Belfast are limited, so, as has happened in the years since the war, some work would have to be turned from Belfast and might very well go to John Brown or to Newcastle.
  I also disagree with the statement made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall that the yard that won the contract would suffer in the long run because once the "Queen" was built there would be nothing more for the yard to do. If he has read the Report, he will see that shipbuilding is facing temporary trouble because of heavy building in the past, but it will not be very long before many cargo and passenger liners will need to be replaced. After the bleak period of the next two or three years referred to in the Report, there will be plenty of work for the yards.
  It is therefore essential that we should remain shipbuilders. We shall always want ships. As has been said often in this debate, passenger traffic across the Atlantic has increased very distinctly in the last ten years but, with growing prosperity and the expansion of world trade,

  1007
  freight traffic must also increase. Only a very small part of that freight can be carried in aircraft. Britain has been the largest shipbuilder and, in terms of money, still is the largest shipbuilder in the world.
  I am surprised that nobody has yet touched on the strategic aspect. What would happen if the Government were not prepared to support British shipbuilding? What would happen in times of danger if all the cargo vessels and the liners were owned by expatriate Greek ship-owners, financed in the United States, sailing under flags of convenience but owing no true allegiance to any country? Are we to be placed at their mercy in times of crisis? Are we to depend on them to supply all the necessary shipping, and in that way lose our own shipping and our shipbuilding yards?
  It has also been stated, quite rightly, that many foreign tourists from across the Atlantic visit the United Kingdom. They do so because they come to Southampton in one of the "Queens". But if they travelled in American or French ships going straight to Le Havre, would those people come to this country and spend their dollars? Their dollars have been and are vital to us. It does not matter what the net profits are—and that question has been asked. If we can spend £s in this country to earn dollars, the gross is the net gain to this country.
  A ship like this is of enormous prestige value, though I put that last in this series of reasons for supporting the Bill. Such a ship is a shop window for Britain. It shows that we can still build the best ships in the world and sail them in competition. Furthermore, this subsidy is very much smaller than that given to our American, French and Italian competitors on the North Atlantic route.
  Suggestions have been made for helping our shipbuilding industry in general, and I want now to address myself to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is, I believe, to reply to this debate. Mention has been made of the guarantee that is incorporated in the Bill, and I want to draw attention to guarantees, not only to the Cunard Company but to other British companies. It seems that as a result of the recent extension of the Export Credit Guarantees Department's
  1008
  cover for more than five years, foreign ship owners have an advantage over ours in the building of ships. I ask my right hon. Friend to look into this matter particularly to see if these credit guarantees can be extended to British ship-owners when they build their vessels in their own shipyards. In addition, I would ask him to consider the recommendation in the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee's Report on scrapping and building. There would seem to be a strong case for following such a policy.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have missed this point. They have said, "Why support this Cunard Bill? This is not what British shipping really needs." I think I have said enough to show why we need a subsidy for the "Queen" and to indicate that we should not merely stop there. Let us consider other ways of meeting these subsidies which America, France and other countries pay, and scrapping and building might be a very good way of doing that.
  In the long term we must aim at persuading our competitors to abandon these protective practices—not only the payment of subsidies but practices such as flag discrimination. I noted with pleasure the efforts which were made to this end by the Prime Minister in his recent visit to America. I hope they will be followed up at the highest level and that the strongest representations and pressure will be brought to bear upon the United States, France and Italy and perhaps through G.A.T.T., to abandon these discriminatory practices which are so harmful to cheap shipping transport costs throughout the world which must be the aim of all sensible Governments.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has managed to do in this Bill. He has managed to achieve the paramount purpose of the Government in shipping, namely, to keep our shipbuilding industry efficient and competitive. The way in which the loan has been granted to the Cunard Company, the Government providing the basic loan and the Cunard Company paying the rest, gives all the encouragement in the world to the yards which are tendering for this contract to put in competitive tenders. I believe there will be the keenest of competitive tendering for this contract.

  1009
  Unlike the right hon. Member for Easington, I do not believe that British shipbuilding yards are unnecessarily expensive. He has said that the prices which we quote do not compare with prices quoted abroad. I would refer him—I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—to the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee's Report, and particularly to its remarks in paragraph 26. The British shipbuilding yards are as efficient as any in the world, and many a company which has ordered its ships abroad has been surprised at the final price when it has added all the extras, which are included in the usual British shipbuilding contract.
  I should like to make a particular plea to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to augment the support which he has given and is giving to the shipbuilding industry through this Bill, by exempting the industry from the effects of the payroll tax which was announced in the Budget. I should like to quote from paragraph 26 of the Report of the Advisory Committee:
  "The latest evidence available suggests that at least some United Kingdom shipbuilders are now offering prices as low as their foreign competitors, though we are informed that this is sometimes achieved only by eliminating profits and cutting overhead charges even in those firms which are known to be leading in the industry in the introduction of cost-cutting techniques."
  If they are cutting profits and cutting themselves so fine, how can they possibly face an uncertain payroll tax which might interfere with the prices they have to quote in order to win contracts?
  Mr. Bence: I hope the hon. Gentleman will put an Amendment down in due course.
  Mr. McMaster: The time will come.
  Other help can be given to the shipbuilding industry, but I do not want to trespass on the time of the House now. The principal feature which strikes me is the cost of steel. I have referred to the effect of a payroll tax on the cost of labour. The other main constituent in the price of a vessel, a "Queen" or any other vessel, is the price of the steel which goes into it. The price of steel is very much determined by the price of coal. Unfortunately, in this country today we have to pay more for our coal
  1010
  than we should have to pay even for coal imported from the United States or from Europe. Therefore, I question seriously the Government's policy in closing opencast mines where cheap coal could be obtained.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is straying too far.
  Mr. McMaster: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I related that matter to the subject of our debate because there have been constant references to the cost of the proposed vessel, and the price of steel is an element in the cost. However, I will leave that.
  I have avoided basing my speech on the affairs of my constituency tonight in the interests of the wider scope of the debate on the shipbuilding industry, but I will close by referring to both our problems and our successes there. Messrs. Harland and Wolff have a very great shipbuilding record. As we all know, it is one of the companies tendering for the contract. Two vessels built there, the "Oriana" and the "Canberra", have been spoken of with praise tonight. The "Canberra", launched last Saturday, is the largest vessel to be built in this country since the "Queens". I suggest, therefore, that we have a strong case in tendering for the "Queen" liner contract.
  I praise also the very conscientious attitude of the trade unions in Northern Ireland. In the Report of the Advisory Committee to which I have referred, there are references to trade disputes which often hinder the industry. In Northern Ireland, we have a fine record of good relations between management and men. A very realistic attitude has been apparent recently in the approach to demarcation problems. This attitude has been evident throughout the years since the war, and our record compares most favourably with that of any other yard in the country. I praise particularly the realistic attitude of management, trade unions and men.
  I agree with what has been said about the contract being placed fairly, but I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider for a moment what would happen if, all other things being equal, the tenders were equally balanced, taking into account delivery date, price, and all the rest. I suggest that in such a case

  1011
  my right hon. and learned Friend should revert to an Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport when he said that social factors would be considered. There is to be committed here £18 million of taxpayers' money. The Government should insist, as they have the right to do, according to the White Paper, in consulting the Cunard Company about the placing of the contract, on considering unemployment factors. In Northern Ireland, we have over 8 per cent. unemployment, which is six times the national average. About 7,000 or 8,000 men are being laid off in Belfast since the completion of the "Canberra", and those men have very little opportunity of finding other work in Northern Ireland. In the unlikely event of equal tenders being submitted, regard should be had to these factors in the placing of the contract.
  8.44 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), in his speech, reminded me of a remark attributed to Jimmy Maxton at one of his election meetings. He was accused of trying to support two contradictory arguments at the same time. When taxed with this, he replied, quick as a flash, "If you can't ride two horses at one time, you ought not to be in the damned circus anyway". Perhaps that was the genius of the hon. Member's speech. I think that he did very well. He concluded by making an appeal to the Chancellor and referring to various things said in the Report of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee. I congratulate him on the procedural agility by which he brought those matters and the price of coal into his speech, falling foul of the Chair only once. It was quite remarkable.
  In arguing for this, the hon. Member tended to try to meet the point raised, I think quite sensibly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). There is a suggestion here that, somehow or other, this proposition of the Government is an exclusive alternative to any other means of helping the shipbuilding industry, and I should like the Chancellor, if he is replying to the debate, to tell us that that is not so, but
  1012
  that, in fact, this is simply a contribution to the shipping world, to the nation as a whole, rather than any pretence of being a solution to our shipbuilding problems.
  I know that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) in another context, hon. Members have tonight paraded like oriental concubines before the Government, displaying the charms of their various shipbuilding firms in the hope that their own constituencies might be chosen for the contract. That temptation apart, I think the Chancellor would agree that we require a very extensive debate so that the Government might get the chance, through the new Joint Parliamentary Secretary—whom I congratulate on his appointment, and from whom we expect rollicking speeches from that Front Bench—to display their intentions towards shipbuilding.
  I do not represent a constituency which is in the position of being able to build the new Cunarder and, therefore, I am, in a sense, unbiassed, but I represent a constituency which is very much concerned with the welfare of shipbuilding. In that respect, it is worth while reminding the Chancellor that the point raised both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East is very important, namely, the problem of subsidies. The hon. Member for Belfast, East talked about ending all international subsidies, but that is really crying for the moon. I do not see a situation arising anywhere in the near future, and certainly not in the next critical five years which he mentioned.
  After all, the Minister of Transport prides himself, a little unduly at times, on being extremely energetic and enthusiastic. He has been in Washington and has done all he can, he says, to make representations to the Americans about many of the objections raised by hon. Members tonight, and which have been put on the record, about shipping and shipbuilding, but the fact is that we are no nearer to having international agreements about flags of convenience, subsidies or anything else. It would be quite foolish for the Government to make their policy for the next five years on the supposition that we are to have some international agreement of some kind on this score. I think that the hon. Member

  1013
  for Belfast, East might put aside his prejudices in this matter, to which he is entitled, and realise that subsidies have come to be an instrument of Government assistance to the shipbuilding industry.
  Of course, with the subsidies there comes the unpleasant part, from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, in that there is the bargaining, because subsidies are money from the public purse and can only be given under public surveillance and with due regard to the public interest. Perhaps this is where those hon. Gentlemen opposite come in—those who are opposed to this openly, none of whom seems inclined to vote against the Bill tonight, and those who have made reservations in regard to their position on subsidies in general.
  When the hon. Gentleman talks about the "scrap and build" policy, this is one of the recommendations in the Advisory Committee's Report. It is an interesting Report, which makes nine recommendations, of which five have nothing to do with Parliament at all. They are entirely concerned with the industry internally. One other concerns a matter of amalgamation, to which an hon. Member opposite has said we were opposed. I do not know how he gets that impression, because I think that the smaller and medium-sized yards lend themselves readily to amalgamation.
  The other three points were concerned with the Chancellor, and I hope that tonight, at any rate, the Chancellor will tell us about them, and what thoughts he has on the policy of scrap and build. He might say that he wishes to reserve a view on that matter for a later date, but it is an important point. The hon. Gentleman for Belfast, East must realise that the policy of scrap and build is a policy of subsidisation. If the hon. Gentleman advocates it, it means that he is in favour of large subsidies over a wider field. This is the point of my intervention. I feel that a declaration must be made tonight that this is only a solution of part of the problem and that the Government intend to adopt the same vigorous attitude towards the shipbuilding industry as a whole as they have adopted towards this project to replace the "Queen Mary".
  I welcome the Bill. I think that it is a sensible Bill. All the Jeremiahs on the Government benches who have predicted
  1014
  how obsolescent this vessel will be, and who have wanted us to haul down the "Red Duster" over the Atlantic in favour of the larger vessels of other countries, are very wrong. It is right that the Government should take this step. I commend them wholeheartedly for taking it, but I want them to assure me that the real solution to the problems of the shipbuilding industry has yet to come, and that they will make an early announcement concerning their solution.
  8.51 p.m.
  Mr. John Howard: I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon). Undoubtedly, this subsidy is directed towards the passenger trade in the North Atlantic. The question before the House is: do we as a nation hold our position in the North Atlantic passenger trade? A great deal has been said about the advantages of the Bill to the shipbuilding industry. I acknowledge those advantages quite readily. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) referred to them. The Opposition Front Bench gave the position of the shipbuilding industry as their reason for supporting the Bill. However, I consider the shipbuilding angle as incidental to the main theme of maintaining our position in the North Atlantic passenger trade.
  In common with many of my hon. Friends, I am opposed to indiscriminate subsidies. I wish that there were other ways of providing the funds needed for the replacement of the "Queen Mary". We are considering a loan of £18 million, of which £3¼ million is a subsidy, or, to put it another way, is the result of making available a loan at 4¼ per cent. interest instead of the higher rate of interest of 6¼ per cent. for loans from the Public Works Loan Board. On that basis, we might say that the Cunard Steam-ship Company Ltd. should have found the funds from its own resources for this vessel.
  Other things being equal, perhaps that would have been possible, but circumstances have changed enormously since the "Queen Mary" was built nearly thirty years ago. If building costs had remained stable instead of increasing between six and seven times and if taxation policy had enabled the Cunard Company

  1015
  to put away reserves to build a liner costing £30 million from the earnings of its predecessor, then I would join my hon. Friends in opposing a subsidy for the replacement of the liner.
  Three points have emerged from the debate, with which various hon. Members have endeavoured to deal. The first is whether it is desirable to compete in the North Atlantic trade. The second is whether we should operate with the fast luxury liners which have been the subject of this debate and which are capable of crossing the Atlantic in five days or whether we should use smaller vessels. The third is whether there is a good reason for Government finance being applied to this project.
  At this stage, I must disclose a constituency interest. I represent the Port of Southampton, which is the premier passenger port of this country. Over half the passengers coming into or leaving Great Britain for any destination enter or leave by Southampton. The "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth" are essentially Southampton ships, and they are as much a feature of the port as the Bells of St. Mary's. I will not go on to extoll the virtues of the Port of Southampton other than to remark that we have a magnificent ocean terminal and dry dock, which are admirably fitted for the reception of these large passenger liners.
  It has been established that it is desirable to compete in the passenger trade in the North Atlantic. The problem has been considered by the Chandos Committee, which decided that if a replacement is to be provided it should be of roughly the same size as ore of the existing "Queens". Furthermore, it is clear that, as the "Queen Mary" ageing rapidly, not only must the replacement be planned, but construction must begin during the life of the present Parliament.
  The two "Queens" have not always operated in normal times and in their early years they had to carry the heat and burden of wartime troopships. I recall a trip which I made to the United States during the war, as a passenger in the "Queen Elizabeth", to collect a minesweeper. I read with pleasure the fact that I had been allocated a stateroom. On arriving aboard, I was surprised to find that 48 other people were
  1016
  occupying it. I was consoled, subsequently, by the fact that we carried only 5,000 passengers on the outward journey to New York, as compared with the 14,000 passengers who travelled in the troopship to Europe on the return journey.
  The House will be satisfied that it is still desirable for Britain to hold her proud position in the North Atlantic. I hope that enough has been said today to demonstrate that it is still a worthwhile proposition. The Chandos Committee was asked to consider
  "how the British passenger express service across the North Atlantic could best be maintained."
  The significance of those words is that they referred to a decision which the Government had already taken and which has been mentioned on many occasions during the debate in relation to our election manifesto. I was one of the many people who featured that item of Conservative policy in my election address and I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends accepted this pledge by implication.
  The situation has not changed materially since October, 1959. It is still reasonable to say that there are merits in remaining in the North Atlantic passenger business. If we do not pass the Bill and offer the subsidy to the Cunard Company, which, after all, has been selected by the Chandos Committee as the company most capable of operating the new liner, the alternative is to leave the field to the other nations and to content ourselves with operating an Atlantic service through existing smaller ships and, therefore, virtually to abdicate from this important service in favour of the Americans, the French, the Dutch and the Germans.
  I mention the last two nations because they are operating with smaller ships. The reason why they can do so is that they have a much longer distance to travel and, therefore, they cannot enjoy the advantages of large liners capable of traversing the Atlantic in five days, thus having the weekend at sea which is an important consideration in passenger liners. They have to take more than the five days in any event, because their ports are much further east than Southampton or the port of Le Havre, in France.

  1017
  We also face hectic competition from the airline companies, about whom a great deal has been said this afternoon. The question is whether this competition will overwhelm the seaborne passenger traffic. Fifteen airlines from fourteen nations operate over the Atlantic. Below them, there are twenty-five passenger liners operated under fifteen different flags. This fierce struggle is nothing new. It has existed throughout the twentieth century and it has been a struggle for the trans-Atlantic trade.
  Reference has been made to the potential of the passenger traffic. I noticed that the European Travel Bureau forecasts that by 1965 about 1½ million people will make trips to Europe from America. I submit that there is no reason why the shipping industry should not secure a share of that traffic. After all, shipping has much to offer which air travel has not. If one travels by sea there is opportunity for relaxation. The figures show that there is a marked tendency for people to travel in one direction by sea.
  Now that the Cunard Company, as we are so well aware, has taken an interest in Eagle Airways perhaps it is not too much to hope that air tickets can be made available for both sea and air travel and that the present restrictions on the interchangeability of sea and air tickets can be overcome.
  We have heard about the declining trade in the Atlantic. Recent figures do not bear that out. We are running at about 169,000 passengers annually to and from the United States as against 163,000 in 1959, and of the 169,000 passengers 73,000, or 43 per cent., are carried in the "Queen" liners as against, say, five years ago when they carried a similar proportion, 42 per cent.
  To refer very briefly to the second question facing us, namely, whether luxury liners are the right liners for this traffic, certainly the Chandos Committee came to that conclusion, and I think it is fair to say, from the surveys which have been undertaken and from consultations with other ship-owners, that this is the right size of ship, that is, a ship nearly 1,000 ft. long and capable of about 30 knots.
  These, then, are some of the essentials of meeting foreign competition and air competition: fast service across the
  1018
  Atlantic, a weekly service by large ships which are limited chiefly to the port of Southampton and the French Atlantic ports. If we need a comparison we need only to look at the French building programme. Both the old "Normandie" and the new "France" are about 70,000 tons, and that, I think, supports the decision of the Government and the recommendations of the Chandos Committee. The "United States" is not quite so large, but there are special circumstances, including the need for her to go through the Panama Canal, as part of the terms of the United States Government's subsidy. Moreover, she is powered not by normal commercial engines operating under commercial conditions but by Wasp aircraft carrier engines operating at a very much greater pressure and able to develop rather higher speeds than commercially normal.
  Is there a reason for Government finance for this project, and, if so, are the arrangements satisfactory? That is, I think, the final question that the House must answer. The basic reason for the Government finance is clearly the fact that the liner will cost £30 million and that the Cunard Company can put only £12 million into the proposition. Therefore, either the Government or the City have to bridge the gap. In view of the very many uncertainties which are peculiar to the North Atlantic trade the Government have decided to come in and to provide a subsidy which makes the replacement of the liner possible. Uncertainties arise, first, because of the cutthroat competition on the Atlantic and because Cunard are competing with modern liners which are heavily subsidised.
  The new French liner's building costs, for example, are to be subsidised. Also, there is doubt about the extent to which foreign competition may receive even greater subsidies in the future. If we have any doubt about the latter point, we have only to refer to the "Stale of the Union" message delivered by President Kennedy to realise that Americans are still very determined to subsidise their shipping. There is, therefore, a great degree of commercial uncertainty about the future of this liner and of North Atlantic trade. This is good reason for Government intervention to secure our position in the North Atlantic and to recognise the special circumstances

  1019
  which obtain because of subsidies given to our competitors.
  American subsidies cover operating costs to bring them down to European level and they may run to as much as £1,700 to £3,000 a day whilst the liner is operating. The Americans also supply a loan for building, plus Government subsidy to bring the cost of building down to the price of the cheapest European yard. The building cost of the "United States" was £27 million, and £17 million was provided by the United States Government in subsidy.
  The same comment applies to the French liner where of the £32 million overall cost £7 million were provided by subsidy. The Dutch also provide loans at advantageous rates for shipbuilding. In the special circumstances, therefore, and in view of the approval which the General Council of British Shipping has given to this project the House can reasonably accept the Bill and look for-ward to the building of the "Q 3", the new Cunarder.
  We have already given some subsidies to the textile industry and if we now come forward with a subsidy in the peculiar circumstances of the North Atlantic trade, we shall at least underline the point which hon. Members have been making when they have complained about flag discrimination and other restrictive practices throughout the world which prevent British ships earning the full earnings which British "know-how" and ability entitle them to earn. By passing the Bill we shall demonstrate, in particular, to the Americans, who are the worst offenders in shipping discrimination and subsidies, that we do not intend to be run off the Atlantic route simply because they have waded in with subsidies for their vessels.
  9.8 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I would begin as so many other right hon. and hon. Members have begun by saying how happy we are at the appointment of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) as Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I can say quite sincerely that in the last few years he and I have become very good friends. He has been
  1020
  a very painstaking back bencher and a hard worker and we are looking forward to his speeches on shipbuilding and ship repairing.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman has a very wily Minister who will want to stoke and run the ship and direct everybody; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to be an admiral, first-class, if he is to keep the ship on course. I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Chancellor due notice that although we have debated many shipping problems today, we hope very shortly to have a debate on the present position of the industry. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will take a leading part in that debate.
  It is all that we have before us at the moment, but we cannot believe that this Bill represents the Government's only contribution to the shipping industry. Many of us today find ourselves in an embarrassing situation and I declare that at once. Quite frankly, if it were possible I should oppose the Bill, for many reasons which I hope to give in a moment. But for the reason which has been so admirably presented by every one of my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies—that this is the only Bill at the moment that will supply some sort of aid to some shipbuilding yard somewhere—we as a party cannot turn our back on the fact that it represents £18 million of Government aid. It could be misrepresented in the country if we were to oppose the Bill.
  Therefore, reluctantly, I must inform the House that we shall not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, although we hope to be given more assurances from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he replies to the debate. What further assurances the Chancellor can give us, I do not know, but at least the right hon. and learned Gentleman can say what the Government proposes to do for the shipbuilding industry in the near future. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said that although we had severe criticism of the Bill, we would not oppose its Second Reading.
  If we look back we find that this Bill originated at election time, when the Prime Minister gave a pledge. On that occasion, the Prime Minister was speaking in Scotland and the pledge having

  1021
  been made, was written into the Conservative Party's manifesto and, I suppose, it was meant for Scottish consumption. There was a great deal of unemployment in Scotland at that time, and the Prime Minister said—and it is in the manifesto for all to see—
  "we shall support the replacement of the Queen liners".
  It is arising out of that statement that I must ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—since the Minister of Transport is so keen to assure us about the honesty of this Government in carrying out their pledges—to be completely candid with us and say whether the Government intend also to replace the "Queen Elizabeth" The Minister of Transport rather ducked answering that question when he made a play about how the Conservative Party intended to keep its election pledges. As far as I am concerned, the whole thing was very dishonest. The Prime Minister made the statement when he was trying to win seats in Scotland for the Conservatives. He did not have very much luck. As I say, there was unemployment in Scotland and it was election time; and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. East (Mr. Montgomery) has admitted that he exploited that statement and interpreted it to apply to his own area, and the result was that the hon. Gentleman got in with a majority of 98 votes.
  Mr. Montgomery: I said that the statement appeared in the Conservative Party election manifesto. I was fighting an election in a big shipyard area and there was nothing wrong in my bringing forward a point which was mentioned in that manifesto. There was nothing wrong in that, and I won the seat.
  Mr. Mellish: I am making the simple point that the Prime Minister made that speech in Scotland and that the remarks contained in it were meant for Scottish consumption. The Prime Minister was alarmed about the unemployment position in Scotland and, obviously, he had to promise something.
  The statement was made "off the cuff", as it were, and it was followed by the establishment of that mysterious Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Chandos. That Committee appears to have followed typically on the line that is normally taken by the Minister
  1022
  of Transport, who never seems to do anything openly. I do not know why the Committee could not have reported all the information to the House. In any case, the Chandos Committee was inhibited, before it got started, by its terms of reference. Its job was to see how, in fact, it could implement the pledge given by the Prime Minister in that election manifesto, and it was within the narrow orbit of those terms of reference that the Committee reported, we gather, to the Minister of Transport.
  One question worrying hon. Members on this side of the House is: did the Committee consider whether the £18 million the Government intend to spend on this venture could have been spent in another way to help the British shipbuilding industry? I gather not, but surely we are entitled to know.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Member is surely aware that a great deal of the investigation made by the Chandos Committee was of such a character that, if there had been a complete disclosure, a lot of valuable information would have gone to foreign countries.
  Mr. Mellish: Perhaps the hon. Member has some inside knowledge of Government activity. We are all aware that in his speech today he declared that he had a vested interest in this matter, that he is associated with the shipping line that has been awarded this subsidy, the Cunard Line.
  Mr. Burden: I did not.
  Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman did. He tried hard in his speech today to defend why this particular firm, in which he has an interest, should receive an £18 million grant from the Government. That is very natural. If I were associated with a company and was to get all that amount of money, I should defend it all the time.
  The fact is that we have not seen the Chandos Committee's Report. It is a tragedy that it was not able to consider how best Government aid could be given to the shipping industry as a whole. The burden of our case is the way in which this was done on an election pledge given "off the cuff" for a certain reason in the North and exploited in other parts, and at the end of the day I believe it will not benefit the industry in the way it should.

  1023
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) made a rather extraordinary speech. He began by saying, if I understood him—if I can ever understand the Northern Ireland dialect—that it does not matter who gets the contract because all yards will benefit, and then he went on to say why he thought his own yard ought to get the contract. I could not quite follow that.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made a first-class speech on the subject. He is qualified to do so, because he has spent many years in the industry. He said that he believed that Belfast should get the contract. I do not think that it will, and I will explain why. When the tenders are considered, much will depend on the date of delivery, above all else, and one of the problems here is that the contract will be given to a yard which is fully geared and can give the guarantees which the Government may well want.
  The Belfast position is a tragic one. We all appreciate that. I believe that even if Belfast were given the contract it certainly would not be, for Belfast, the sort of dawn that the hon. Member for Belfast, East would like us to believe. I warn him that we want a much longer-term policy for Belfast than this contract.
  The hon. Member paid tribute to the workers in Belfast, and I am glad that he did so. Most of those who work in the shipyards are members of the union of which I am proud to be a member. It is good to hear from a Conservative Member some nice things about the Transport and General Workers' Union.
  Mr. McMaster: I am astonished at what the hon. Member, as the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench, has said in criticism of yards in Belfast, for they have built the largest passenger liners except the "Queens" and have delivered them in good time. Is he not aware that the Belfast yards are the biggest and best geared yards in the United Kingdom for building the projected liner?
  Mr. Mellish: I am not prepared to say that the Belfast people are more worthy of the contract than anybody else. In fact, this is the wicked part of the Bill. There is so much competition and so
  1024
  much anxiety about who is to get the contract at the end of the day. I wonder what my hon. Friends from Scotland, who are now so gleefully supporting the Bill, would say if they found that Belfast got it. Would they then be so keen about this? If they could turn the clock back, would they then vote against the Bill?
  One of the most important speeches made today was that by the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan). He asked questions which I want to take up and which, I hope, the Chancellor will answer. He said that of all the shipping companies in Britain the Cunard Line is the one which, over the last fifty-eight years, has had subsidies of one kind or another from the Government. He asked why it should be the Cunard Line only. Why is it that over fifty-eight years this company, above all others, has, somehow, had special preference? We are entitled to know. Why is it that the projected "Queen" has had to be built by the Cunard Line? Why were not other lines asked to compete for the contract?
  We have heard a wonderful story about the ships built in Belfast, and I quite agree with what was said. They were built not by the Cunard Line but by other firms. Why were these firms not asked to compete? There is an air of mystery about this, and it should be cleared up. I do not deny that the Cunard Company has done a first-class job in the past, but it strikes me as very odd that that one company out of the whole industry should get special preference. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to let us know that.
  The Minister said, in effect, that it was right for a subsidy of this kind to be paid because foreign ships on the North Atlantic run are heavily subsidised by their Governments. I do not deny that, but it is not only on the North Atlantic route that foreign ships are subsidised. If it is his claim that the subsidy must be paid because foreign ships are subsidised on this route, then his new Joint Parliamentary Secretary will have to explain, in the debate on the shipping industry, why other British ships on other routes cannot be subsidised.
  The Labour Party is not opposed to subsidies for private industry. The agricultural industry receives millions of

  1025
  pounds from the Government, and we support the help that is given to it. But in the case of a subsidy of this kind I do not know why the Tory Party does not want more control by the Government. It is allowing £18 million of Government money to be spent, as a subsidy, without any control over it. Members opposite apparently do not want any profit from it. They seem to be ashamed of the word "profit". As my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall suggested, it seems that, to Members opposite, it is almost immoral for the Government to make a profit.
  Yet I submit that had the new "Queen" been certain to make a profit, the Government would not have been asked for a subsidy. I do not believe that the Cunard Company would not, in those circumstances, have been able to raise the money from shipping circles. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) told a wonderful story about the Cunard Company. According to him, it is, apparently, the greatest company that ever existed. He has a few shares in it, that is why. If that company could have shown the collateral, it would have been able to find the money itself. The nation will not make the profit that it should out of this transaction. Indeed, the Government intend to treat the Cunard Company better than they treat the local authorities, who are building houses for ordinary people.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer must explain why the Report of the Chandos Committee was not allowed to be published, what he feels about the shipping industry generally, and whether the Bill is a pointer to subsidies being applied over a much larger area. If it is such a pointer, I shall not mind, provided that the Government take a measure of control over what is done with the nation's money, because it is right that they should do so.
  When the tender is finally decided, the emphasis must be put on the situation of various shipyards. I sincerely hold the view—and I hope that it will be accepted in the House as a whole—that Northern Ireland's position is very serious, because one of the problems of that part of the United Kingdom is that, if a shipyard worker is thrown out of work, he has no other job to go to, unless
  1026
  he emigrates to England. There is 8 per cent. unemployment in Northern Ireland.
  We on this side are just as concerned about Belfast as is the Conservative Party. I am rather tired of hearing Conservative Members talking about the Empire, and Northern Ireland being a part of it, while allowing the serious position in Belfast to worsen. That position should be given more attention than it is in this House. If Belfast does get the contract for this new liner, I shall not be unhappy and will recognise the reason for it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington referred to credit facilities given to foreign firms engaged in shipbuilding. Is it proposed, because of the plight of our own industry—which is acknowledged by the decision taken in the Bill—to give credit facilities to other British shipping firms? Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer any idea how best to help the industry? I believe that it needs special help. It is right to acknowledge that if we are to maintain our position in the world today shipping is one of our most important industries, so it is the job of the Government to help that industry when it is in trouble. I wish to know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell what facilities may be provided.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) is one of the "rebels" of the Conservative Party and it is good to see him on his feet and attacking.
  Mr. P. Williams: I am sitting down.
  Mr. Mellish: He said—being a right-wing reactionary Tory, he would be expected to say it—that he is opposed to subsidies of any kind. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would say that in the agricultural areas, many of which are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. He was really saying that he was opposed to this particular subsidy which, for some extraordinary reason, he finds obnoxious. I join with the hon. Member in saying that the lack of control in this respect is a reason for objecting to the subsidy. The hon. Gentleman also said that the British shipping industry is taxed more than any other industry in this country, and that, also, was a fair comment. We should ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1027
  whether he can tell us how best he can extend relief to the industry.
  I believe that the Bill was drafted because of an election pledge given by the Prime Minister which he is now being compelled to redeem, much against the will of many hon. Members. We have seen what is, perhaps, a greater revolt among back bench Members opposite than has occurred before, and there are sound reasons why they should object to one firm being given special privileges. I object, also. I think that it smells. We have not seen the Committee's Report on which this Bill has been based and we have not been able to examine the facts. We are told that this company is to be given £18 million of public money and that it will be given preference, even over local authorities. If the interest rate goes above 4½ per cent. it will be given a grant. That means that this firm will be given money at one of the lowest rates of interest prevailing in the country and that that will be done by means of an Act of Parliament. Because hon. Members on this side of the House recognise that its provisions will afford some form of relief for the unemployment in the shipping industry, they are prepared to support the Bill.
  9.28 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): This has been a remarkable debate. It has been much more agreeable than were some of our other debates. On the merits, I think hardly any hon. Member has completely agreed with any other hon. Member. It has also been an agreeable debate for the Government. On the whole, the House has agreed on two points. First, that no one would vote against the Government tonight, and, secondly, on the welcome given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) on his appointment as Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport.
  References have been made to the problems of the shipping and shipbuilding industries, and I accept the sincerity with which hon. Members have voiced their anxieties. I do not think this is the occasion for a full debate on that topic. I say to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), for example, that there is certainly no suggestion
  1028
  on the part of the Government that this Bill is an answer to the problems of the shipping or the shipbuilding industry. May I say in parenthesis that I think not quite enough credit is given to the Government for the 40 per cent. investment allowance which is a very large contribution to the industry. I also hope very much that the recent proposals about credit terms for sales overseas will prove of great value to the exporters of ships.
  Mr. P. Williams: My right hon. and learned Friend has made an important point about the debate not going wider. Will he undertake to consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the possibility of having a wider debate on shipping and shipbuilding in due course?
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend knows well enough that that is not a matter for me, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend the point which my hon. Friend has made.
  Regarding this Bill, I think I must declare an interest. It is not a financial interest. I was born and bred on Merseyside, and it is quite true that for some time the larger Cunarders have sailed from Southampton—I am not quite sure why. But, nevertheless, Liverpool is the home of the Cunard Company, and when I was young great names like the "Mauretania", the "Aquitania" and the "Lusitania" were always in my ears. I shall not forget the personal sense of shock that I felt as a small boy when the "Lusitania" was sunk in the First World War. I confess a special sympathy for those who build and sail these ships. It may be very insular, sentimental and old-fashioned, and the rest of it and I can see that my financial head must rule my heart, but, nevertheless, I must confess to the House that I start with a prejudice in favour of the building of big ships.
  Mr. Shinwell: How many?
  Mr. Rankin: On the Clyde?
  Mr. Lloyd: Where they are built is another matter.
  Three fundamental questions have been raised in the debate. First, should the Government get themselves mixed up in the North Atlantic express passenger service by sea? Secondly, if so, is this

  1029
  the right sort of ship for them to have? And thirdly, are the financial terms tolerable? I shall not deal with the question of tenders and details with regard to them. That is more a matter for my right hon. Friend.
  On the first question of whether the Government should get themselves mixed up in the North Atlantic traffic, I apologise for repetition, but I think it is important that we should state again the facts of this situation. This route is the most highly subsidised route in the world. Other countries subsidise it much more than we have done. The present proposal involves a subsidy of about 11 per cent. even supposing the full grant of £3¼ million is paid. The French are contributing 20 per cent. of the cost of the "France" and making up any current losses of the company running the vessel.
  The United States Government paid over 58 per cent. of the cost of the "United States", 45 million dollars out of 78 million dollars, and they contribute now 28 per cent. or the running cost. The Dutch, who have not been referred to much in this debate, advanced 50 per cent. of the cost of the "Rotterdam", at 4½ per cent., with the proviso that no interest was to be paid if the owning company operated at a loss. Therefore, I maintain that if we are to remain in this passenger ship route we have to accept the fact that it is a subsidised route.
  There is a long tradition of financial help for this route. This Bill is not a new departure. I have read debates in 1903 about the Bill put forward then and in 1934 the proposals dealing with the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth". I think that it may not be uninteresting to the House if I said a word or two about those transactions.
  In 1903 the agreement with Cunard was that £2·6 million was advanced at 2¾ per cent. for building the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania". The object was to build ships capable of a speed of 23½ knots and more. There was a current subsidy to Cunard of £150,000 a year for operating high speed vessels. The ships came into service in 1907 and the agreement was for 20 years from that date. The "Lusitania" was sunk, alas, in 1915, but the
  1030
  "Mauretania" continued in service until 1927.
  As to the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth", in 1934, the Government advanced nearly £4 million to the Cunard on very favourable terms, the first £2¾ million at ½ per cent. below the Bank Rate until 1st January, 1940, and the remainder under arrangements which made possible abatement or waiver of interest. This was followed by a loan of £5 million in 1937 for building the "Queen Elizabeth" on similarly favourable terms, £2½ million at ½ per cent. below Bank Rate until 1943 and interest waiver arrangements on the remaining £2½ million. One of the interesting facts about that transaction is that the overall interest on the Government loans, all of which were repaid, was about 1⅓ per cent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) talked about the Cunard Company being the scarlet woman of the shipping industry and about the wages of sin. I do not admit that the previous transactions were either immoral or dishonourable. On the whole, the transactions of which I have spoken were useful to the nation. My hon. Friend takes too puritanical a view of financial support.
  I am certain that the very clear consequence of no help from the Government in these circumstances would be the gradual withdrawal from the express weekly route across the Atlantic. It would not be total withdrawal from the North Atlantic services, because the slower ships would survive and continue, but, with the increased costs of running the "Queen Mary", there is no doubt about the future. It is that it would be the gradual withdrawal from the express services.
  This is an issue which each one of us in the House must face. I am absolutely satisfied that without this action, which the Government have put forward for the approval of the House, this ship would not be built—unless the Government did it themselves. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are critical of this proposal must accept that either the ship would not be built or the Government would have to build it themselves. I am unable to accept the proposition that the Government should accept the whole of the risk of building this ship.

  1031
  An argument based on what the Cunard Company does with the rest of its assets is unsound. That is not the point. The point is whether this ship would be built. That is what we have to face. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will ask, as perhaps the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will ask, "What would it matter if the ship was not built?" This is also something which we must face. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) spoke of the deteriorating passenger figures and seemed to take a very melancholy view of passenger prospects. That is a possible view to hold, but I do not hold it. I think that a residuum of people will continue to want to cross the Atlantic by ship. They will be very much attracted to a new ship. A new ship will have a very considerable selling point of its own for this service. I do not accept that we shall reach the position, certainly within the next fifteen years, when we should be so despairing of the prospects as to say this is not an economic proposition to begin with.
  There is another point which I do not think has been much emphasised in the House today but which is very much in my mind. That is the foreign currency earnings of this ship. I am advised that in each of the years 1958 and 1959 the dollar earnings from the two "Queens" amounted to about 25 million dollars gross and about 20 million dollars net. The advice we have is that the new ship is estimated to earn about 15 million dollars gross and 13 million dollars net annually. That is a very substantial contribution to the balance of payments.
  It does not end there. If no British citizen can travel across the Atlantic in a British ship, be may be inclined to go in a ship of another country. He will travel, as one of my hon. Friends admitted that he would travel, in the "United States", or whatever ship it may be, and there will be a loss of foreign currency in that way.
  I also feel that if we do gradually withdraw from this express service there will be a tendency to by-pass Britain in more ways than one. I know that these other lines still call here, but I feel, as I say, that this would give substance to the idea of a direct route from North America to Continental Europe, and that we would be pushed out and by-passed.
  1032
  I hope my hon. Friends will not think that this is an insubstantial argument. There are substantial reasons, on foreign currency grounds and on the general position of keeping us in this picture, for supporting the kind of proposition we advance.
  A good deal of reference has been made to the prestige element, and on that I have only this to say. If we decided to withdraw from this route I am sure that there would be an awful hullabaloo on prestige grounds. Of course, it might be said that this was an outmoded status symbol, but I think that if the idea got about that we were withdrawing from the route many people would ask, "Is not this a tremendous betrayal of British prestige and interest?" I say, quite frankly, that to build what I believe will be the finest ship afloat is not bad business for us on prestige grounds.
  I have dealt with the point as to whether Her Majesty's Government should concern themselves with this route. The second point, which, I agree, is a very practical one, is whether, if we are to do this, this is the right sort of ship. It has been suggested that to have more rather smaller ships would be a better use of public money, and, indeed, of the money of the Cunard Company. All I can say about that is that Lord Chandos's Committee was set up to examine that very point. Lord Chandos is known to hon. Members.
  Another member of that Committee was Sir John Hobhouse, of the Blue Funnel Line. Sir John has been known to me for many years. He is a political opponent, but has immense knowledge of shipping, and most of us who have some knowledge of Merseyside would not think that the judgment of the Blue Funnel Line is at fault about much that has to do with shipping. Sir John Hobhouse has retired from the Chairmanship of the Blue Funnel Line. I make it absolutely clear that I do not call him in as a witness in support of the proposition that we should do this, but simply as to whether or not, if we do this, this is the right sort of ship. We have the evidence of Lord Chandos, of Sir John Hobhouse and of one of the most expert accountants in the country—
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the Chancellor tell me where the evidence is? He and his

  1033
  right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport have spoken of it, but where is the recorded evidence that demonstrates that the Committee said that this is the type of ship to build in preference to building smaller ships of considerable speed?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not know what the evidence is. I doubt whether I should understand it if I did know it, but I do know that these people of experience, having considered the evidence, came to this conclusion. And that is what I think is important. What is the point of setting up a special committee if one then has to go into all the evidence oneself and come to a conclusion oneself? The plain fact of the matter is that, as I understand it, on this point the Chandos Committee was absolutely specific. It said that if this thing is to be done that is the right way to do it.
  Nor does it rest only with the conclusions of the Chandos Committee. The Yarrow Admiralty Research Department came to exactly the same conclusion—
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's language is within my memory. He said that some hon. Members have suggested that instead of building this ship, of great size, of 29½ knots, and at great expense, we should build four ships or a number of smaller ships for the Atlantic trade, and he said that this is precisely the point with which the Committee dealt. Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that the Committee dealt with this point? Was the issue before the Committee: "Shall we build one ship which the Government will partly subsidise, or shall we subsidise the building of several ships?"
  Mr. Lloyd: The point was that the Committee recommended that the only way to stay in this business was to build a ship of this size. There was an original idea of a ship of 85,000 tons, but the Chandos Committee came to the conclusion that it should be 75,000 tons. The Committee went into this matter in very great detail and made a most meticulous examination of the alternatives. As I say, in a matter of this sort one is very much affected by the judgment of someone whom one knows to have tremendous experience in these matters.
  Mr. Bence: Was it not a fact that the Yarrow Admiralty Committee and other authorities determined, in tanks in which
  1034
  winter conditions were created similar to those in the North Atlantic, that a vessel between 900 ft. and 1,000 ft. was the range of size within which the maximum speed could be given over the North Atlantic route?
  Mr. Lloyd: I believe that the preponderance of effective advice has been that if we are to do this thing—I am not attempting to judge whether we do it or not—this is the right way to do it. That is the second point.
  Mr. Mellish: Is not the whole truth that the terms of reference which the Chandos Committee was given were so narrow because they were allied with the statement that was made in the election manifesto of the party opposite? This is what we are complaining about. The Chandos Committee was not given the right terms of reference.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think the hon. Member is making a fair point. The Chandos Committee advised that if we were to attempt to stay in the North Atlantic express passenger service with some ship supported by Government funds, the way to do it was with a ship of 75,000 tons. That was the Committee's view, and I think that was the view which was supported by the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department.
  The third point to which a great deal of attention has been paid today is: are the financial terms tolerable? Is this the right sort of ship to back? Is it right to give to the Cunard Company a grant of £3¼ million and a loan of £14¾ million? Reference has been made—and I do not apologise for repeating it—to the respects in which the present bargain is more favourable than the original Chandos proposals. Full interest of 6¼ per cent., or whatever is the rate appropriate at the time, is going to be paid during the construction of the vessel. There is going to be no abatement of interest on the Government loan if the Cunard Company's equity earnings on the new ship are low, and there is to be a sharing of any saving of costs. Those are three important respects in which the final proposals are an improvement, from the Government's point of view, on the Chandos proposals.
  The second matter on which I should have thought the House would agree is that this is going to be an open subsidy.

  1035
  On the whole, it is better to have an open cash grant instead of a concealed subsidy at an artificially low rate of interest, and I think that in this respect the current proposals differ from those made in earlier years and, on the whole, are an improvement on the earlier proposals.
  The third aspect of this matter is the question of the Cunard interest. I was asked, "Why only the Cunard Company?" I would remind the House that when the 1934 bargain was being made it was one of the conditions of the bargain that the White Star and Cunard should amalgamate. It is not just a question of selecting one company on the North Atlantic route to which to give a special benefit, but we insisted in those days that the two companies should get together. I should have thought, in view of the extent of international competition, that that was not an unreasonable proposition.
  It is said also that the Government should have asked the Cunard Company to pledge all its assets against the ship. The fact of the matter is that the Cunard Company is putting in £12 million of its own money, its shareholders' money. I do not think it would have been reasonable to ask it to underwrite the Government's loan in full. The right hon. Member for Easington said something about the Cunard Company's resources, and he gave some figures. I think he said it had £15 million investments and £6 million in cash. But, of course, £12 million of that is earmarked for this purpose, and, again, the company has its own replacement problems, quite apart from this ship. People may talk about the "scarlet woman" of the Atlantic but it should not be forgotten that, since the war, the Cunard Company has spent £30 million of its money building 200,000 tons of shipping for this purpose. Obviously, it has a considerable replacement programme of its own for which it has earmarked certain funds. I suggest that it is a very remarkable indication of its confidence in the future of this project that it is prepared to back it with £12 million of its own money.
  As has been said, the Government will have a lien over all depreciation moneys. In addition, any excess of equity earnings over 7½ per cent. is to go towards accelerated redemption of the loan. This
  1036
  is a very considerable degree of security for the Government.
  I agree with hon. Members opposite in the view which I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, have to take. I am very much concerned with the prospects of being repaid. I want to deal for a moment or two with those prospects. The Government have a first charge on the ship; they can take it over if there is any default. Apart from that, they will receive annuities calculated to pay off the loan with interest in twenty-five years. Finally, they have a charge over accumulated depreciation moneys which will be set aside at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum on the cost of the ship. This means that, within thirteen years, or about half-way through the life of the ship, unless the financial results are very much worse than, I think, anyone has reason to expect, the Government will have received back, or will have a claim on sums amounting to, £14¾ million, or virtually the whole loan. That takes us, in effect, over the first half of the life of the ship. (After ten years, the corresponding figure is over £11¼ million.) I say, therefore, that whatever may be the uncertainties about the latter part of the life of the ship, the Government have an assurance that by far the greater part of the advance will be covered well before the ship is halfway through its career, and fully covered thereafter. If the ship does well and the funds are available, there are provisions for accelerated redemption.
  The right hon. Member for Vauxhall concluded his remarks about the financial aspects of the proposition with what I thought was a remarkable contradiction. First, he said that this would be a completely unrewarding proposition because the traffic figure would not justify the risks taken. Next, he stressed how monstrous it was that the Government were not insisting in taking part in the equity.
  Mr. Strauss: I said that it seemed on the figures which we knew that the prospects for commercial success in this trade were poor, but, on the other hand, the Cunard Company were optimistic. There is no reason why, if the Cunard Company's estimates should turn out to be right, the Government should deny themselves some share in the profit which is to be made by the transaction.
  Mr. Lloyd: The answer is that we have driven what we think is a fairly hard but fairly reasonable bargain. We have what we regard as security for our loan. Even now, I cannot understand why, if one takes a pessimistic view of the prospects, that should be a ground for great condemnation of the Government because we have not insisted upon an equity interest. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will know that, if we had insisted on an equity interest, that might have carried with it further responsibilities.
  To sum up, I would say, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I do not welcome proposals for subsidy in the public sector or the private sector of industry. I would much rather see both sectors of industry in this country able to stand on their own feet, and I assure the right hon. Member for Easington that I am not doctrinaire in this matter any more than he is. I should like to see both sectors standing on their own feet. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock that each proposition has to be examined upon its merits, and we are putting forward this proposition as an individual proposition and not as an attempted solution to all the problems of shipping or the shipbuilding industry.
  I think that there are three arguments why the House should give a Second Reading to this Bill. First, this is a highly subsidised route, and without a subsidy this ship would not be built, and Cunard would gradually withdraw from the express passenger service on the North Atlantic. Secondly, the expert advice given to the Government is that this is the right sort of ship to build for this purpose. Thirdly, in all the circumstances, the bargain struck with Cunard is not unfair to the taxpayer. I would say that it compares favourably with some of the other bargains which I have to strike, on behalf of the taxpayers, with certain other interests and industries. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a committed of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to enable the Minister of Transport to make advances to Cunard White Star Limited in connection with the construction of a large vessel for the North Atlantic shipping trade, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the provisions, either wholly out of the Consolidated Fund or in part out of the Consolidated Fund and in part out of money provided by Parliament, of sums not exceeding eighteen million pounds to be advanced to the said company either wholly as loans, or partly as loans and partly as grants;

  (b) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums payable under any provision of the said Act authorising the Minister of Transport to enter into any agreement with the said company concerning the insurance of any risks;

  (c) the borrowing of money for the purposes of the said Act in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939;

  (d) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the said Act of the present Session and their re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Marples.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

    Clause 1.—(OPERATION OF EXISTING LAW IN RELATION TO SOUTH AFRICA.)
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move,
    That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    I move this Motion because it is now suggested that we should embark at this late hour on the discussion of the Committee stage of a highly important constitutional Measure. The fact that it is highly important and constitutional is witnessed by the fact that we are in Committee of the whole House for this

    1039
    purpose. On this Bill, which has such far-reaching effects, we have hitherto had only three hours of debate on Second Reading. The Government must surely feel that, having given us only that three hours, against which we raised no complaint, now to suggest that the Committee should start, at Ten o'clock, to proceed with the detailed examination of the Bill, Clause by Clause and Amendment by Amendment, at such a late hour, would be an abuse of the procedure of the House.
    During the course of that extremely brief debate on Second Reading, we got a very laconic and brief explanation of the purposes of the Bill from the Secretary of State himself. We had just begun to explore the full meaning of the various Clauses of the Bill when we had to finish the debate after only three hours of opportunity to discuss it. This Bill affects the relationship of South Africa with the United Kingdom, and
    its repercussions will be felt far beyond the United Kingdom, over the whole of the Commonwealth.
    The eyes of the Commonwealth are on us at this time, and to enter upon this discussion tonight, when the opportunities of what we have to say being reported in the Press and being carried round the Commonwealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is quite serious.
    It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Proceedings on the Republic of South Africa (Temporary Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]
  The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 98.

  Division No. 151.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Aitken, W. T.

  Farr, John

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Allason, James

  Fell, Anthony

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Finlay, Graeme

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maddan, Martin

  Balniel, Lord

  Forrest, George

  Maitland, Sir John

  Barlow, Sir John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Barter, John

  Gammans, Lady

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Batsford, Brian

  Godber, J. B.

  Mawby, Ray

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Goodhew, Victor

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

  Bell, Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Stratton

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Green, Alan

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Bishop, F.P.

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Noble, Michael

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborne, Cyril (Louth)

  Box, Donald

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Braine, Bernard

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir walter

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Partridge, E.

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Peel, John

  Buck, Anthony

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Percival, Ian

  Bullard, Denys

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

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Holland, Philip

  Pott, Percivall

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hollingworth, John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cordle, John

  Jackson, John

  Pym, Francis

  Corfield, F. V.

  James, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Coulson, J. M.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Curran, Charles

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kirk, Peter

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roots, William

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Doughty, Charles

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

  du Cann, Edward

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Russell, Ronald

  Duncan, Sir James

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Eden, John

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Seymour, Leslie

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sharples, Richard

  Shaw, M.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Shepherd, William

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Watts, James

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Whitelaw, William

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Turner, Colin

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Smithers, Peter

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Woollam, John

  Speir, Rupert

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Walder, David

  Mr. Gibson-Watt and

  Tapsell, Peter

  Walker, Peter

  Mr. Chichester-Clark.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)

  Robertson, J. (Paisley)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Ross, William

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

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Short, Edward

  Bowles, Frank

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Boyden, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  MacColl, James

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Small, William

  Callaghan, James

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Snow, Julian

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cliffe, Norman

  Manuel, A. C.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Collick, Percy

  Mapp, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cronin, John

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Stewart, Michael (Fuiham)

  Deer, George

  Marsh, Richard

  Stones, William

  Delargy, Hugh

  Mellish, R. J.

  Swain, Thomas

  Diamond, John

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Sylvester, George

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Millan, Bruce

  Symonds, J. B.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Edwards, Waiter (Stepney)

  Morris, John

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Evans, Albert

  Moyle, Arthur

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Fletcher, Eric

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

  Thornton, Ernest

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wade, Donald

  Grey, Charles

  Oram, A. E.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Owen, Will

  Watkins, Tudor

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Weitzman, David

  Hayman, F. H.

  Parker, John

  Whitlock, William

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Holt, Arthur

  Probert, Arthur

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Randall, Harry

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Rankin, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Redhead, E. C.

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Mr. Lawson.

  REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Mr. Marquand: It would be very unfortunate if so important a Measure as this, which might, for all we know, arouse great interest in many other Commonwealth countries, were taken at so late an hour so that those Commonwealth countries which are greatly interested would have little or no opportunity of knowing what was being said in the Committee about so important a matter.
  I rose to move the Motion to give the Government an opportunity of considering whether it really was fair to ask the Committee now to embark upon what must inevitably be a fairly prolonged sitting if we are to do our duty and carefully to consider the Bill with the help of the various Amendments we have put
  1042
  down. It would be wrong, in our opinion, to embark upon this stage now. That is why we voted just now against the Motion to suspend the Standing Order. If it had been a reasonable thing to embark upon the Bill at this hour we would not have opposed that Motion.
  We have given the Government an opportunity to consider whether they can make any accommodation with the Committee on this matter. I trust that the Government will tell us either that they intend to abandon the proceedings altogether, or that they do not intend to keep the Committee very long this night, but will give us an opportunity on some other occasion when we can debate the Bill in reasonable circumstances and when we can have a good attendance of Members, and, as I say, give an opportunity to other members of the Commonwealth to know what we are talking about.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I think that the Committee will agree that this is an important Bill. The fact is known that on 31st May South Africa becomes a Republic. I think that this Bill is, in principle, desired by both sides of the Committee. It was announced as business for today, without objection being taken, and I would hope that the Committee would agree to see whether we can make reasonable progress tonight and see how we get on.
  Mr. Marquand: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said it was announced as business for today without any question being raised at that time, but I and those of us who are more especially interested in this Bill naturally assumed, from the way the announcement was made by the Leader of the House, that the North Atlantic Shipping Bill would not occupy the whole of the day. There was no
  1044
  suggestion at that time that the Standing Order would be suspended and that we might go on with this Bill late at night.
  I trust that I have here the reputation of being a reasonable man. I would be willing to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if we had some idea of what they mean by "reasonable". If, then, we proceed in a reasonable manner upon the first Amendment, and if we have a satisfactory debate, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman then think that we have made reasonable progress?
  Mr. Lloyd: I would say, let us see how we get on. I do not think that we shall be unreasonable, any more than the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put and negatived.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "one year" and to insert "six months".
  This Amendment is one of great importance affecting what is in a way the major proposal of the Bill, namely, that there should be a standstill in our relations, particularly in respect of various laws, with South Africa for one year. South Africa is going to leave the Commonwealth without question on 31st May. If we are to follow what is suggested in the Clause we shall continue for a whole 12 months to act as though it had not left the Commonwealth.
  When we debated this matter on Second Reading the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations advanced two main reasons for his proposal that the duration of the standstill should be as long as 12 months. The first reason that the right hon. Gentleman advanced was that it would be necessary before introducing the final legislation to review a considerable number of laws which otherwise would cease automatically to have effect on 31st May. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned no fewer than eleven statutes and said that they were only examples, indicating thereby, although he did not tell us what they were, that there were probably many other statutes which would have to be reviewed and on which the Government would have to make up their minds what alterations in the application of those statutes to South Africa they would wish to include in a final Bill.
  The second argument that the right hon. Gentleman advanced was that besides looking at individual laws and seeing whether and how they needed modification in the new circumstances of South Africa being no longer a member of the Commonwealth, it was also necessary to review some of the more important aspects of the relationships of this country with the Union of South Africa. These are the general relationships in respect of matters for which no legislation is needed in the new circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned bilateral agreements between us, as, for example, our agreements on trade and defence. Unfortunately, the rules of order considerably curtailed our discussion of these general relations and I suppose that if they curtailed it then they will curtail it
  1046
  even more severely now. This is one of the reasons why we have not been able to examine the new situation as thoroughly as was necessary.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in winding up the debate went through all the major matters of relationships efficiently and courteously. I freely admit that the hon. Gentleman dealt with all the points of any importance raised in the debate. We make no complaint of the way in which he dealt with them, but when the hon. Gentleman finished he still left us unconvinced, despite the skill of his exposition, of the need for a twelve months' duration of this standstill. Even though the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend pointed out more than once that it was the outside limit and that they hoped to complete the process within twelve months, we still felt dissatisfied with the Government's attitude towards this general proposition of a twelve months' standstill.
  When the Under-Secretary was explaining why he thought that twelve months were still necessary, he said:
  "…we need time in which to work out the future pattern of our relationships with South Africa, to hold discussions on many complex subjects with the Union Government and to take the necesary legislative or other action."
  On that general question of relationships, the hon. Gentleman said that we needed time—without specifying why it should take so long to work out the future pattern.
  On the question of trade with the Union of South Africa, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "All I am saying is that we have carefully to consider the balance of advantage and disadvantage; we have to consider carefully the position we want in the future."
  In regard to the Sugar Agreement, he said:
  "We are considering, therefore, what effect the departure from the Commonwealth of South Africa has upon her membership of the Agreement."
  Regarding the training of South African troops in this country, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "If request for facilities of this kind are received in future from South Africa, they will have to be considered very carefully…"
  On the question of nationality, he said:
  "Clearly, the matter cannot be left there,"—

  1047
  the hon. Gentleman was referring to the existing law—
  "but how we dealt with it obviously requires our most careful thought."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c.171–8.]
  So at every important point we were told by the Government, in a courteous speech, that they did not have the faintest idea of what they were doing. I have reached the conclusion that they did not give any thought whatever to this subject.
  It grieves hon. Members to feel that there has been on the part of the Government no thought devoted to the consideration of this Measure and that they were taken utterly unawares. Did not the Government remember what happened at the Prime Minister's Conference in May, 1960? It was common knowledge, widely reported in the world's newspapers, that there had been heated discussions about South Africa's racial policies, and that some had taken the view that membership of the Commonwealth was not compatible with those policies.
  When the Prime Ministers summed up the conclusion of the 1960 Conference, they deliberately declared that the Commonwealth was a "multi-racial association". That statement was a clear indication that the majority at the Prime Ministers' Conference thought that the nature and character of the Commonwealth was such that it could hardly be acceptable to a Government which took exactly the opposite point of view, and which did not want to create a multi-racial association. They went on to say that, in 1961, if South Africa became a Republic in the meantime, she would have to come back to the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference and ask for approval.
  No one reading that statement of the Conference and having followed the events of the Conference—and the Government had better opportunities for doing that than anyone else—could doubt that South Africa's membership of the Commonwealth would be in question. No one who knew the depth of feeling among African and Asian members of the Commonwealth towards racial segregation, and the practice and doctrine of apartheid, could have doubted that this would be a great issue. No
  1048
  one could suppose that they would ask South Africa to come back, if she wanted to be in the Commonwealth, without realising that the question of her continued membership would come up. Yet, in all this intervening period of ten or 11 months, judging by what we have been told during the Second Reading, the Government have done no homework on this subject. They have not considered these matters and are not ready to say what they think ought to be done on any one of a series of very important questions. We were left by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations with a laconic speech which lasted only a quarter of an hour and told us scarcely anything. The Joint Under-Secretary was left to wind up the debate in no better position. It could hardly have been otherwise. If the Secretary of State was unwilling or unable to tell what the Government's policies were, the hon. Gentleman could not do so either.
  So we say that we have reached a situation in which evidently the Government have procrastinated; but this is no excuse for procrastinating still further. Although the Government would not tell us anything about it, we must all have a pretty shrewd idea what the issues are, and everyone must have formed his own opinion on what ought to be done on each of these items. Surely it cannot be true that the Government have refused to consider these matters at all. Surely they must have a very good idea about what they intend to do. The legal arrangements and the necessary amendments which may need to be made in individual Statutes about nationality and many other issues must surely be comparatively simple because there are many precedents for them, for this is not the first time that a country has left the Commonwealth. These matters cannot really be as difficult as all that.
  I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government really did not consider all these things. If they are going to oppose my Amendment, they must say "No, it is perfectly true; we have given no consideration to these matters. We have no idea at all what ought to be done either about general relationships or about legislation to bring certain Statutes into conformity with the new set of circumstances." The Government have one or other of these alternatives to choose. I cannot believe that they have

  1049
  paid no attention whatever to the matter. I am sure that a great deal of thought must have been given to it in the intervening months, that work must have been going on inside the Department and that there are men there ready now to say exactly what is necessary about a whole wide range of these things.
  Continued procrastination in the interval would be no excuse for further procrastination now, and we see no reason why this matter cannot be dealt with within six months. Indeed, we see good reason why we should not allow the period to be too long—because of the effect upon the outside world. If we take an unnecessarily long time over what, whether hon. Members like it or not, has now got to be done, it will be giving a wrong impression of the new situation. We shall be leading African opinion and, in particular, Asian opinion to believe that we really want no change at all or that there is to be no change. The value of the words of the Secretary of State to the effect that it must not be left to be supposed that to leave the Commonwealth makes no difference, will be washed away if we take 12 months. We hope that the Government will now say that they can do it in less time and so accept the suggestion which I have made.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I can quite see the point of view of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). If one is a Socialist and has been proceeding for a number of years on the supposition that a great country like South Africa ought to be turned out of the Commonwealth in double quick time because of the iniquities of her offences, one makes every preparation in one's mind for the fact that the Government have scheduled out the whole thing and have prepared, Department by Department and sub-department by sub-department, for the inevitable event.
  10.30 p.m.
  The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, from his point of view, to charge the Government with lack of foresight and lack of preparation, but on this side of the Committee we see the thing differently. It is true that there was a certain amount of row behind the scenes, so we are told, at the 1960 Prime Ministers' Conference, but that row did
  1050
  not come out very much in the open. Public opinion was not prepared for the calamitous event that was to fall within twelve months. Mr. Menzies was not making the sort of speeches he is now compelled to make through the turgid turn of events. Nor was Mr. Diefenbaker saying the same sort of things as he is now. They were not marching to the promised day when South Africa would leave the Commonwealth. They were hushing up, as fast and as long as they possibly could, all that happened at the 1960 Conference.
  It was not very long ago—perhaps only a month or two before the last Conference—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was sent round the world on an inquiry. We all understood—and, no doubt, civil servants, public opinion and the newspapers understood—that he was doing his best to pacify some of these censorious Prime Ministers from the black Commonwealth who were supposed to be up in arms about the position of South Africa. The whole British community understood that this was what was happening.
  Of course, no preparations were made by the Commonwealth Relations Department to plan for the event of South Africa leaving the Commonwealth. I can well understand the Government saying that they are unprepared and want a year in which to prepare. There is a completely different attitude as between the two sides of the Committee on this subject. I can well understand Members opposite. They are only too delighted about what has happened. I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is only too delighted to castigate the Government for not having every little detail prepared for the consequential retribution to be applied to South Africa for what she is supposed to have done. So is the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).
  The country at large, however, is not prepared. I hope that the Tory Government and the Tory Party are not prepared. Certainly, Tory opinion in the country is so shocked and horrified at what has happened that it is willing to give the Government not only a year but two years, three years, five years in which to work out the details. We would be

  1051
  prepared to see no change or action taken which would be inimical to the interests of South Africa, looking forward to that happy day when the British world comes to its senses and when South Africa will have made such changes as will enable us to welcome her back to the Commonwealth with open arms. Let sleeping dogs lie. Do not let us be driven by the ideological designs of Members opposite into a totally false situation.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) made the speech to which we have just listened. It makes it very difficult for some of us to say what we would wish to say. It seems to me that we have to look at this in a commonsense way. Much to the regret of all hon. Members, South Africa has had to leave the Commonwealth because of her attitude to the black populations within her borders. That is a fact which we have to accept. The question arises, what are we to do in these circumstances?
  We have had many years of close association with South Africa. There are hundreds of thousands of people of British birth living there who still look to this country as their home. To them it is very sad that all this has happened, and they look forward to South Africa coming back into the Commonwealth. As I indicated during the Second Reading debate, I, for one, do not want to say or to do anything to postpone the day when South Africa changes her present policy and is able to return. We have all sorts of ties with South Africa, through Acts of Parliament and in other directions, which have been built up over the years and now have to be severed or altered, and we have to consider what is the best method to deal with them.
  The only question which arises on this Amendment is whether the period put into the Bill by the Government is reasonable. Ought it to be six months or the year which the Government are putting into the Bill, or ought it to be five years, as was said by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South? On Second Reading the Minister—unfortunately he is unable to be with us tonight—indicated that he thought a year was
  1052
  reasonable and that if the Government could carry through the negotiations before then the House of Commons could rely on it to do so.
  I am willing to accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman, for I know that there are all sorts of complicated matters to be considered and sorted out. If we want to make a gesture to those there who are still with us in spirit and want somehow to stay with us in the Commonwealth, we ought not to hurry too much to clear them out. What was the reason given on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and by other hon. Members on this side of the Committee and by one hon. Member opposite for thinking a year too long? It was that world opinion would be outraged if we make the period a year; that, in particular, the African and Asian populations in other parts of Africa would not understand. I think we under-rate their intelligence. The Ghananians, for example, and others will readily understand why a year is reasonable in the circumstances. If they do not understand, it is just too bad. We cannot always run our lives and carry out policies with one eye on the black populations in other parts of Africa.
  It seems to me, however, that we underrate their intelligence. They will realise as well as anyone that this kind of thing takes time. They know what our policy is; that we are with them in their hatred of apartheid and this Government and this country will do their best to stand by the rest of Africa against the present policy of the South Africa Government. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment to a Division.
  With the long Summer Recess ahead, the distance away of South Africa and the negotiations to be carried through, a year is not too long. We want to make a gesture to our friends in South Africa who are still with us heart and soul and are heart-sick that this has fallen on their country. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw this Amendment and allow us to get on with the rest of the Bill without further delay.
  Mr. Humphry Berkeley: I warmly endorse the plea made to his own Front Bench by the right hon.

  1053
  Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). I did not agree with all the sentiments expressed by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), but I sense that there is a general feeling on both sides of the Committee that more time should be allowed for the unravelling of the many complications surrounding the departure of a country from the Commonwealth.
  I am firmly of the opinion that it would be a great mistake if the prized membership of the Commonwealth could be lightly set aside. I adhere firmly to the principle of a country being either in the Commonwealth or outside it. I do not believe that it would be acceptable to the majority of people in this country that over a sustained period the Republic of South Africa could maintain the same relationship with the United Kingdom as she has done in the past.
  I strongly press the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench to realise that there are those on this side of the Committee who feel as great a sense of re-pugnance at the policy of apartheid as he does. Some of us feel, however, that the attitude of the Opposition, if they press the Amendment, may appear to be undignified and niggling.
  I am not ashamed that the Government did not produce a carefully prepared plan to enable the departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth to be smoothly taken through all its stages in a few months. There were excellent reasons why the Government should not do this. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) referred to the 1960 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. I ask him to remember that, when the future constitutional relationship of South Africa to the Crown was discussed, it was brought up in a quite different sense from that in which any discussion had been held in the past. When the question of India remaining in the Commonwealth after becoming a republic was discussed, the necessary constitutional formalities had already taken place. The same is true of Pakistan.
  When in 1960 the Commonwealth Prime Ministers were asked to approve the admission of Ghana to the Commonwealth
  1054
  after she became a republic, a plebiscite had taken place and President Nkrumah's candidature had been popularly endorsed. However, when the South African application was first mentioned at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in 1960, the plebiscite had not taken place. Indeed, it was far from certain at that time whether the plebiscite would go with the Government or against them. When the plebiscite eventually took place, a very narrow margin of those who were entitled to vote voted in favour of a republic.
  My second point is that, as the question of South Africa's future had not already been settled in advance by the population of South Africa, or by those in South Africa entitled under the Constitution to vote, it was plainly premature for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to pass judgment on the future constitutional relationship between South Africa and the remainder of the Commonwealth.
  Therefore, for the most natural and obvious reasons, which did not apply in the case of India, Pakistan or Ghana, the Commonwealth Prime Ministers decided that the application could be considered only after the necessary constitutional formalities had taken place—that is to say, after the electorate had pronounced by plebiscite.
  10.45 p.m.
  This being so, the British Government were quite right to take no steps whatever in advance to prejudge the issue and to take no steps whatever to prepare legislation which could be pushed through in a hurry. If it is the issue of apartheid that we are judging tonight, I would say two further things. I do not think any hon. Members has ever expressed in public support for apartheid, and most of us, I think, have expressed the strongest disapproval of it. I would also refer the right hon. Gentleman to the observations which were made at London Airport by President Nkrumah of Ghana on his departure from this country after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference of 1961, when he said in strikingly moderate terms that he very much regretted the fact that South Africa had left the Commonwealth, and he went on to say that if the South African Government had made the smallest gesture—I emphasise those

  1055
  words—he and his other Commonwealth colleagues, from the coloured Commonwealth primarily, would have been in favour of South Africa remaining inside the Commonwealth.
  If one has that sort of moderate expression from a Commonwealth Prime Minister who is generally thought to be somewhat extreme, I think it only right and proper that our own Government should have taken what was in my view quite a constitutionally correct point of view. They should not have prejudged the issue, but when in the end the regrettable but, in my view, inevitable step was taken, that step should have been accepted.
  I believe our Government are absolutely correct now in asking for a reasonable period of time, and a year cannot be called excessive in which to sort out these constitutional relationships. Nobody has pretended that things can go on as they were, but I would appeal to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East to realise that though most of us regard the withdrawal of South Africa as being inevitable, we should try to make it a dignified procedure. Do not let us try at this stage to niggle over six months, nine months or a year. Let us recognise this as being a very serious and regrettable necessity, and try to see that the break, when it does come, is a dignified break, and let us do it in a way which none of us would afterwards regret.
  Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: As I have listened to the speeches tonight my mind has gone back to the statement by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at the conclusion of the debate when the Union of South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth. The Secretary of State then said that it must be made very clear that there is a distinction between States which are within and those which are outside the Commonwealth. He insisted in that speech that the Union of South Africa, having withdrawn from the Commonwealth, must be treated in a different way and that treaties and agreements between this Government and the Union of South Africa which depended upon her membership of the Commonwealth should cease. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations made
  1056
  that quite clear also in the very brief speech with which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
  I wish to support this Amendment on the ground of the contents of the speech of the Secretary of State when he moved the Second Reading of this Measure. The speech lasted only about a quarter of an hour and, in the course of it, he treated the whole subject as though it was nothing of great importance. He gave the impression that this was a quite incidental measure, dealing only with some small matters. He listed to the House the kind of treaties with the Union of South Africa which we must negotiate before the solution of this problem of our relationship can be settled. Indeed, they were a list of quite insignificant matters; a Merchant Shipping Act, the Colonial Probates Act, a Maintenance Orders Act, the Medical, Dentists, and Solicitors Acts, the Colonial Marriages Act, the Naval Prize (Procedure) Act, and the Evidence by Commission Act.
  There were two more to which I shall refer in a moment, but I put it to the Committee tonight that measures of that kind, with a Commonwealth Relations Office and a responsive Government in the Union of South Africa which sought to clear up this situation—this unusual and unsatisfactory situation where the Union, having withdrawn from the Commonwealth and there being treaties between us—could be settled within six months. Any competent Commonwealth Relations Office, with a competent Minister, could settle the small matter of these Acts within the time we specify from our Front Bench tonight.
  I should like now to refer to the two other measures of which the Secretary of State made mention in his short speech. The first was the Companies Act, 1948, and the second, in the rather curious phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, "even the Finance Act of last year". I emphasise that phrase, and I want to ask the Under-Secretary—because I want the facts on this matter—whether the Companies Act, 1948. does refer to matters such as trusteeship securities in the Union of South Africa. I particularly want to ask—and if it is possible I should be grateful for an answer immediately, although, of course, I shall understand if that is not possible

  1057
  —what it is in the Finance Act of last year which makes that Act appropriate and relevant to this Bill now before the House. If the Under-Secretary is able to answer immediately I shall give way now.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): I will endeavour to cover that point when I come to address the Committee. It would be preferable if I left individual points of that nature to my speech.
  Mr. Brockway: Of course, I will accept that, but I think the hon. Gentleman will see why I have drawn attention to the point. In his own speech, when he was answering questions put from this side regarding our links with South Africa by trade—to use his own words—
  "We share preferential advantages."
  he added,
  "'None of these arrangements are affected by the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 639, cols. 174–5, 24th April, 1961.]
  Imperial Preference is not affected, and I should like to know why the Finance Act of last year is affected by this Bill, and the Finance Act, 1919, which legalised Imperial Preference with South Africa, is unimpaired. If this year's Finance Act is relevant to the Bill, why is the Finance Act, 1919, which introduced Imperial Preferences, not affected by the Bill, and why does the question of Imperial Preference not arise? If Imperial Preference is to continue for one year, the Union of South Africa will for that period possess the advantages of membership of the Commonwealth which the Secretary of State himself has emphasised in two speeches must be ended when the Union moves out of the Commonwealth.
  In order to be quite clear on the point, I will read the relevant provisions of the 1919 Finance Act. They are to be found in Section 8:
  "With a view to conferring a preference in the case of Empire products, the duties of customs on the goods specified in the Second Schedule to this Act shall, on and after the dates provided for in that schedule, be charged at the reduced rates (hereinafter referred to as 'preferential rates') shown in the second column of that Schedule, where the goods are shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have been consigned from and grown, produced or manufactured in the British Empire.
  1058
  For the purposes of this section—
  'The British Empire' means any of His Majesty's dominions outside Great Britain and Ireland and any territories under His Majesty's protection, and includes India".
  The point I make is that, if the Finance Act of this year in provisions referring to South Africa comes under this Bill, similarly the Finance Act, 1919, comes within it. If it does come within the Bill, then the speech of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in moving the Second Reading ought to have been much more comprehensive and adequate in dealing with matters of that kind.
  There are other important Measures which, it seems to me, undoubtedly come under the Bill but to which the Secretary of State did not refer in his speech. We have an Amendment down which relates to the two Visiting Forces Acts, so I shall say no more about that now. The next are the Fugitive Offenders Acts, which are of tremendous importance at this time. When he re plies to the debate on whether the interim should be six or twelve months, will the Joint Under-Secretary of State give us a definite assurance about political refugees from the Union of South Africa who go to the Protectorates and other British territories? Will he give us an assurance that no political refugee will be turned back to the Union? Will he assure us that, unless an offence committed in the Union is an offence if committed in a Protectorate or a British territory, a man will not be turned back? Will he assure us that no one who is not guilty of an extraditable offence—
  Sir Robert Grimston: On a point of order, Mr. Williams. Will my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State be in order in replying to all these questions on the Amendment now before the Committee?
  11.0 p.m.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams): I have been listening carefully. I thought that what the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) wanted to find out was whether it was possible for some of these things to be done within a certain period, to enable him, I take it, to decide whether to vote for or against the

  1059
  Amendment. If that is his purpose, it is in order and the Under-Secretary will be able to reply to the point.
  Mr. Brockway: Thank you, Mr. Williams. You have gathered the question that I was putting. On this important matter of the Fugitive Offenders Act, which comes under this Measure, I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether it might not be preferable, even from the drafting aspect, before the Bill comes into operation to amend the Order in Council which governs this problem and whether, even if the hon. Gentleman gives an undertaking in the House of Commons, there might be a magistrate's decision which is not in accordance with that undertaking.
  I acknowledge at once that if all the matters to which I have referred come within the scope of this Measure, one could view with sympathy the Government's demand that they should have twelve months for settlement. Our difficulty is that when the Secretary of State introduced the Bill he made no mention of these larger issues. If the Bill is restricted to the quite minor issues that were mentioned by the Undersecretary, in our view there is no justification for the twelve months' period.
  When the Minister said to us at the end of the debate on the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth that we must have a period to settle these matters, we agreed. If, however, he had said that it must be a period of twelve months, I think that all of us on this side, and some hon. Members opposite, would have been surprised and shocked by that length of time.
  We have to face the fact that the Union of South Africa has withdrawn from the Commonwealth on an issue of deep principle which is felt acutely by the Asian and African members of the Commonwealth, by Canada and, despite what has been said otherwise, by the majority of people in this country, who view the system of apartheid with horror. We do not want a decision to be reached tonight which would seem to postpone the break beyond a reasonable period. It is for that reason that we have put forward the Amendment for six months.
  Mr. Paul Williams: For 300 years there has been a bond of emotion, of friendship, of compassion
  1060
  and of understanding between Europe, on the one side, and European opinion in South Africa, on the other side. As a result of the decision of the South African Government at the recent Prime Ministers' Conference, South Africa is to withdraw from membership of the Commonwealth. This can be nothing but a mammoth tragedy for the Commonwealth, for South Africa and for Britain, too.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) has said, this is a time for taking a dignified stand on these matters. I would wish that Her Majesty's Ministers had behaved in as dignified a way as the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) did a few moments ago, but to have spoken, as some Ministers have done after South Africa's decision to depart from the Commonwealth, in a sneering, out-of-the-corner-of-the-mouth way of criticism after the event, is something which can do nothing but nauseate general public opinion. That Ministers have taken it upon themselves to criticise in a rather holier than thou attitude is something which repels most Conservatives and, I hope, though one cannot tell, the majority of the country.
  I agree with my hon. Friend and my noble Friend on this matter, that to talk of a year is perhaps too short a time. When one looks back on the trading communications and defence systems which link this country with South Africa, it can be nothing but a tragedy that these events have taken place, and it makes them no less a tragedy to turn on our past friends, our past allies, our past comrades and criticise them for their internal domestic policies. For that is what we in this Committee and the House have been doing, and our delegates to the United Nations as well. I would have hoped that, at a moment like this, instead of talking of six months or 12 months we would perhaps have been talking of two or three years. To cut these bonds between ourselves and South Africa in all too short a time makes it well nigh impossible for South Africa to return to the Commonwealth at any stage should she ever wish to return, and I would have thought—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. What we are discussing is whether the time should be 12 months or six months,

  1061
  not more than 12 months. I hope the hon. Member will address himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. Williams: That is exactly why I referred to the alternatives of six or 12 months, and in passing, as a number of other speakers have done, I also referred to the possibility of a longer period. As it is impossible in my particular case, apparently, to refer to anything longer than 12 months, I shall devote my few remaining remarks to the question of the six or 12 months.
  I hope that the Government will take the maximum time, to get away from the sharpnesses and the bitternesses which arose during and out of the Prime Ministers' Conference, in the hope that as a result of allowing temperatures to come down and passions to subside a more balanced view may be taken of South Africa's rôle in the world and her rôle in relation to Britain's defence and our trading interests as well. I hope the Government will not be chivvied off this point, but will stand on the 12 months, so that we may proceed to have a new type of friendship and a new type of alliance and a new type of association with the Union of South Africa.
  Mr. John Dugdale: I want to be brief, so I shall not spend much time in defending the Government which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) has been attacking. Their action is preferable to the action which he wants. Nor do I intend to get out of order by referring to a longer period, but I want to know whether it is because the Government want to keep up relations with South Africa as they were before for as long a period as possible, or whether it is due to sheer incompetence, because it must be one or the other. I just do not know which it is.
  I have been looking up one or two precedents, as other hon. Members have, and I find that, for instance, the treaty under which Burma left the Commonwealth was signed on 17th October, 1947, and that the Act effecting independence came in January, 1948, not a very long time afterwards. Ireland left on 18th April, 1949; the subsequent Act was in June, 1949. In neither instance was a long interval necessary. I know that that happened under a Labour Government
  1062
  here, and, naturally, I know the great proficiency of a Labour Government, and I presume that the Conservative Government are not as proficient, but it does seem strange that it should take such a very long time under a Conservative Government for these arrangements to be made.
  The only reason I can suggest for it is that the Commonwealth Relations Office has, if I may so put it, been caught with its nether garments down and simply does not know what to do. I believe that that may well be the case. It simply does not understand the position at all. I should have thought that the possibilities of these eventualities occurring might have been foreseen and that preparations might have been made for them, but apparently nothing of the kind was done.
  Take, for example, the question of citizenship. What happened in Ireland? So far as I understand it, people domiciled in Eire ceased to be British subjects.
  Mr. P. Williams: No.
  Mr. Dugdale: The great majority of them did. The Burmese, too, except those normally resident in British territories, ceased to be British subjects. That decision was made not in a year but in a very short period. I should have thought that similar decisions could have been made this time. Many of the points dealt with by the Secretary of State in his speech were comparatively small and could have been dealt with fairly easily.
  Some of the biggest questions are outside the scope of the Bill altogether, as the Secretary of State informed us, including the High Commission Territories and, it might well be, Imperial Preference, too. We have to do a relatively small number of things compared with the number of administrative decisions that are to be made. We want to make it as plain as possible that South Africa has left the Commonwealth and is no longer a member of it.
  I said that the terms of the Bill may be due to the sheer incompetence of the Commonwealth Relations Office, but many of us fear that they may be due to a desire on the lines of that of Dr. Verwoerd who said at a dinner on 17th March:
  "For South Africa and the United Kingdom and the other old friends this means new opportunity. They must seek to develop in

  1063
  other ways, untrammelled by the former problems, great bonds of friendship and cooperation to their mutual advantage. We are already working on these lines. Perhaps it is better this way, since sources of possible clash in most difficult situations fall away. Our trade and bilateral agreements, including the maintenance of the preferential trading arrangements. South Africa's membership of the Sterling area, and the value of our gold production, defence agreements with regard to a common enemy, etc., etc., need undergo no change. They can be re-endorsed in what our experts find to be the correct manner."
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Good idea.
  Mr. Dugdale: I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, who thought we were wrong on the South African issue, but that it followed naturally from our policy. Having had this break with South Africa on South Africa's own choice on fundamental points, it would be wrong to prolong her remaining in, the Commonwealth for a day more than necessary, and we think that six months are quite long enough. We do not want a nice, coy arrangement which will allow people to forget Sharpeville and Langa and other atrocities in South Africa. We want to recognse that South Africa has left the Commonwealth. We want to make a clean break and to make it in six months.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) made an interesting comparison between Burma and South Africa and between Eire and South Africa, but I think that it would be possible to distinguish the Acts dealing with those countries and the present Bill. His comparison of Burma with South Africa was cold-blooded. The relationship which we have enjoyed for over 120 years with South Africa is much more involved and complex. Relations of people in this country have settled in South Africa. The majority of people in Burma were Burmese and the break with Burma was absolute and clean-cut. Presumably at the desire of the Burmese, it was to be permanent and there was no question of staying in the Commonwealth.
  On the other hand the break with Eire was perhaps a break only in name, because a special relationship was recognised in her case. As the right hon. Gentleman will probably admit, even today citizens of Eire who come to this country are entitled to all the privileges
  1064
  of British citizenship after a comparatively brief residence. It is therefore possible to distinguish fairly between those Acts and this Bill.
  I warmly support the whole tenor of the speech of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). That is the mood in which we should approach this question without for a moment agreeing or approving of the idea of apartheid, with which we nearly all disagree.
  11.15 p.m.
  There is a different sort of relationship between Britain and South Africa than between this country and the countries of the "newer" Commonwealth, if I may use that word. There is a kind of blood relationship. Though the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth will and must mean a new sort of relationship with that country, surely we can never feel towards South Africa as we do towards a foreign country. Therefore we need a considerable period in which to work out our difficulties. We need time to ponder on this relationship. After all, we are discussing a country to which many of our people have come and gone for generations past. Let us also remember that, from their point of view, many South Africans look upon London and Britain as their homeland. We cannot consider this matter in a cold-blooded way. To do that would be unworthy on the part of those who call themselves British.
  I hope that, although we deeply regret what has happened, and while we in no way condone the causes which have led to this state of affairs, the mood expressed in the admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley will prevail on both sides of the Committee.
  Mr. Donald Wade: I am not so much concerned with the difference between six months and 12 months as I am with the use that is made of this standstill period. That is the important matter. If during this period certain Statutes are considered and some of the complicated legal points are looked into—but otherwise no changes are made—at the end of the standstill period Dr. Verwoerd and his friends will say that leaving the Commonwealth is of no great significance. That is the danger which I foresee.

  1065
  In the debate on 22nd March, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations used a paragraph in his winding-up speech which has not yet been quoted in our debate tonight, but which, I thought, was of great importance. He said:
  "Yet, while applying for continued membership, the South African Government—and this is something which bit very deep into all other members—still firmly refuses to receive diplomatic representatives from any non-European members of the Commonwealth. This makes a mockery of consultation;…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1961; Vol. 637, c.529.]
  How can one carry on a Commonwealth under those circumstances?
  Another quotation which has been referred to several times is the sentence which points out that we must be careful not to destroy the value of Commonwealth membership by giving to those who are not members all the privileges that are given to those who are. It is during this period of 12 months that we have to work out the true implications of that sentence.
  Reference has been made to trade and tariffs. I do not believe that the Commonwealth can be held together by economic ties alone, but as long as Imperial Preference continues those preferences should be for those who are members of the Commonwealth, and I do not see how South Africa can expect to benefit from them.
  It would confuse the issue to attempt to make too close comparisons between South Africa and Burma, or South Africa and Eire, without also looking into the economic consequences of leaving the Commonwealth.
  I realise that we must consider the question of citizenship and status and, on the subject of political refugees, I was pleased to hear the views of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I hope that the Joint Undersecretary will reply to that.
  I should like to make a brief comment on the subject of citizenship, which must be decided within the period that we are debating—
  Mr. R. H. Turton: On a point of order, Mr. Williams. Is it in order to discuss citizenship when we have been told that it is outside the scope of the Bill?
  The Temporary Chairman: I was just wondering where the hon. Member was getting to. Perhaps I ought to remind the Committee that what we are discussing now are the relative merits of 12 months and six months, and it would be just as well if hon. Members confined themselves to that.
  Mr. Wade: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I appreciate that. The point that I wish to put to the Committee is that within this period certain very important decisions have to be made, particularly as regards citizenship. I should have thought that most of these decisions could have been made within a period of six months.
  I cannot foresee the possibility of any permanent dual citizenship for inhabitants of the Union of South Africa, and I think a decision has to be made on that. Also, I do not think that legally the inhabitants of South-West Africa can be regarded as under British protection, and the only solution for any who leave South- West Africa is to grant something in the nature of a Nansen passport—
  The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is straying much too far for my liking, and if he cannot come back to the Amendment, I am afraid that he will have to resume his seat.
  Mr. Wade: I must bring my remarks to a close, Mr. Williams, but I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will make some reference to the High Commission Territories which, obviously, are vitally affected by the departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth.
  It is essential that it should be demonstrable to those outside the Commonwealth and to those within it that leaving the Commonwealth is a step of very serious importance and not one of little effect. Also, I hope that the Government will show their determination to protect those whom Britain is still legally empowered to protect, and, in particular, those who for one reason or another, mainly political, leave the Union of South Africa and ask for our protection.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Once again we have cause to complain of the off-hand way in which the Government are treating the Bill. It is

  1067
  clear from the debate which has taken place that this is a very important Measure which raises points of substance and arouses deep feelings on both sides of the Committee. It is intolerable that we should have been expected to start the Committee stage of this Measure at such a late hour after an exhaustive debate on another major topic and at a time when the Minister responsible for the Bill is not able to be present and, therefore, is not able to answer the points of substance which we make.
  I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) made the speech he did.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. That point has already been resolved. I should like the hon. Lady to come to the Amendment now.
  Mrs. Castle: I am on the Amendment, Mr. Williams. I was just about to refer to the speech made by my right hon. Friend, which was on the Amendment, who was certainly not called to order by you in the course of his speech.
  Hon. Members: Order.
  The Temporary Chairman: I was not in the Chair when the right hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke. I am concerned only with whether hon. Members are in order on the Amendment when I am in the Chair.
  Mrs. Castle: If you will allow me to complete my sentence, Mr. Williams, you will find that I am in order. I was going to say that I was sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley made his speech opposing the Amendment. It is not that I question the right of any right hon. or hon. Member to disagree with his own Front Bench, but I do question the wisdom of any right hon. or hon. Member on this side of the Committee agreeing on any colonial issue with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), although—
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: If my hon. Friend thinks that I agreed with the noble Lord, she must have been asleep.
  Mrs. Castle: Once again I have been interrupted before I could finish my
  1068
  sentence. I was going to say that I know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend does not share the same approach to the problem of South Africa as the noble Lord, but the danger—which is rapidly becoming apparent—of his speech is that it has been called in aid to support quite different purposes from those he had in mind and to lend support to a quite different approach to the question of how we are to deal with South Africa.
  It has become quite clear in the course of the debate how wise we on this side of the Committee were to put down this Amendment, because those Members opposite who have opposed it so vigorously have shown that their reasons for doing so is that they object to South Africa's leaving the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Berkeley rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) will not interrupt me, because I am just about to make an exception in his case. All Members opposite who have taken part in the debate, with his exception, would have been perfectly happy to see South Africa remain unconditionally within the Commonwealth. They believe that toleration of the apartheid policy of the South African Government is perfectly compatible with the continuation and the future health of the Commonwealth. We on this side violently disagree with that point of view, and that is why we are moving the Amendment.
  I except from those remarks the speech made by the hon. Member for Lancaster, who made it clear that his reasons were very different, but I suggest to him that he has totally failed to appreciate a very important fact—that the argument for this Amendment has been made by the Government Front Bench. It was made during the Second Reading debate, in which we had a very remarkable distinction between the speeches of the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate and the Under-Secretary of State at the end.
  The Secretary of State told us of the matters covered by the Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has pointed out, they made a very unimportant list indeed. They covered such things as the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the Colonial Probate Act, 1892, maintenance

  1069
  orders, and the Dentists Act, 1957. Having read out this list, the Secretary of State went on:
  "Some of the issues of policy involved are reasonably straightforward; others are purely legal and should not be too difficult to resolve. But there are yet others which present quite difficult human and political problems which will, I think, require a good deal of careful thought."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1961: Vol. 639. c.103.]
  In that remark he was not referring to this list at all. I am sure that none of the Measures to which he referred will raise any deep human and political problems. The issues which do raise deep humane and political problems were dealt with by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. His speech was not about what was in the Bill but about what was not covered by the Bill.
  11.30 p.m.
  If any hon. Member reads carefully the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary, he will be struck by the significant fact that all the issues to which we have referred to tonight are excluded from the scope of this Measure. The Simons-town Agreement of 1955 is not affected by the Bill. The customs agreement between the High Commission Territories and the Union of South Africa is not affected by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough quoted the Joint Under-Secretary as saying that the preference arrangements are not affected by the Bill. Nor are the citizenship questions. The Joint Under-Secretary went out of his way to explain to me very laboriously, spelling it out in words of one syllable, that the British Nationality Acts of 1948 and 1958 did not make any reference to Dominion status or to Commonwealth relationships and, therefore, did not come within the scope of the Bill.
  My answer is, why do we need 12 months to deal with those human and political issues which are not affected by the Bill? In justification for this period of time, the Joint Under-Secretary has argued that we must have 12 months to look at the whole complex pattern of our relations with the people of South Africa before we reach final decisions. We may need time for that, but we do not need a standstill arrangement on legislation as provided for in this Bill. The Bill is totally irrelevant to the complex problems for which the hon.
  1070
  Gentleman said that we need so much time.
  This fact deepens a suspicion which I already held, that this Bill is not legislative important at all but merely psychologically. It is not a request by the Government to give the time that they must have before cataclysmic changes take place in Africa to study citizenship relations, customs relations and all the rest of it. It is a straight political move, an attempt to do what the noble Lady the Member for Dorset, South and other hon. Members opposite have been asking for tonight. It is an attempt to minimise the impact, the psychological and political impact, in South Africa of their severance from the Commonwealth.
  We on this side of the Committee will not be a party to any such political move. I am convinced that the Government are attempting—and this Bill is part of the attempt—to produce, not a clean cut between Commonwealth membership and non-Commonwealth membership in the case of South Africa, but are preparing the way for the development of a new kind of special association between South Africa and the Commonwealth which will mitigate the shock to the South African people of the breaking of the Commonwealth tie.
  We have already had a number of significant signs of the Government's intentions in this respect in the course of earlier debates. For instance, when the Secretary of State was challenged on the citizenship point by the Opposition Front Bench, he told us that we must not assume that South Africans will become aliens as a result of the breaking of the Commonwealth tie. We were also told that we must not assume that the turning of the High Commissioner into an Ambassador means that he will become responsible to the Foreign Office, as anyone who believed that the Commonwealth tie had been broken would assume.
  The Under-Secretary went further. He said in answer to a question that he thought it was natural that the Ambassador should be responsible to the Commonwealth Relations Office. This is a new and very significant constitutional development. In answering questions about whether the Commonwealth preferences were to be continued in South Africa's case, the Under-Secretary

  1071
  said that in his view we should not lightly cast aside advantages of this kind.
  Therefore, on the citizenship question, on the High Commissioner question, and on the Commonwealth Preference question, we have sinister signs that a new type of constitutional relationship is being prepared by the Government. Tonight we are being asked to pass this Clause giving the Government 12 months breathing space, not to deal with the legislative consequences involved in the Bill, but to prepare a new political move. If some such new association were to be evolved, it would clearly require the approval of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, who have collectively stated their attitude towards South Africa's membership of the Commonwealth.
  Is the purpose of the 12-month period to bring us to the time of another Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at which the Government will submit an entirely new suggestion in an attempt to salvage some of the wreckage of the last Conference? We on this side fear that the purpose of the Measure is not, as has been assumed by everybody, to give us time to deal with complicated questions, but rather that it is a psychological move designed to send this message to the people of South Africa, "Do not worry. You are not really outside the Commonwealth". That is why we move the Amendment. We on this side believe unalterably that there is no room in the Commonwealth, nor within a special association with the Commonwealth, for any people, whether they be of English blood or not, who condone and tolerate the policies of apartheid. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will stand firm by the Amendment, particularly in view of the attitude of mind revealed by so many hon. Members opposite tonight.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) having spoken as she has, I should like to appeal to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to respond to the appeal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), who tonight, as on Second Reading, made a most remarkable and helpful contribution
  1072
  to our debate, and not to press this Amendment.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn said that the Amendment was psychologically important. I agree. This Bill has now been printed for more than a month. It has been read and studied by the Government and people of South Africa, and if this House of Commons is going to alter the standstill period from one year to six months, I suggest that the effect on the South African people and indeed on wider opinion outside will be deplorable and that this House would stand condemned as having committed a vindictive, mean and contemptible act.
  I know that a number of hon. Members opposite who specialise in human brotherhood want to pursue their vulgar vendetta against South Africa. We have had also the spectre of Campbell-Bannerman coming down from Huddersfield to attack South Africa, although it is to his party that we largely owe the deplorable state of affairs which we have now reached.
  Mr. Wade: I was not attacking South Africa. I was trying to be realistic about the situation in South Africa at the present time which we all, I hope, regret.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I will not go back to the record of the Liberal Party in relation to South Africa since the beginning of the century, but merely say that there are some hon. Members who have a vendetta against South Africa. I take the other view. I take the view that we need an association and an alliance with South Africa. We can dislike South Africa. We can attack her policy. I myself have criticised the policy of the present South African Government. We can be patronising about South Africans. But the fact is that we British in this dangerous world need a close association with South Africa for trade purposes, for purposes of the sterling area and for defence.
  We should betray the interests of our constituents if we were to treat these matters lightly and if we were to do anything in this Committee which would make it more difficult for Her Majesty's Government to make new and satisfactory arrangements with the Union of South Africa which, in my opinion—others may differ from me—should be no less close than those that we have with the Republic of Ireland.

  1073
  This Amendment would only have the effect of poisoning our relations with the Union of South Africa, and I hope it will not be passed.
  Mr. Braine: I fully understand the reason why the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) moved this Amendment, and I appreciate, as I think the whole Committee does, the clear and reasoned arguments that he advanced in its support. But, frankly, the speeches of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) summed up the whole matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that we should look at this matter in a common sense way. I agree. In our debate on the Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and I indicated why we thought that it was reasonable that the Bill should provide for a maximum period of 12 months. If we had thought that six months would be adequate, we would not have hesitated to make the necessary provision. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) is that there has been, and there will be, no procrastination. We are just as anxious as anybody in the Committee to secure as quickly as possible a reasonable, fair, and just settlement of all the issues involved. Uncertainty about the future profits nobody here or in South Africa.
  11.45 p.m.
  This matter of timing has been given the most careful thought. While some of the matters we have to deal with are straightforward and not too difficult to resolve, others are technical and complex and, with the best will in the world and all the blandishments of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, unforeseen difficulties may arise in connection with them.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would the Under-Secretary tell us what these complicated measures are?
  Mr. Braine: I am endeavouring to answer the points which have been already raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. If the hon. and learned Member will permit me, I want to answer them as fully as I can. Clearly,
  1074
  we do not want to find ourselves at the end of a standstill period in a situation where we have to propose a further standstill because we allowed ourselves too little time in the first place. Parliament would not look upon us too kindly if we showed such lack of foresight. We must allow an adequate period, and the Government believes it to be 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich, in support of an argument that we should rush forward with all speed, quoted to us the precedent of Burma. He said that that had taken nothing like 12 months. With respect, his memory is at fault, since no real parallel exists here. The only questions with Burma were preference and citizenship. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), in his eloquent speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) both pointed out that the whole pattern of our relationship with South Africa is far more complex. So far as the Irish Republic is concerned, I am advised that it took a full year to work out the relationship in detailed discussion with other Commonwealth countries.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough East asked me why we needed so long a period. We should not forget that there are human considerations involved which, in our anxiety to get this matter settled as speedily as possible, the Committee should not overlook. I will tell the Committee what I have in mind. Even within the narrow scope of this Bill, there are statutes which have consequences that are important and personal for individual citizens.
  There is, for example, one such provision which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) thought quite insignificant. I refer to the Colonial Probates Act. 1892, which enables the legal representatives of a person dying in South Africa with property in England to register for probate here and to obtain administration of the estate in this country. There is also the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, under which a woman living in this country with a husband in South Africa may obtain here a provisional order for her maintenance which is then sent to South

  1075
  Africa for confirmation and enforcement. If there were no standstill period, that woman's redress would be lost on 31st May.
  Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it takes a whole year to negotiate matters like that?
  Mr. Braine: No. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have ever contended that. What we have said is that 12 months represent the maximum period and that in many cases we hope to have these matters resolved before then. I will take the opportunity of saying now what I should have said later. We want the 12 months not merely to review Statutes of that kind, we need the 12 months to review not only these Statutes but the whole scope of our relations, whether or not they are affected by the Bill. We do not want to tackle the Statutes piecemeal without having completed our examination over the whole field. However, I do not want to be driven off my point about matters of personal and human concern because, although it does not seem to have entered the mind of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, it is very much in the mind of the Government. I am sure that it is also in the minds of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, who moved the Amendment.
  Going back to the two Statutes I mentioned, the Committee will understand that the processes involved in such cases for individuals and their advisers would normally take some months. Another illustration, which, of course, is likely to affect very many people, is citizenship. We ought to allow, for instance, a South African citizen who wished to consider returning to this country and acquiring citizenship here a reasonable time in which to consider the position and make his arrangements. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) suggests that these things can be done at a single stroke. But we have here matters which affect family and business relationships, and we must allow reasonable time.
  In short, we ask for a year not merely to give elbow room to the two Governments to make their arrangements, but to give an opportunity to any private
  1076
  persons concerned to make their own arrangements and consider the future.
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman went to a great deal of trouble on Second Reading to tell me that the British Nationality Acts were not affected.
  Mr. Braine: The hon. Lady chided me on Second Reading, when I wound up, for having referred to many matters which I said were outside the scope of the Bill. The reason should be manifest to her. Most of the points raised in the debate were outside the scope of the Bill, but, although I went very near to transgressing the bounds of order, I should, I think, have been guilty of some discourtesy to the House if I had not attempted to answer them.
  Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Gentleman please refer to what he said, as reported in HANSARD, 24th April, 1961, column 178? He made a categorical statement there that the British Nationality Acts of 1948 and 1958 were not covered by or affected by the Bill. Was he right then or not?
  Mr. Braine: The hon. Lady presses that point and I will answer when I find the reference in HANSARD. Of course, the Bill arises because certain British Statutes would no longer have application after 3lst May, 1961, since South Africa would no longer be in the Commonwealth and they would lapse. The Bill has the effect of giving us a twelve months standstill period in order that we may settle, during that period, the arrangement which will obtain afterwards. The hon. Lady chided me for saying that the Bill did not affect the wider aspects of our relations such as nationality.
  Mrs. Castle: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he refer to what he then said:
  "The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn thought that the Bill itself was concerned with the issue of citizenship and nationality. I must make it absolutely plain that this issue is not affected by the Bill".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1961; Vol. 639, c.178.]
  Mr. Braine: That is so. The hon. Lady should have read on:
  "All that the Bill does is to preserve the position for twelve months under Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament which make provision in relation to Her Majesty's Dominions,

  1077
  or describe South Africa by reference to membership of the Commonwealth and which, but for the Bill, would cease to have any application to South Africa after 31st May next.
  The relevant United Kingdom statutes governing the question of nationality are the British Nationality Acts of 1948 and 1958…. Section 1 (1) of the 1948 Act states that every person who is a citizen of a country named in the following subsection is a British subject. This subsection simply contains a list of the countries in question, including South Africa, without, however, any reference to membership of the Commonwealth. This will remain the position, even though South Africa leaves the Commonwealth on 31st May, unless and until the Nationality Acts are amended."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1961; Vol. 639, c.178–9.]
  I have said this over and over again. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady was not following me in the first place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All I am saying is that this is another reason why we shall need a 12-month period to get this difficult and complex question of nationality and citizenship resolved by May, 1962, by which time the Bill will have ceased to have effect.
  The hon. Member for Eton and Slough asked about the position concerning certain other statutes and mentioned the Finance Acts, 1960 and 1919. Both of these come within the scope of the Bill and their provisions would lapse on 31st May but for the Bill. Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1960, provides for relief from Income Tax on retirement pensions paid under the superannuation scheme of a territory within the Commonwealth. It does not refer to the matter that the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
  He then quoted from the Finance Act, 1919, on the subject of preference. It was a good point. The present provisions as to Commonwealth Preference, however, are contained in the Import Duties Act, 1958, which refers to Commonwealth countries, including South Africa. This, too, falls within the ambit of the Bill. The important point is that my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretry was talking about the trade agreement during the Second Reading. Although these are the Acts which facilitate our trading arrangements and give the bite to the trade agreement, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, that agreement will continue after 31st May and will be the subject of negotiation during the standstill period.
  Mr. Brockway: I was referring to the hon. Gentleman's own speech. I ask him to look at the foot of column 174 and the top of column 175 for 24th April. He used these words:
  "I should like to turn now to the question of economic links now and in the future. A number of hon. Members referred to this. We are closely linked to South Africa by trade. We share preferential advantages. We are both members of the same currency area. None of these arrangements are affected by the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1961; Vol. 639. c.174–5.]
  That includes preferential advantages. Now the hon. Gentleman is saying that that does not come within the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. Braine: No. What I said was that the statutes do have effect and come within the scope of the Bill. But our trading arrangements with South Africa are governed by a bilateral trading agreement. We have to see what form our future trading relations with South Africa are to take. I am not prepared at this moment to say what form they shall take. Obviously, we must consult our own British interests in the matter. I would have thought that it should be our object, as far as possible, to safeguard existing agreements and the trade between countries rather than to diminish it.
  I do not subscribe to the view of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, who implied on Second Reading that she wanted to punish South Africa and that she would not be at all unhappy to see trade between our two countries falling off. I do not think that that is the view of the Committee as a whole or of the country. It is not a view that will commend itself to sensible people anywhere, although I understand why the hon. Lady holds it.
  12 m.
  I want to emphasise, therefore, that the two Acts to which the hon. Gentleman referred are the Acts which give bite to the agreements, but it is about the agreement we shall have to negotiate in the next 12 months. He referred also to the Companies Act, 1948. This does not concern trustee securities as he thought. But it provides for United Kingdom companies carrying on business in any of Her Majesty's Dominions who keep a branch register there. We want to continue this for a year, and this Bill does that.

  1079
  The hon. Gentleman then turned to a far more important matter and one which, I think, must have been in the minds of many hon. Members. He turned to the question of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, and asked about political refugees. This Act would lapse but for this Bill, and obviously before the end of the 12 months some new arrangement will have to be made; but for the moment there is no need for any anxiety on the score mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  It is a matter for the courts of the High Commission Territories to order or to refuse to order the return of a person who is charged in South Africa with an offence against South African law who has been found in one of the territories and whose return is asked for under the Fugitive Offenders Act by the South African authorities. Let me give some support for what I am saying.
  There is on record the case of Mubarak Ali Ahmed heard in 1952 before the then Lord Chief Justice and the present Lord Chief Justice. The court stated that in a proper case a court—for instance, one in the High Commission Territories—would apply the same rules with regard to an application under the Fugitive Offenders Act, as it does under the Extradition Act, 1870, and that if it appeared that the offence charged was in fact a political one, would refuse to return him. Hon. Members may recall a case heard in Basutoland as recently as January of this year, when a magistrate discharged four persons whose return to South Africa had been requested, having taken the view that the offence with which they were charged was of a political character. In any event, an order by a magistrate for the return of a prisoner under the Act is subject to appeal to the higher courts. I am sure the Committee will agree that what has already been ruled on the matter shows quite clearly that the position may be safely left as it is until legislation is passed to replace the present arrangements.
  I repeat, therefore, that the Bill does not in itself cover some of the wider aspects of our relations with South Africa. Its only effect is to continue in force—this is the point which the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn does not seem able to grasp—for a fixed and limited period those Statutes of the
  1080
  United Kingdom and Colonial Territories which otherwise would cease to have effect in relation to South Africa after 31st May. My right hon. Friend gave some examples on Second Reading, and I do not think, apart from those I have already given, I need add any more.
  I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that he really was anxious to find out why we needed this period of 12 months instead of a short period such as he has suggested.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: In view of the confusion which exists, will 12 months really be enough?
  Mr. Braine: My right hon. Friend, when moving the Second Reading, thought that it would be ample and he said—I do not quote his exact words—he would be very surprised if we were not able to conclude matters before then. I hope that relieves the hon. and learned Member's anxiety on that point.
  I can give the Committee an assurance that we intend to move in these complex matters as fast as we can. Shortening the statutory period within which we could act would not enable us to move any faster. On the contrary, it might cause the Government, Parliament, and perhaps individual citizens whose interests might be adversely affected, some considerable inconvenience, if, as I say, we ran into unforeseen difficulties which could not be resolved within the shorter period. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he can withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Marquand: I was glad to hear what the Under-Secretary said about the Fugitive Offenders Act, but I should like to have a little time to read it and consider whether more ought to be said about that important subject. I am sure that it will be in order when we reach the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, to raise the matter again after we have had a little time to study what the hon. Gentleman said.
  On the question whether the period of standstill in South Africa's relationship with this country should be six months or 12 months, as I have said and as has been made abundantly clear in the debate, there are two main fields of activity. One is that of negotiation about our general relationship with South

  1081
  Africa on which we have heard again tonight there is a great deal to be done. The other is the field of study of how to apply to the changed circumstances particular laws the application of which might come to an end in this respect on 31st May.
  I have heard nothing from the Undersecretary which makes me feel any more than I felt at the beginning that there is any reason why that second field of inquiry should not have been completed by now. It could have been and should have been completed. There was plenty of time and plenty of warning to get on with it. If that had been done, we should require only a period of negotiation in the other field, and we want negotiation. We can think of all kinds of matters that would need to be raised during that period.
  The main issue whether we should have a six months' or a 12 months' period of standstill has evidently turned on the effect that our choice would have on opinion outside. Naturally, I was very interested in and paid close attention to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said. He speaks with authority and in an attractive and persuasive manner. He asked whether in considering this matter we would not make a gesture to our friends in South Africa by withdrawing the Amendment and accepting a period of 12 months for negotiation. But we have made this gesture to our friends in South Africa many times.
  At this late hour I should not like to attempt to traverse all that I said in the debate last April on the general policy of apartheid, when the House passed without a dissentient voice a condemnation of the practices and principles of apartheid. I said then how I knew South Africa, how I knew many people there, how I had visited the country twice and how I had appreciation and understanding of the attitude and feelings of many people there, not only of those of British descent but of many of my friends of Afrikaaner descent. We, of course, understand their difficulties and we recognise that they have a more difficult struggle against apartheid when they are surrounded by the troops of the Nationalist Government than we can have in just making speeches in the House of Commons.
  We have made that gesture time and again from our Front Bench and from
  1082
  the Labour Party by telling our sup porters that we would be against the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth. We said that on the eve of the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, because we felt that we did not wish to leave out the 10 million citizens of South Africa who are Africans in the sense that the word is used today or the 500,000 Asians or the 1½ million of mixed descent. We wanted to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth for the good of those people. Our sympathies are with them, and we understand and appreciate the circumstances in which they live—not the people of the white race, but suppressed people of the other races who have committed no crime except to have a different coloured skin from those who dominate their country.
  The time has come when the whole situation has radically changed, not by the expulsion of South Africa, but by the withdrawal of that country—
  The Chairman: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will come to his argument on whether the period should be six months or twelve months.
  Mr. Marquand: I am relating my argument to what has already been said by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley and other hon. Gentlemen opposite who have implored us tonight to reconsider the effects of a gesture on the people in South Africa. One might have had more sympathy with those appeals to reconsider the need for a gesture, and perhaps to concede some alteration, if we had not heard the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and the comments of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). Those hon. Members gave their case away. They proved that the longer we granted for the necessary negotiations and alterations in the law, the more it would be held to mean approval of the doctrines and principles of apartheid. Those hon. Members even went so far as to say that the period should be longer, and their remarks showed up the deep gulf that exists between us on this matter.
  The remarks of those hon. Members attacked the Government's belief that the Commonwealth is strengthened by what has happened. That is the belief, which we share, that, regrettable as

  1083
  it is in some respects, the withdrawal of South Africa has strengthened the Commonwealth by giving it a new principle and a new standing in the world—a standing for the principle of abandonment of all forms of apartheid and racial discrimination. It is a belief in helping the various races that form the Common wealth to live together; to work for the great ideals of disarmament and world government, and so on. Admiration such as that expressed by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for brave men in South Africa—
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has strayed far from the point.
  Mr. Marquand: Only because I am tempted to refer to the speeches made by—
  The Chairman: The hon. Member must resist that temptation.
  Mr. Marquand: I merely wish to make a rebuttal of the suggestion that withdrawal of this Amendment would be a gesture of encouragement to the people of South Africa. We all want to encourage them and while their Government is making what The Times called a "Gadarine trek", I regard it as a great mistake to withdraw the Amendment. It would sound as if we had been converted by the arguments from the other side, to which apparently I am no longer entitled to refer. It would be gravely misunderstood not
  only by African opinion, to which the noble Lord referred with some scorn. It would be misunderstood by the very people inside South Africa to whom hon. Gentlemen opposite say they want to appeal.
  12.15 a.m.
  Those people would say that we had given in, that we were complacent, that by accepting the period laid down by the Government in this Measure for the necessary negotiations we were going to recognise the attitude which tries all the time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has said, to pretend that no change has taken place, that everything in the garden is lovely and that one day when someone makes a gesture or a speech which does not state the full policy of apartheid in all its horror South Africa will be allowed back into the Commonwealth. We are in favour of South Africa coming back into the Commonwealth when her racial policies had radically changed. Meanwhile, a period of negotiation is certainly necessary, but to prolong that period of negotiation would be to make our position entirely misunderstood, and so we will not withdraw our Amendment.
  Question put, That "one year" stand part of the Clause:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 155, Noes 61.

  Division No. 152.]

  AYES

  [12.16 a.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Allason, James

  Cooke, Robert

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cordle, John

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Balniel, Lord

  Corfield, F. V.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Hendry, Forbes

  Barter, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Batsford, Brian

  Curran, Charles

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Currie, G. B. H.

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

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Berkeley, Humphry

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Doughty, Charles

  Holland, Philip

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  du Cann, Edward

  Hollingworth, John

  Bishop, F. P.

  Eden, John

  Hopkins, Alan

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Box, Donald

  Emery, Peter

  Jackson, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Farr, John

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fell, Anthony

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Braine, Bernard

  Finlay, Graeme

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Kirk, Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  Gammans, Lady

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Buck, Antony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Bullard, Denys

  Goodhart, Philip

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Gower, Raymond

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Green, Alan

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  MacArthur, Ian

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Pott, Percivall

  Turner, Colin

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Maddan, Martin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Pym, Francis

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Matthews., Gordon (Meriden)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Walder, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Walker, Peter

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

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Mills, Stratton

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Watts, James

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Roots, William

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Russell, Ronald

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sharples, Richard

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Shaw, M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Partridge, E.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Woollam, John

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Peel, John

  Smithers, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Mr. William Whitelaw and

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Mr. Michael Noble.

  NOES

  Ainsley, William

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Ross, William

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Blackburn, F.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

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

  McInnes, James

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Small, William

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Snow, Julian

  Cliffe, Michael

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Cronin, John

  Manuel, A. C.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Delargy, Hugh

  Mapp, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Diamond, John

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Mellish, R. J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Grey, Charles

  Millan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hayman, F. H.

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

  Whitlock, William

  Hilton, A. V.

  Oram, A. E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, John

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Pentland, Norman

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Mr. Edward Short and

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Mr. Charles A. Howell.

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move,
  That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  I do not believe it was unreasonable that we should try to make progress with this Bill tonight. It was announced as part of the business for today not only last Thursday but the Thursday before. The Bill is urgent, the 31st May is the operative date for South Africa becoming a republic, and another place must deal with it as well as this Committee. I think hon. Members realise the need for this Bill, but we on the Government side want to make progress with it with good will. I think it is a House of Commons situation and, therefore, I am moving this Motion. The Bill must be put down for tomorrow's business, when we shall see how we get on with it.
  Mr. Marquand: We recognise that this Bill must be passed; we have done so throughout. Our objection, and the reason why I moved the same Motion
  1086
  earlier, was because we thought a Measure of high constitutional importance should be taken at a reasonable hour. We have no objection to it being taken tomorrow, but I hope it does not mean that we shall embark on this business at ten o'clock at night.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend section two of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of rate-deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.
  Resolution agreed to.

  FLOODING, HULL
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]
  12.28 a.m.
  Commander Harry Pursey: The subject which I raise is the serious flooding in Hull during the recent spring equinoctial high tide, on the night of 20th March, when the River Hull reached the corporation's datum limit and a serious disaster was averted only by the smallest margin. The major problem in Hull regarding flooding is that large areas are several feet below high water spring tides and, consequently, at every high tide these areas are wholly dependent for immunity on the banks and wharves being properly maintained at the necessary height and impervious to all over-topping seepage or any other flooding effect.
  Four parties are concerned, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Hull and East Yorkshire River Board, the Hull Corporation, and the Riperian owners. The owners are entirely responsible, financially and morally, that their banks and wharves do not permit flooding and the board and corporation have powers to ensure that that is the position. Nevertheless, on 20th March, in the darkness and coldness of eight o'clock at night, the river overtopped long lengths of wharves, seeped through several defective ones and seriously flooded many areas. Four wards out of eight in my constituency were affected and dozens of streets and hundreds of houses were flooded. Water rose to four feet in factories and to three feet in homes. Reports appeared in the local papers with pictures of unfortunate householders "mopping up", but what should have been published was photographs of the defective wharves which caused the flooding.
  The Parliamentary Secretary in answer to a Question of mine on 17th April stated the official attitude, namely:
  "This flooding was the result of exceptional circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c.787.]
  With my thirty years' naval experience of tides, I maintain that the only exceptional circumstance was that this tide was only three-eighths of an inch above the 1921 tide and so wharf owners have
  1088
  had forty years in which to make good the deficiencies then exposed. Consequently, there should have been no serious flooding six weeks ago tonight. Moreover, in dealing with freeboard on wharves, one should deal in inches, if not feet, but not eighths of an inch.
  Because of the 1921 extensive flooding, in 1925 the corporation, by Act of Parliament, obtained powers to require any riparian owner to execute such works or repairs to prevent the overflow of the River Hull, by raising and maintaining their banks and wharves to the height of 16·5 feet Ordnance Datum at the mouth to 15 feet at the city boundary. I am not going to get bogged down tonight with Ordnance Datum, Newlyn Datum, Town Datum, or any other datum, because three are used in Hull.
  The 64,000 dollar mistake for the ensuing thirty-five years is that the 1925 Conservative corporation took powers to raise the level of the wharves only to the 1921 high tide level. It is quite incredible that they obtained no freeboard whatever. Had they done so, this heartrending problem of house flooding would have been solved for all time and there should have been no serious flooding during the last thirty-five years.
  Instead, there have been three very serious, but nevertheless unnecessary, floodings in 1953, 1954 and this March, as well as numerous not so serious floodings. Admittedly, since 1953, the River Board has raised and strengthend the earth banks from Wawne to Stonferry, and during the recent high tide there was no threat of overtopping along these banks. The question which arises is why the same continuous freeboard, above the March tide level, has not been obtained throughout the whole length of the River Hull.
  In 1954 the board also sponsored a scheme, supported by the corporation, whereby 31 sites, 17 privately owned and 14 owned by the corporation were improved. The question which arises here is: if 31, why not the whole lot of the defective wharves? Furthermore, early last year the board raised the banks north of Hull at a cost of over £100,000, to save North Hull from flooding. The question which arises here is: why has not similar action, at similar expense, been taken in the centre of the city to save Central and East Hull

  1089
  from flooding, once and for all time? The board's policy appears to be one of protecting unoccupied land, at the expense of the most densely populated areas in the heart of the city.
  In the winter of 1959–60 serious flooding took place. Certain firms wrote and complained to the Town Clerk and asked for preventative action to be taken. The Town Clerk replied in February last year. I have a copy of the letter, which is headed, "River Hull—Flooding". I quote:
  "Further to my letter of the 2nd February. With regard to your suggestion that steps should be taken to raise the river bank in an effort to prevent a recurrence of the flooding, I have taken this point up with the City Engineer who informs me that following the severe flooding which occurred in 1953 and 1954 many of the lowest quays, wharves and frontages to the River Hull were raised and very much more serious flooding has been prevented thereby.
  "It is proposed to carry out a survey of the whole of the length of the river banks within the City in order to ascertain such other low frontages which it might be necessary to raise with a view to the prevention of further flooding for the future."
  We now see two main reasons for the continued serious but totally unnecessary flooding in the centre of the city: first, the 1925 Act does not give the corporation sufficient powers compulsorily to obtain the necessary freeboard above flood level for the River Hull, as has the River Humber. Second, numerous negligent riparian owners have failed in their legal obligations to maintain their wharves at the proper height and impervious to seepage and other flooding, and in their moral obligations to raise their wharves when adjoining wharves have been raised to ensure the necessary freeboard.
  The responsible corporation official, of course, is the City Engineer, Mr. Morris. He has served the corporation for some thirty years; there are some important landmarks in the city to his credit, and, as he is about to retire, it would be uncharitable for me to say more than that he has not been river-minded. It is to be hoped that the new City Engineer will be river-minded and that in a short time we shall see flooding in Hull stopped for ever more.
  I have had four days' investigation, by personal observations and interviews on the spot, into the derelict and deficient wharves which caused the recent
  1090
  unnecessary flooding, and into the individual wharf-owners who, by their culpable neglect, inflicted the untold misery and suffering on hundreds of my poor constituents. The derelict wharves include Eagle Oil Mill site, another opposite Air Street, part of the Danish Bacon factory wharf and Cook's wharf, previously owned by William Gillyot. His factory collapsed many years ago and the wharf has since crumbled away.
  The deficient wharves on the east bank, working down river, include Hanger's Paints, Good Havercrofts, with two gaps and defective dam boards, probably not put in, Benninga's Mill wharf 9 inches lower than the previous one, British Oil & Cake Mills good wharf overtopped and the wharf next door overtopped.
  Earle's Cement is one of the worst wharves on the river. This wealthy firm is making vast profits at the expense of a seriously deficient wharf and the services of the fire brigade to pump them out. Defects include wall breaches filled with cement bags. The height is insufficient and the owners know the wharf will be flooded and have built a dam round their coal to prevent it from being washed away instead of raising the height of the wall.
  Slingsby's wharf is one foot below adjoining wharves. Sculcoates Bridge, closed for 1½ hours because of the flooding, has three corner sites, and Scott Street Bridge one, owned by the corporation, which required investigation. There are nine private wharves between this latter site and North Bridge, and this was a seriously flooded area. I wrote to the owners and five replied. Their information largely fortified information received from elsewhere.
  Chamber and Fargus over the years have raised their wharf, at this and other sites, to cope with the rising tides, but are flooded from other wharves. International Bulk Liquids wharf is supposed to be up to Corporation requirements but was overtopped. Yorkshire Dry Dock was reported to me, from elsewhere, to have a low frontage and to have been flooded. Yorkshire Hennebique acquired Houltons' wharf last autumn. It was overtopped and is to be raised by 2 ft. plus. This firm is a contractor for wharves. Henry Mead & Co. had raised their wharf by 16 ins.,

  1091
  except for 6 ft. only 7 ins., and this length was overtopped.
  Four owners did not reply to my inquiries, so presumably they have deficient wharves which flooded—question mark! These are Ellerman Wilson Line, A. E. Woodward, Ready to Lay Concrete, Lincoln and Hull's, and they are all reported to have been overtopped. It is generally understood that the fourth of these four wharves caused the worst flooding in the Lime Street area.
  On the west side of the river, Sisson's Paints were flooded, and at Bankside water entered T. Holmes and Sons premises and the Gas Board garages. There is a long run of completely built-up, good wharves hereabouts, but the question is whether it is high enough to stop flooding; or did the river overtop?
  Wincolmlee is a serious flood area. Between the railway bridge and Sculcoates bridge, there are some fifteen wharves which I have reported to the Minister for investigation; and among the worst, Major's wharf is reported to have been overtopped by 2 ft. and to have flooded several streets. Johnson Brothers wharf appears to be 15 inches, or more, lower than the next one, Hennebique Ready Mixed Concrete, which is a good wharf; but Rank's wharf also appears to be 15 inches, or more lower than the previous one.
  A bad overflow is reported among the five wharves below Sculcoates bridge. The next one, Huetson's, is a bad wharf and a persistent flooding nuisance over the years, with coal dust, sand, and gravel washed into houses. Below Scott Street bridge, Barraclough's is reported as a bad wharf, and Barker's requires investigation. There is also a set of steps here with a serious overflow, eight feet wide, into the street; and a doubt as to ownership and responsibility for prevention of flooding. Yorkshire Hennebique Contracting Company has a good wharf which has been raised above corporation requirements, and which is claimed not to be overtopped by the highest tide and to be impervious to seepage. All wharves should be in this condition.
  Furley's wharf has recently been repaired and raised to corporation requirements, but this is 18 inches below the previous wharf and had little, or no,
  1092
  freeboard in the recent high tide. The result of this investigation shows that some of these Hull wharves are among the worst in the country and that parts of the river are a disgrace to the city.
  My main question, therefore, is what immediate action the Minister of Agriculture will take forthwith to bring all the wharves on the River Hull up above the recent high tide level, with complete permanent construction, and so prevent further unnecessary flooding. Seven years have elapsed since the 31 sites were brought up to corporation height and, in the light of the serious March flooding, it is high time for a completely new reappraisal of the whole length of the River Hull by everyone responsible; that is, the Minister, the river board, the corporation, and the owners. There may now be fifty, or even a hundred or more, major defects on the wharves causing overtopping, seepage, and other flooding. I can provide a detailed list of some fifty, or more, deficiencies and defects.
  In 1954, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Duncan Sandys), visited Hull to examine the bad housing conditions resulting from the flooding, and he stated that he would take immediate action. The first requirement now is for the Minister of Agriculture himself to visit Hull and examine the river banks or to be personally aware of what is required in order to bring all wharves up to a sufficient and continuous height. The problem is a wharf one, and not a housing one; because, with no flooding, there will be no flooded houses.
  What is required is that the Minister should, in the near future, cruise up and down the river at a daylight spring tide, with his experts, who could point out the obvious defects. I am prepared to accompany him and give the advantage of my investigations, which will disclose more than I have time to disclose now. In fact, I could write a book about defective Hull wharves and provide numerous photographs of those wharves which caused the floods.
  The second requirement is to prepare a full list of flooded banks and wharves. I suggest a circular to all riparian owners, with three simple questions: "(1) What is the height of your wharf

  1093
  above datum, and did it completely resist flooding on 20th March by overtopping, seepage or other means? (2) If not, what was the cause, or causes, of flooding? (3) What steps do you propose to take to prevent flooding?".
  No help can be expected from the Chamber of Commerce. I wrote to it, but those concerned refused to meet me. I understand that about 50 per cent. of its wharf-owner members have deficient wharves, so it is protecting guilty men.
  The problem is how to get the River Hull wharves raised to the height of the River Humber banks at the mouth and the river board's height at Stoneferry. It is quite crazy that there should be three levels in Hull—the River Humber banks, the river board's level, and the corporation level, the corporation level being the lowest one of all three. Nevertheless, as a first step, the corporation should issue compulsory notices to all low wharf owners to bring their wharves up to corporation level. Presumably, the river board also can take action for all wharves to be brought up to its level. Otherwise, we shall have the crazy position of a river board virgin site at one height next door to a corporation site at a lower height and being flooded.
  In 1954, certain financial grants were made and it may well be that certain work will now be eligible for grant. But there should be no public money for negligent owners who should have brought their wharves up to corporation requirements during the last thirty-five years, particularly when no public money is available for the flood victims of their neglect.
  Time is of the essence of the problem to prevent further flooding. The obviously defective wharves can be dealt with forthwith, even if a second list has to follow. Both banks of the river should be wholly completed by the autumn equinoctial high tide on 23rd September, when the Minister should be able to unveil a plaque in a prominent place in Hull recording that all the banks have been completed in the summer of 1961. We shall then have no more nonsense about "the river overflowed the wharf" when, in fact, the wharf failed to keep the river out.
  I shall continue my crusade by questions, Press statements, public meetings, and every means open to me until the
  1094
  guilty men who own the deficient wharves have made good their deficiencies, and my poor constituents, in humble homes, no longer have to contend throughout a dark, cold, winter's night with a river flood which is a major disaster for every house flooded out.
  12.49 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): The hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) was very courteous and he gave me notice of some of the points he intended to raise this evening. I shall gladly try to give him as much information as I can. I acknowledge at the outset his great experience of these matters. I make no pretence to expert knowledge of tides, but I have seen floods in a town in my constituency and I realise the misery as well as the damage which can result.
  Let me say at the outset that my Department stands ready to give any help in its power to the local bodies who are charged with the responsibility of dealing with this problem, namely, the Hull and East Yorkshire River Board and the Hull City Corporation. There is, of course, an overlap in membership between these two authorities, and so liaison ought not to be difficult. The river board has full powers under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, to undertake land drainage work, including works of protection against flooding, whether from inland water or from the tide, in connection with its designated main rivers, the chief of which is the River Hull.
  River boards' schemes on their main rivers are financed by levying a precept on county councils and county borough councils within the river boards' areas, the cost being divided in proportion to the rateable values of properties within the councils' areas. The Hull Corporation provides roughly two-thirds of the Hull and East Yorkshire River Board's precept revenue. My Ministry pays grants to river boards in aid of works of improvement and new works, the rates of grant varying according to the financial position of each board. That is the test. We cannot apply the test suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. In the case of the Hull and East Yorkshire River Board, the rate is 55 per cent. for

  1095
  tidal defence works. That is a not inconsiderable proportion.
  The Hull Corporation also has power, under its 1925 Act, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, to require riparian owners to raise their banks to the maximum level prescribed by the Act—the hon. and gallant Member said that the level was not high enough—and in default to execute the work themselves and recover the cost. There is no provision enabling Government grant to be given for work done under the powers of the 1925 Act.
  It can be seen, therefore, that there are two lines of defence in Hull, one of which is the city corporation, which was far-sighted when it took these powers before the Land Drainage Act, 1930. With the two lines of defence, it should be possible to make doubly sure that the work is done. The fact that there is divided responsibility should not be an obstacle in view of the fact that there is the overlap of members on the two authorities.
  Coastal flooding is caused by a combination of adverse conditions of tide and wind and fresh-water flow which produce abnormally high water levels. That is what happened in the Thames, when there was a flood warning in the City of Westminster not so long ago. Seepage may also have played a part, because, as the hon. and gallant Member said, a number of the wharves are probably not in the condition which they should be. Such combinations may occur two or three times in quick succession or may not occur for a long time, but flooding in this part of Hull has occurred periodically for a long time.
  Before last month's flooding, there was serious flooding towards the end of 1954. My Ministry then discussed with the river board and the Hull Corporation the question of how these two bodies might best use the powers available to them to ensure that the flood alleviation works were undertaken—in other words, what we are considering again today. I understand that the basis on which the matter was then discussed was that the river board would consider promoting a comprehensive scheme while the corporation would co-operate to secure the agreement of the riparian owners either to raise their frontages to conform with the
  1096
  board's scheme or to allow the board to do the work, the owners contributing to the cost. The owners were to be required to forgo any claim for compensation and to agree to maintain the works under the board's supervision. So far so good, but only some £5,000 worth of emergency work was done. This certainly improved the position, but the major proposals have not been undertaken.
  A comprehensive survey of the banks of the River Hull was begun by the corporation in 1959, a survey such as the hon. and gallant Member has mentioned, but I am informed that this was suspended because of other urgent work. Thus, no up-to-date estimate of the likely cost can be prepared until this survey has been completed. I am, however, advised that it should not take very long. Although it is not an easy operation to conduct, it does not present insuperable difficulties to competent technical men.
  I cannot speak for the river board or for the corporation, both of which have extensive powers. It may be—I do not know—that the board has in mind the possibility that action by it in connection with wharves might result in compensation claims. The board may also have in mind the possibility that the levels prescribed in the Corporation's 1925 Act might now prove inadequate for exceptional floods. As the hon. Member has said, it is a matter of inches. Although the whole of the works are a substantial undertaking the levels we are considering are not in feet but inches, but, none the less, vital inches. Whatever arrangements the board and the corporation may wish to come to between themselves, what I wish to emphasise is that the powers are there under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, for whatever work is necessary to deal with the flooding, and the financial resources are there under that Act to enable the work to be done, and it is for the responsible local authorities to decide whether and how they will use those powers and resources.
  I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into all the details he has given me about recent floods. I do not think he would expect me to refer to all those individual properties. Nor would I want to lay charges against any firm or against any individual. I am quite prepared to accept his general account, however, though again these are questions for the responsible authorities to consider locally.

  1097
  I am sure that they will take note of what has been said here tonight. The particulars supplied by the hon. Member will certainly assist us in our consideration of any proposals which may be submitted by the river board for our approvel, and, of course, grant.
  My right hon. Friend wishes me to say he is ready to support the hon. Member's endeavours to get something done speedily to alleviate recurrent flooding in Hull and that his officers are at the disposal of the responsible bodies for any help or advice they may need. The
  1098
  river board and the city corporation are aware of my Department's readiness to advise, and they are aware that the Ministry is prepared to consider comprehensive proposals submitted to it for grant aid at the level warranted by the financial circumstances of the board. I sincerely hope we may soon see some progress in this direction.
  Commander Pursey: Thank you.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to One o'clock.

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Graduated Pension Scheme
  Graduated Pension Scheme
  Alimony Payments (Husband's Death)
  Alimony Payments (Husband's Death)
  Electricity (Hydrocarbon Oils Duty)
  Electricity (Hydrocarbon Oils Duty)
  Unemployment Benefit, Scotland
  Unemployment Benefit, Scotland
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Iron and Steel (Production and Exports)
  Iron and Steel (Production and Exports)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Pilots (Licences)
  Pilots (Licences)
  London Airport (Aircraft Landings)
  London Airport (Aircraft Landings)
  Air Corporations and Foreign Airlines (Pooling Arrangements)
  Air Corporations and Foreign Airlines (Pooling Arrangements)
  Club Flying (Petrol Duty Rebate)
  Club Flying (Petrol Duty Rebate)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Payroll Tax
  Payroll Tax
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Mental Health Services
  Mental Health Services
  Invalid Cars (Passenger Seat)
  Invalid Cars (Passenger Seat)
HOSPITALS
  Cardiff Royal Infirmary (Mr. Jolliffe)
  Cardiff Royal Infirmary (Mr. Jolliffe)
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  Ophthalmic Consultants, Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  Ophthalmic Consultants, Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  Drugs (Continental Purchases)
  Drugs (Continental Purchases)
  St. Helen Hospital, Barnsley
  St. Helen Hospital, Barnsley
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Horticultural Industry (Fuel Oil Duty)
  Horticultural Industry (Fuel Oil Duty)
  Horticulture, East Sussex (Improvement Schemes)
  Horticulture, East Sussex (Improvement Schemes)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Inquiry (Franks Committee's Recommendation)
  Inquiry (Franks Committee's Recommendation)
  Payroll Tax
  Payroll Tax
WALES
  Tourist Industry (Survey)
  Tourist Industry (Survey)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Telephone Tapping
  Telephone Tapping
EDUCATION
  Diplomas in Art and Design (National Council)
  Diplomas in Art and Design (National Council)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Service, Scotland (Manpower and Remuneration)
  Fire Service, Scotland (Manpower and Remuneration)
  Scotland (Immigrants)
  Scotland (Immigrants)
SCOTLAND
  Roads, Highland Counties (Expenditure)
  Roads, Highland Counties (Expenditure)
  Fire Brigades (Strength)
  Fire Brigades (Strength)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Inverness-shire (Development Assistance)
  Inverness-shire (Development Assistance)
  Highlands and Islands and Inverness-shire (New Jobs)
  Highlands and Islands and Inverness-shire (New Jobs)
  Tourist Industry, Scotland (Assistance)
  Tourist Industry, Scotland (Assistance)
ROADS
  Temple Mills Bridge, Hackney (Reconstruction)
  Temple Mills Bridge, Hackney (Reconstruction)
EMPLOYMENT
  Immigrants, Scotland
  Immigrants, Scotland
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Richmond Park (Speed Limit)
  Richmond Park (Speed Limit)

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

INDICTABLE CRIMES IN 1960
2.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: 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 state the number of indictable offences known to the police in England and Wales in 1960, divided according to the main categories of offence, and to indicate how these numbers compare with those for 1959.]
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the total number of indictable offences known to the police in England and Wales in 1960 was 743,714; this is 10 per cent. higher than the 1959 figure. The figures for the main offence categories are as follows:

Larceny: 489,258—an increase of 10 per cent. over 1959;

Breaking and entering: 151,378—an increase of 13 per cent. over 1959:

Receiving: 11,696—an increase of 14 per cent. over 1959;

Fraud and false pretences: 36,049—an increase of 6 per cent. over 1959;

Sexual offences: 19,937—very slightly fewer than in 1959;

Violence against the person: 15,759— an increase of 14 per cent. over 1959;

Other offences: 19,637—an increase of 12 per cent. over 1959.

These figures, my Lords, are provisional.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for letting us have those figures so promptly. I am sure that they will be useful in the
1054
debate. I think the noble Earl will agree that they represent a very grave trend.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I have indicated the figures; I can say no more.

THE LONDON DOCK STRIKE
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the Government a question of which I have given them Private Notice: Whether they can make any statement on the present position with regard to the unfortunte dock strike in London?
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MILLS): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I hope to make a statement shortly after half-past three.

CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
SUTTON COLDFEELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, this Bill is concerned principally with two subjects which your Lordships will acknowledge to be of the utmost importance—namely, the treatment of young offenders who appear before the courts, and the aftercare of persons discharged from prison. It contains many other useful provisions in the field of administration of the criminal law.
It may be helpful if I start by saying something about the background against which the Bill is presented. Your Lordships will recall that early in 1959 my right honourable friend the Home. Secretary presented to Parliament a White Paper entitled Penal Practice in a Changing Society. The object of the White

1055
Paper was to indicate the problems with which crime confronts us and the agencies which exist to deal with it, and to outline the measures being taken or contemplated by way of research, development of penal methods, reform of the criminal law and provision of the necessary staffs, buildings and other facilities. It was thought that the publication of the White Paper would help to stimulate informed discussion of the problems and serve as a chart by which to plot a course in the difficult years ahead. Among other things, the White Paper foreshadowed some of the proposals in this Bill—those for amending the law relating to the treatment of young offenders and for the extension of statutory after-care.
On the 8th April, 1959, on a Motion introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, we debated in this House the subject of crime and penal practice. Our debate was a long one, extending over a period of nine hours; and at the end of the day the noble Earl described it, I think very properly, as a memorable one. The debate ranged over the whole field of Government activity as described in the White Paper in relation to the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, and far beyond this. Noble Lords recognised that crime and its treatment are matters which affect society as a whole, and that although the preservation of public order is a first charge on any Government, the causes of crime are deep-seated, imperfectly understood and to a large extent beyond the reach of Government action.
Do not misunderstand me, my Lords: the Government certainly have an immense responsibility; but if their efforts, and the efforts of their agents in the fight against crime—the police, the staffs of the various institutions for offenders, probation officers and others—are to be fully effective, they must have the backing of people everywhere; and in particular parents, teachers, the churches and all who come into contact with, and are in a position to influence, young people must play their parts.
In our debates on this Bill we shall be concerned with a much more restricted field of activity. The object of legislation is to support the operations we are conducting in other fields, and this particular Bill is, as it must be,
1056
limited to selected parts of these operations. Noble Lords will therefore not expect me to review the progress which has been made since the publication of the White Paper in the many different fields of Government activity there described.
I should, however, like to mention very briefly two developments of particular significance. In the White Paper, the Home Secretary mentioned, as the first of the State's weapons against crime, the maintenance of an efficient police force, and I make no apology for referring to the police now. In the Bill we are concerned mainly with offences and offenders who have been brought before the courts. Our object must be to reduce the number of such offenders and to devise for those who do offend methods of treating them which will serve to ensure, so far as is practicable, that they will not offend again.
Unfortunately, as your Lordships have just heard, the growth of crime has not been halted. Although, as was recorded in the White Paper, there have since the war been fluctuations in the volume of crime, there has been a steady and continuing increase during the last five years, and this increase has been particularly marked among young people. I am sorry to say that there is no sign of an end to this steady increase. There can be no doubt that, within the field of Government activity, our best hope of halting the increase, and in due course of reducing the incidence of crime, is to build up a police force, fully manned, fully equipped and fully trained to perform its most difficult tasks. The best way of dealing with crime is to prevent its occurrence; and the best deterrent is the likelihood of prompt detection. Since the introduction of this Bill in another place, the Royal Commission on the Police has presented an Interim Report on Police Pay. The recommendations for substantial increases in pay have been accepted by the Government and new scales of pay agreed upon. There is now good reason to hope that the deficiencies in police strengths, which have persisted particularly in London and in the large cities, will be progressively reduced and that the police will once more be in a position to play their full and proper part in preventing crime by their presence on the streets in adequate numbers and in bringing to

1057
judgment those who continue to transgress.
The other matter I should like to mention at this point is the building programme. I do so, because it has a particular relevance to the contents of the Bill. The White Paper pointed out that the Prison Commissioners were faced with a building programme of formidable dimensions and extreme urgency, and it outlined the Commissioners' proposals. Since then substantial progress has been made.
The rate of building is now four times as great as it was in 1958. Since the White Paper was published three new open prisons have been completed and three new detention centres have been opened. Twenty-five other establishments are in various stages of development. At the end of last year there were four detention centres for boys in operation: two for seniors (that is, boys between the ages of 17 and 21) and two for juniors—boys between the ages of 14 and 17. Since then, three more senior centres have been opened—one at Aylesbury, in Buckinghamshire one at Medomsley, in County Durham; one at New Hall Camp, in Yorkshire, and a fourth is expected to be ready by the end of the year. Next year it is hoped to complete three more centres for boys, with a fourth in early 1963, and a centre for girls. This will complete the programme envisaged in the White Paper. Experience will show whether these detention centres will suffice to meet the demands made upon them by the courts.
Priority must next be given to the provision of remand centres. Unfortunately, as your Lordships know, financial restrictions and the need to concentrate the limited resources available where the demand was even greater—on detention centres, new borstals to replace old prisons in use as borstals and new prisons to relieve overcrowding-shave until recently prevented any progress from being made in the provision of remand centres. These centres will, however, have an essential part to play in the arrangements for the treatment of young offenders provided for in this Bill, and they now have the highest priority. Preliminary work has begun on the construction of the first combined remand centre and observation centre—the latter
1058
for adults—which will be sited at Risley, near Warrington.
The provision of similar all-age centres, to cover the whole country, will take a long time and the Prison Commissioners have decided to provide in the first place remand centres for young offenders only. For the first of these, which will cover the London area, premises at Ashford, Middlesex, which it had been intended to use as a borstal allocation centre, will be used and this first remand centre will be open in July. It is estimated that a further seven remand centres for boys will be required. Sites for these, which will be purpose-built, are in view and my right honourable friend hopes that their construction will be completed in about three years.
Women and girls on remand outside London will be accommodated in the all-age centre at Risley and probably in three other centres to be built later on as annexes to the proposed young offenders centres. The arrangements to be made for the accommodation of women and girls on remand in London will depend on the decision taken regarding the future of Holloway Prison.
Then I come to approved schools. The enlarged approved school building programme, which will cost at least £5 million over the next few years, is also going steadily ahead. The programme includes schemes for the modernisation and improvement of most of the 117 schools now in existence. I am sure that this very necessary work will greatly assist the managers and staffs of these schools to carry out their important work. My Lords, I have spent some little time on this question of building because, as your Lordships will recognise when we come to consider the contents of the Bill, the successful implementation of some of its most valuable provisions will depend largely on having available, as quickly as possible, in adequate numbers, the institutions of the various kinds which we need for the new methods of treatment proposed. I think it will be clear from what I have said that the Government and the Prison Commissioners are fully alive to these needs and that although, for reasons which we all recognise, the building was slow to start, it is now in full swing.
Now I turn to the provisions of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 10 in Part I deal with

1059
the powers of the court in respect of young offenders. They give effect to proposals which were first outlined in the White Paper and considered in detail by the Home Secretary's Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. The Advisory Council supported the proposals, and in a Report which was published towards the end of 1959 made a number of recommendations for their implementation.
The main objects of the proposals are to keep young offenders under the age of 21 out of prison, and to ensure that such offenders can be given the kind of training from which they are most likely to derive benefit. Courts wishing to sentence an offender under the age of 21 to a period of training in custody will have discretion to choose between three types of treatment—leaving the approved school aside for the moment—according to the length of detention which they consider to be appropriate. First, for short periods of detention from three months up to six months, there will be the detention centres, offering a sharp brisk exacting programme of training and a very high standard of discipline, which should prove more of a deterrent than short sentences of imprisonment. The salutary check administered to the young offender in the detention centre will be followed, and we believe made more effective, by a period of supervision on release. Secondly, for those offenders aged 15 or over who require more than six months of custodial training, and who are unsuitable or too old for approved school training, a new form of borstal sentence will be available.
The principle of the indeterminate sentence, which already exists in the borstal sentence, will be extended to all the other offenders for whom a court considers that a period of detention of between six months and two years is required. In this way the existing distinction between borstal training and a young prisoners' prison will be abolished and it will be for the Prison Commissioners to decide under what conditions and in which establishment or establishments a sentence should be served and after what period the offenders should be released. Experience in recent years has shown the value of an intensive régime in borstal training and the average period of detention is now about 16
1060
months. The proposal in the Bill to reduce the minimum period from 9 months to 6 months, and the maximum period from three years to two years is based on this experience. The shorter, brisker and more demanding form of training, the indeterminate nature of which will act as a deterrent, will also be followed, as I shall explain later, by a period of compulsory supervision.
Lastly, for those youths whose offences are so serious that they need to be detained for more than the maximum of two years provided by the new borstal sentences, the superior courts will have power to pass sentence of not less than three years' imprisonment, or, in the case of an offender under the age of 17, a specified period of detention in such place as the Home Secretary directs. And in the case of persons who have already been to prison for 6 months or more, or to borstal, the superior courts will be able to pass sentence of imprisonment of 18 months or more if they think a further borstal sentence is inappropriate.
The general plan will therefore be, first, to extend the existing methods of borstal training and detention centres to a greater number of offenders, and eventually, when there are enough places available in borstals and detention centres, to restrict imprisonment for young offenders to the limited range of cases where no other sentence is appropriate. The scheme will be brought into operation by stages as the new institutions are ready.
We are all very conscious of the position in local prisons which are so much in the minds of all your Lordships. As I think your Lordships have been recently informed, the Prison Commissioners are embarking on a special review of escapes. In spite of the cases of concerted indiscipline it is fair to say that in general discipline has been firmly maintained. Nevertheless, from every viewpoint all will agree that the more young persons kept out of prison the better. I think your Lordships will also agree that the Prison and Borstal Service continues to do remarkably good work in most difficult circumstances.
Under Clause 1, the minimum age for a sentence of borstal training is lowered from 16 to 15, and a court will be able to pass such a sentence if it thinks it expedient that an offender should be

1061
detained for training for not less than 6 months. If the offender is under 17, the court may not impose a borstal sentence unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him—for example, probation or approved school—is appropriate. Clause 2 extends the existing power of the higher courts to sentence children and young persons found guilty of grave crimes to be detained in such a place and in such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct. The only offences for which this sentence can be passed at present are attempted murder, manslaughter and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Under the clause any offence punishable in the case of adults with 14 years' imprisonment or more—which includes offences such as burglary, house-breaking when a felony is committed and robbery—will be able to be dealt with in this way. This opens the way to the abolition of the remaining powers of the courts to sentence persons under 17 to imprisonment.
Clause 3 restricts the imprisonment of young offenders to sentences of 6 months or less, or 3 years or more, with the exception that an offender who has previously been sentenced to imprisonment or borstal training may be sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months or more. Provision is made also for the abolition, generally or in stages, by Order in Council, of short sentences of imprisonment of 6 months or less when sufficient detention centres are available.
Clauses 4 to 7 deal with detention centres. Clause 4 enables a court, in the case of any offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment, to make a detention centre order. Where the offender is under 17 and is dealt with by a magistrates' court, the period of detention is 3 months. If the offender is 17 or more or is dealt with by a higher court and the offence carries a maximum sentence of more than 3 months' imprisonment, the period of detention is not less than 3 and not more than 6 months.
Clause 5 provides for the committal to a detention centre or remand home of persons under 17 who are in default of payment of a fine or of compliance with some other order of the court, and Clause 6 enables a defaulter aged 17 or more who is already in a detention
1062
centre to continue to be detained there for enforcement of the default.
Clause 7 allows offenders aged 17 or more to be sentenced by the same court on the same occasion to consecutive terms in a detention centre of up to an aggregate of 6 months and provides that the total period for which a person may be detained shall not exceed 9 months at a time.
Clauses 8 to 10 give effect to some of the recommendations made in the valuable Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Ingleby, on juvenile courts and the methods of treatment of young offenders and children and young persons in need of care and protection. The Committee's Report contains many interesting proposals which are being considered by the Government in the light of the views expressed by the interests concerned; and I have no doubt that they will be the subject of legislation later on. In the meantime the opportunity has been taken to give effect to the recommendations on matters which fit into the framework of the present Bill.
Clause 8 raises to levels more in keeping with the present value of money the maximum fines that may be imposed on offenders under 17 and puts beyond doubt the power of the courts to order the parents of such an offender to pay compensation for loss occasioned by the offence. This will help the courts to achieve the object, to which we all attach importance, of bringing home to parents their responsibility for their children's conduct. Clause 9 removes a technical difficulty. Clause 10 deals with attendance centres. As recommended by Lord Ingleby's Committee, it reduces from 12 to 10 the minimum age at which a child may be ordered to attend one of these centres. Research by the Institute of Criminology, a report on which was published a few days ago, has shown that the junior attendance centres provide an effective means of dealing with first offenders and of checking an early drift into delinquency. The clause also contains provisions regarding the number of hours a person may be required to attend.
I now come to Part II of the Bill—Clauses 11 to 25, which deal with the treatment and supervision of prisoners and other detained persons. Clause 11

1063
reduces the maximum term of a sentence of borstal training from 3 years to 2 years and the minimum period from 9 months to 6 months. I have already indicated the reasons for this change. It also provides that a person released from borstal shall be under supervision for two years, beginning with the date of release, subject to the existing power of the Prison Commissioners to reduce this period where appropriate. Clause 12 provides that where an absconder from a borstal or a person under supervision after discharge from a borstal is convicted of another offence, the court may order his return to borstal. Clause 13 and the First Schedule provide for compulsory supervision for a period of 12 months for all offenders discharged from detention centres except where committal was for a default, and for recall to the detention centre by the Prison Commissioners in certain circumstances.
Clauses 14 to 19 deal with approved schools. Here we have drawn not only on the recommendations of Lord Ingleby's Committee, but also on those by Mr. Victor Durand in his Report on his inquiry into the disturbances at the Carlton Approved School. Approved schools have a long and honourable history and are playing a valuable part in training the children and young persons committed to them by the courts to manage their own lives and grow up to be responsible members of the community.
I have never paid a visit to an approved school without coming away cheered by the work that is being done and the spirit that I have found there. The Government believe that the system is soundly based, though it needs strengthening to meet the heavy demands made upon it, and we are seeking to strengthen it in various ways.
Clause 14 and the Second Schedule make new provision for the after-care of persons released from approved schools. The period of compulsory after-care during which there is a liability to recall will be two years from the date of release. After that the managers will be able to provide advice and assistance for a further period to those who want it.
Clause 15 provides for the temporary removal from a school on a justice's warrant to another approved school, a
1064
remand centre, or a remand home, of a boy or girl aged 15 or over if this is necessary to maintain discipline. Clauses 16 and 17 enable a magistrates' court to transfer an offender aged 15 or over, detained in an approved school, to borstal if he is unsuitable for approved school training and would benefit from borstal training. The provisions in these three clauses will be of assistance to the managers in dealing with a small but difficult class of young offender.
The development and success of the approved schools must depend in great measure on the managers, whether local authorities or voluntary bodies, who are responsible for running them. The Home Office, through its powers of control and by inspection and advice, exercises a kind of partnership with the managers and we are satisfied that, in general, this system works well. But exceptional circumstances may arise that call for more stringent powers of control. Clause 18 would confer on the Home Secretary a reserve power to give directions to managers where the provision made in the school is in some respect inadequate or unsuitable, and Clause 19 would enable him to make instruments of management for voluntary schools in order to improve and broaden, where necessary, the constitution of the boards of managers.
The Government have no intention of destroying the system of voluntary management; they mean to preserve, reform and guide it by means of the constructive measures provided for in the Bill. Voluntary managers have a distinctive contribution to make to the schools. The disturbances at Carlton School in 1959 focused attention on the shortcomings of the voluntary system at a particular time in a particular school. It is a pity that the same publicity cannot be given to the achievements of the voluntary system elsewhere, and to all the patient and devoted work on the part of managers and their staffs that makes those achievements possible. A readiness to give up time and energy to public service unsparingly and without material reward has been so long a feature of our way of life that we tend to take it for granted; but those who devote themselves to public service in this way are entitled to our gratitude, encouragement and respect. Clause 20,

1065
the last relating to approved schools, requires the Home Secretary periodically to lay before Parliament information a bout the approved school system.
We now come to a group of clauses, Clauses 21 to 23, which are not concerned exclusively with young offenders. It is now recognised that supervision after release from custody is a valuable, and, in many cases, a necessary complement to custodial training, and Clause 21 and the Third Schedule provide for compulsory after-care to be extended by stages to additional categories of adult prisoners after their release from prison. The categories of prisoners, selected as being in the greatest need of supervision on discharge, may in broad terms be described as those who are still young, those serving long terms, four years or more, where a return to ordinary life presents special difficulties, and those who either have or are in danger of acquiring a bad criminal record. Supervision will last for 12 months and will normally be undertaken by a probation officer. Any breach of the requirements of a supervision order may lead to the person's being brought before a magistrates' court, and the court will have power to return him to prison.
Clause 22 of the Bill repeals Section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, which has been found to have no practical value. Clause 23 increases the penalties, which experience has shown to be inadequate, to deal with those who assist prisoners and persons detained in approved schools and remand homes to escape, and Clause 24 makes some miscellaneous amendments to the Prison Act, 1952.
Clause 25 enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to transfer to the Secretary of State any or all of the functions of the Prison Commissioners, and if all these functions are transferred, to dissolve the Prison Commission as a statutory authority. A draft of any Order in Council must be approved by the Resolution of each House of Parliament. Immense changes have taken place since the Prison Commission was established in 1887 to provide and run establishments for the secure custody of prisoners. At that time and for many years afterwards the Home Office alone was concerned with policy. In recent years, however, the Prison Commission
1066
has played an increasing part in the development of policy, and it has taken over certain administrative duties from the Home Office. The result is that the original division of responsibility between the Prison Commission, as the executive authority, and the Home Office, as the Department concerned with policy, has disappeared.
In this new situation, the continued existence of the Prison Commission as a separate statutory body has become less important and largely unreal. The Secretary's responsibility for the Prison Commission is already the same as his responsibility for the Home Office, and the two agencies already work very closely together in the formulation of policy and in matters of day-to-day administration. There will be no drastic change, therefore, when effect is given to the provisions of this clause. I know that concern has been expressed in some quarters that with the loss of their independent status the Prison Commissioners and their staffs will acquire the anonymity of civil servants, and some of the benefits which come from close personal relationships will be lost. The Government are convinced, however, that this will not be so and that the new provisions will facilitate the very desirable integration of the work of those concerned in various ways with the treatment of offenders.
Part III of the Bill deals with a number of problems in connection with the movement of prisoners or ex-prisoners from one part of the British Isles to another. I do not think I need at this stage go into the detailed provisions of the individual clauses of this Part of the Bill or in Part IV. There will, of course, be later opportunities to discuss any of them which your Lordships may consider to need some elucidation or about which any doubts exist.
My Lords, I commend this Bill to you as providing the legislative basis for a further useful step forward in penal administration. We attach, as I have said, the greatest importance to the proposals for the treatment of young offenders and to those for the extension of the scope of after-care. Coupled with the implementation of the extensive building programme, which I have described, they will afford pus greatly improved facilities for giving to offenders, young and old, the kind of treatment

1067
which offers the best hopes of converting them into useful citizens. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, we are, as usual, very much indebted to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for an extremely lucid and absolutely objective exposition. He would be the first to say that he has not, so to speak, yet joined in the argument; but I know his capacity for argument, including his capacity for answering any difficulties which are raised, and I have no doubt that before we finish with this Bill we shall have long and detailed, and it may even be controversial, discussion. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I use this first speech from the Opposition side—and we have some experts to follow me—for a broad kind of treatment. I have not made plans to say anything about the police, but I certainly should like to echo the important encouragement, in so far as it lies within my power, to the police and those anxious to support them, because we all agree that without a strong and effective police force the rest of our discussion will be futile.
We meet against the background of a continuing crime wave. We must not exaggerate its horrors. It has been pointed out before now, by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, for example, that delinquents are still a very small proportion of the population. And long may they remain so! Nevertheless, the basic facts cannot be avoided. There were 283,000 indictable offences known to the police in 1938, and 675,000, or more than twice as many, in 1959. We have just heard to-day from the Minister for the Home Office that the increase in 1960 was 10 per cent. on 1959; and so far as I am aware—and I think that the Lord Chancellor confirmed this—the figures are mounting again. The present situation, which, of course, we are very closely concerned with, has revealed this unhappy trend.
When the present Home Secretary took office in 1957 he dedicated himself, with a sincerity which no one has ever questioned—it has never been surpassed by any Home Secretary—to humane
1068
policies and also to overcoming the material evils whose continuance was bound, and is bound, to undermine the highest moral purposes. Those who have been in prison during the last few years (and quite a number are known to me) will testify that the prison régime, wherever physically possible, has been increasingly liberal; and I would not wish to criticise that or to try to detract from that. But the physical facts of the present situation, as a result of this same crime wave, make lamentable reading.
Four years ago, when the present Home Secretary launched his assault, he recognised, I think, that the number who were compelled to sleep three in a cell was a pretty good index of overcrowding. At that time, early in 1957, it was about 2,000 who were sleeping three in a cell. Now there are 7,400. To-day the total population in prisons and borstals is about 28,400—needless to say, a new record. All the figures I have here seem to be records, but that is a new record, as I say, and is 2,000 higher than a year ago. Of those 28,400 (speaking in round figures) 27,443 are men and 951 are women: the men number 27½ thousand, and women less than 1,000. We can say what we will, but one must admit that men are the delinquent sex.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I thought I might draw some support on that point. I warn any noble Lords who are proposing to bring up the argument that there are more women than men in mental hospitals, that they had better not try because they will get such a "pasting "from noble Ladies.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: They live longer.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: They live longer. The noble Lord who raised that before, regretted doing so. I am just warning your Lordships that it is not a very fruitful line of argument. If anyone says, "The women tempted me," of course we recall that Adam tried that argument and it did not do him any good. So I do not feel that one need pursue this side, except to note that there is that remarkable discrepancy.
Of that 28,400, over 1,500—and it is these with whom we are particularly concerned—are under 21 and in prison.

1069
When we talk of getting the young people out of prison we are talking in particular of those 1,500. There are over 5,000 in borstals (I take it that they would all be under 21) to which we should add over 400 in detention centres who are not accounted for in that prison and borstals figure. That gives us, for young delinquents, rather more than 7,000 detained in penal institutions. That is putting it in broad terms, but it focuses our discussion, perhaps, of this Bill.
The House will not be surprised to hear that the under-staffing of our prisons is regarded by the Prison Officers' Association, to which the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, paid such a well-merited tribute the other day, as very grave. I am authorised to use those words on behalf of this Association—a very grave position in regard to under-staffing. They could do with 400 to 500 more officers at once, and 1,200 as part of a long-term plan. But they are not increasing their numbers. Last year, on balance, the prison officers recruited only eight officers. They may have got more, but lost others, so that, as I say, on balance, they recruited only eight. At the moment the number they are recruiting is no more than they are losing through wastage. When we talk of having new prisons—and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was quite right to make some points on the Government's plan in that direction—or new penal institutions generally, we must indeed ask: where are the prison officers coming from by which these institutions are going to be staffed?
There is little doubt that the increase in crime, the overcrowding and under-staffing are linked together in a vicious circle. The greatest obstacle to recruitment of prison staff is the discomfort and inconvenience in which the overcrowding and under-staffing involve them. Thus, while the present crime wave continues the career of prison service becomes less and less attractive; all of which means, I am afraid, that lofty ideals of reform are not given a fair chance (and I would say this specifically to any of our friends who are critical of the reforms) to prove they are worthwhile so long as they are being sabotaged by material factors of this kind. While we may be told that there is nothing the Government can do about
1070
those material factors, we on this side would not by any means agree.
What are the Government proposing to do about it in the present Bill? The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has explained it all with great clearness, and I need not go into it in any detail. He has, of course, presented it—and the Lord Chancellor was the first to present it, as did the Home Secretary in another place—as a small part only of the Government's approach to the crime situation and the penal problem. I certainly do not want to deride it as though it were the main form of the Government's attack on crime. It is certainly very difficult to separate what the Bill itself proposes apart from the administrative policies which are clearly wrapped up with it. But taken at its face value, what does the Bill actually do? The Lord Chancellor has set out the details very clearly, and I am really recapitulating the principles that he explained.
The two main things of which he told us are, I think, these. First of all, the Bill provides a legal framework for the eventual transfer away from prison for all, or almost all, of those under 21. They will be transferred to remand centres, to borstals or to detention centres. That is the one side of it. Secondly, the Bill greatly extends the area of compulsory after-care. Of course, that will be not only for people under 21, but for everyone. Instead of covering some 700 ex-prisoners released each year, this Bill, when it has full effect (though that is bound to take some time), could eventually cover as many as 12,000 released each year, though even that 12,000 would be a good deal less than the number of ex-prisoners who were not subject to compulsory supervision. I think that about 42,000 prisoners are released each year, so that, even when it covers 12,000, it will be covering only a relatively small proportion. As the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor rightly stressed, the Bill takes the salutary step of introducing compulsory after-care for those who serve the so-called "short, sharp sentences" in detention centres.
Changes of a secondary character are also recommended in the fields of attendance centres and approved schools, but in neither case is the treatment at all fundamental. I have no

1071
doubt we shall want to go into all that in much greater detail later on. I wonder whether I am right in thinking from the debates in another place that the Government regard the clauses which relate to approved schools largely as stop-gap measures. I am not quite clear about that from what the Lord Chancellor said, and when he comes to reply at the end perhaps he will indicate the attitude of the Government there. Are we really waiting for new legislation about approved schools until the Ingleby Report is dealt with systematically, or is what is now in front of us the main body of the Government's proposals about approved schools? That is certainly a point which ought to be cleared up but we ourselves think that a much more fundamental approach should be adopted to approved schools than anything seen here. However, I will leave that for the moment.
Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to abolish any or all of the functions of the Prison Commission. I think the Government are not taking the power for use at some time in the future, but that they mean to use it shortly. Here I think one should not be dogmatic, because I can visualise arguments on both sides, but I think that we on these Benches have satisfied ourselves that, under present conditions, the Prison Commissioners are a force making for enlightenment in penal affairs which is unlikely to be replaced by an alternative of equal value. We will certainly fight this clause, and we may well bring forward a constructive alternative. I hope that, when he speaks to-night, the Lord Chancellor, even in advance of that discussion, may be able to tell us whether annual reports are to be available. These have been one of the best features of the régime of the Prison Commission. We have not been able to look to the Children's Department of the Home Office for any such system of regular reporting, and I hope that to-night the Lord Chancellor may say at least something on that subject.
There are certain omissions from the Bill which we regret. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who was herself a member of the Streatfeild Committee, will no doubt speak to us about the need for providing the courts with much more adequate information before
1072
passing sentence. She may well have something to say on the vital question of the age of criminal responsibility. Again, we on these Benches—and I think this covers nearly all of us here, though it is not a Party issue in the ordinary sense, and certainty we have no monopoly of it—regard the retention of hanging as utterly evil, and we shall certainly wish to see how far we can press our views on the House in that regard, compatible, of course, with the framework of the Bill. On the other hand, we respectfully congratulate the Government on not yielding to the pressure for the reintroduction of corporal punishment. I say no more about that now, but I shall have much to say on it, perhaps, at a later stage.
For the rest, I want to concentrate on what I have singled out as the two main principles: first, the transfer of young people away from prison, and secondly, after-care. With after-care, we come to a subject which is almost intolerably intricate, or which has at any rate been made so by the various arrangements. Just to mention one point, when we talk of "voluntary" after-care, we may mean after-care which is voluntary from the point of view of the prisoner as opposed to compulsory, or we may mean voluntary in the sense that it is provided by a voluntary society. I mention that in passing only because the whole subject has been bedevilled by intricate language. I believe my noble friend Lord Stonham, who has done a great deal of work in this field, will handle the whole question fully later, but as someone who is Chairman of The New Bridge, which is a voluntary society for helping ex-prisoners, and as Chairman also (as I was until a few months ago) of the so-called Pakenham-Thompson Committee, which is an all-Party group which published a plan on rationalising our whole system of after-care, I cannot say nothing on the subject.
Leaving most of it to Lord Stonham, I would point out that we urged very strongly in that plan the need for the creation of a department of the Home Office devoted exclusively to after-care. We urged that a national corps of aftercare officers should be recruited on the same terms and standards of training as probation officers or prison welfare officers, and should be engaged and paid by the Director of After-Care. We also insisted that, for the first time, the State must assume a real responsibility for

1073
providing a minimum level of aftercare. But I should like to emphasise—and, as chairman of a voluntary society, your Lordships will realise that this would correspond with my views—that, so far from suggesting a diminution of the field for voluntary action, we were most anxious to give much more scope in the future than in the past to voluntary action in addition to statutory action. I break off to say how very glad I am to think that my old friend and colleague Lord Listowel is assuming very onerous and honourable responsibilities in this field.
At the present time one must admit that after-care is even more scandalously undernourished than other aspects of our prison arrangements. We reckoned in our report—it may or may not have been art absolutely perfect calculation—that perhaps £325,000 a year is spent on after-care. About 10 per cent. of that is raised voluntarily: but, taking the thing as a whole, we can say that the country seems to spend rather more than £300,000 a year, which I think one can fairly describe as a "bagatelle". That would be about 2½ per cent. of the Prison Commission's annual expenditure, or less if one brought in the Prison Commission's capital expenditure. It is not so long ago that The Times said that the prison services were last in the queue, and it is customary to talk of the prison services being run on a shoestring. Divide that shoestring by forty, and you have the provision for aftercare. One may ask: how far does this Bill do anything for after-care? It does not of itself provide any new facilities or services. It simply says that large categories of ex-prisoners will, for the first time, be brought under compulsory supervision. I realise that the House wants to proceed to something else, but unless I am asked to give way, perhaps the House will wish me to proceed.
In practice, this means that new and heavy responsibilities for supervision will be placed on our splendid but already overworked probation service. At the Annual Conference of the National Association of Probation Officers on Saturday, which I attended, the Chairman of the National Association of Probation Officers made both aspects of the position absolutely plain. He said:
"Surely no one will deny that the time has arrived when the present chaotic system of
1074
dealing with statutory after-care should be scrapped and a new combined probation and after-care service under one division of the Home Office established."
That was said by the Chairman of the National Association of Probation Officers two days ago, and is in line with what I ventured to call the Pakenham-Thompson recommendations. But he also pointed out that, even at the present time, even without these new responsibilities,
"the shortage of officers has reached alarming proportions."
Case loads are rising to fantastic levels. That is the actual position without this new responsibility which most of us feel should be offered to the probation service.
The probation service (and here I quote their views) regard it as important that the extended supervision should not be brought into effect until the probation officers are available to deal with the additional work involved. There have been certain assurances to that effect, but I hope that those assurances will be repeated and underlined in the House this evening by the Lord Chancellor. The lesson of it all is that far more active steps must be taken, and far more energy and imagination must be shown, in the recruiting for this all-important, almost heroic, probation service. Certainly, if nothing much is done in this direction, this clause could finish up by doing more harm than good. But the idea behind the clause is far-sighted and imaginative, and those of us of good will must insist and expect that this clause shall be given the proper support in administrative action.
I now turn—and it will take me some time—to the last main issue, which is, indeed, the main conception of the Bill: the plan to empty the prisons, as far as possible, of young prisoners, and to transfer them to remand centres, borstals or detention centres. We are all at one in our desire to keep young people away from prisons. We want to keep them away from infection from older prisoners, and keep them away from the prison label so early in life. We want to keep them away from the horrible places that most of our prisons are, particularly in the circumstances of to-day. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, who I am glad will speak this afternoon, has that very much in mind, although he and I would differ

1075
on certain ways of tackling the problem. But that goal is, I am sure, in his mind as much as in any of our minds. That does not mean that there is any special magic in an institution in which one is compulsorily detained with other delinquents because it happens to be called a remand centre, or a borstal, or a detention centre, although I admit such institutions are likely to be much more attractive than prison. They will be smaller than the existing fortresses themselves, which in itself is greatly welcome.
I speak for many of those on these Benches, and I am sure for many others of your Lordships, when I express my anxiety about the confusion and ambiguity which hangs over our policy towards detention centres, actual and proposed. I hope these debates, among other purposes, will serve to clarify the real intentions of the Government about these detention centres. Not long ago some of your Lordships may have seen a television film about a detention centre, in what is certainly a well-intentioned and, on the whole, valuable series called "Probation Officer". This particular picture was a lapse, and in my view a serious lapse, though, there again, one may blame the Government if one wishes for, at any rate, some of the ineptitude, because the confusion and ambiguity of Government policy must have given the producers a hard task. In this film a warden breaks down an aggressive young delinquent by the most brutal form of psychological bullying, though it is true he (so to speak) puts his arm around his neck later and befriends him. But the warden, dealing with this young man, reminds him that his father hanged himself, and generally his accent is on making the place so tough that no one would dare offend again. My Lords, I have visited that detention centre. I have visited it recently and in the past, and I have visited the centre where this film was made. It is regarded by the staff there as a gross travesty, and I am sure it is in fact a gross travesty. I hope the approach which was adopted by that film will be repudiated by the Government.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to intervene at this stage? I am a director of the programme company who produced
1076
this particular programme. I should like to ask one or two questions of the noble Earl, and ask him whether he is aware of certain facts. First, is he aware that there has been a change in the warden at this particular detention centre—a very recent change?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Order!
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask that question of the noble Lord: whether he is aware of that fact? There are other questions which require answer as well.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, if they are as infantile as that question, then I can deal very easily with them. I am shocked by the noble Earl, whom I know very well and like very much, for assuming that I would solemnly get up and make a statement of this kind without equipping myself with the most elementary facts about the centre.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Is the noble Lord aware that the former warden of this centre went through the script with the scriptwriter; that two representatives of the Prison Commissioners attended personally; and two residential probation officers also approved the script?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I will not accept that remark about approval for a moment. I do not know what "approval" means. I am sorry if I have been rude to the noble Earl, but he has astonished me by assuming that I would deal with this matter in detail without the facts; and, since he has (so to speak) slowed me up, perhaps I may reply in detail, because it is rather an unusual situation. I did not see this film, but it was reported to me as an extraordinary affair. I asked the company with which the noble Earl is associated whether I could see the film played over. They very courteously enabled me to do so. I saw it played over. The noble Earl will see that I took some trouble over this. I went down afterwards to see the detention centre, which I had visited in the past. Many of the people there—certainly some of them—had seen the film and regarded it as a gross travesty, so I see no reason whatsoever to withdraw anything that I said, except any suggestion of rudeness to the noble Earl, which I would certainly withdraw.

1077
If he asks me where the Prison Commission come into this, may I say that I did not want to bring them into it, but I asked the Prison Commissioners whether they felt that some protest was due. All they said was that when the film was first produced it was very much worse; much worse, I believe. It was submitted to the Prison Commissioners, who persuaded the producers to make alterations and remove some of the worst features. Having done that, the Prison Commissioners felt, as they were not taking any responsibility, that they could not do more. If anyone says that they should have done more, that could be argued; but, as I say, I did not want to drag them into it. I am not concerned to attack the company, whose total efforts, I think, have probably done a lot of good; but this is a vital question. This film has been shown to millions of people, and I must ask whether, in fact, the film in which a warden reminds a boy that his father had hanged himself is within the policy of the Government, I do not believe that that is anywhere near the policy of the Government.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: A former warden.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The film was shown during the period of office of the present warden, and I must assume that if you show a film about an existing centre it must be related to a former warden. To the best of my belief, there is no warden in this country who would ask a boy that kind of question, whether he be a former warden or a present warden. I remember the former warden extremely well; he was a very high-minded man, and I do not believe he would ever put that kind of question. If I have spoken too strongly, the noble Earl will forgive me, but that is the fact, and it is a matter of great public importance. There is no attack launched upon his company, but there is an attack launched on this film, which, in my opinion, was a disgrace and should not have been allowed by the Home Office or by the Prison Commissioners to be shown. However, that is what the public are told: that that kind of thing goes on in our detention centres.
My diagnosis of what is actually happening is totally different. In my opinion, these gentlemen, whether the former war-
1078
den (for whom I had great regard when met him), or the present warden, are compassionate Christian people who simply would not deal with young men in that sort of way at all. They recognise that in three months you cannot enable a young man to acquire new habits; but you can enable him to form a strong desire to acquire such habits. They believe—and I am sure they are right—that in many cases, but not in all, you can help the man to improve his character permanently. Whether this so-called short, sharp treatment will justify itself, time alone will show. It is an experiment It would be absurd to say that it has yet proved itself, but it is an experiment with which we certainly ought to proceed. But we will be asking many searching questions about the Government's real intentions with regard to the purposes of these centres.
It is intended also to open a detention centre for girls. Here perhaps my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger would be better qualified to put the questions. It is more necessary to know what the régime will be there. The Advisory Council, which recommended this wider plan of detention centres, considered that it would be impracticable to use such centres for girls. Nevertheless, while accepting the opinion of the Advisory Council in other matters, the Government have set aside their opinion here and are setting up a centre for girls. If there is going to be only one centre for these young girls, coming from all over the country and far from their homes, the problem of home visits and other contacts with ordinary life is a grave one, and I feel that we shall certainly be asking many questions about these centres, particularly the one for girls.
One amendment which, in one shape or form, I am sure that we shall press to the best of our power is that social workers will be included in the staffs of such centres, to make plain, once and for all, that this business of reminding people that father hanged himself will be "out". A completely different philosophy will prevail. Of course, the whole policy will depend on the speed with which remand centres and detention centres are constructed. We realise that the Government are pressing on with them fast, though to some extent at the expense of prisoners, but at this stage we do not necessarily dissent, until we

1079
know more, from that order of priority. But we shall wish to raise various questions about the transitional period.
Where is all this leading? We seem like the unhappy ancient, rolling a stone up a hill and seeing it fall back on us with renewed force. Is prison the only answer—or the main answer? Many of us are beginning to think that the idea of restitution, of atoning for what one has done or of paying back what one has taken, is a major clue to the penal policy of the future. But paying back means work, and to organise men in prison is just about the most inefficient way of organising them for effective labour. I am disappointed that the Government have not yet been able to announce even the beginnings of a plan of compensation for the victims of crime, a plan which has been associated with the name of Miss Margery Fry and, in your Lordships' House, with the name of the late Earl, Lord Drogheda. At any rate, we hope that some plan of compensation will be announced before long. I myself would submit that an effective plan of compensation will never be arrived at while our prison system remains in anything like its present form. That would be true owing to the so-called intrinsic evils of prisons—segregation, incarceration and the abnormality of it all—even with a much better prison system than ours.
So long as we are thinking in terms of detention in institutions, there is no way round the problem, long ago spotlighted by Sir Alexander Paterson, when he showed how impossible it was to train men for freedom in conditions of captivity, in what he called "a monastery of unwilling monks." When I think of all the high-minded people who draw up plans for brighter and better prisons, I am reminded of what was said by Pascal about Plato and Aristotle:
"If they wrote on politics, it was as if laying down rules for a lunatic asylum."
And if anyone suggests that something, quite different is too eccentric to be taken seriously, I am fortified by another saying of Pascal:
"Men are so necessarily mad that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness."
If, in these last sentences, I seem to be departing from what is regarded as
1080
ordinary basic common sense, the House will feel that there is something to be said for it.
I remember taking the chair at a meeting for an outstanding prison governor, who began as follows:
"Yes, I am a prison governor and I suppose you haven't got much use for prisons or for prison governors either. Perhaps you would prefer to execute delinquents, or mutilate them, or humiliate them publicly in the stocks, or perhaps transport them for life to the ends of the earth. Well, all those plans have been tried and could be tried again, but if you won't have any of them, you might find yourselves forced to fall back on prisons."
One must recognise a great truth in that argument. Prison is a rotten solution, but if one moves away from it what is the suggested alternative?
We on these Benches consider that the time has come for a completely new approach to penal policy—an approach which would combine effective deterrence with far-seeing reform and would be accepted as such by the community as a whole. We recognise that the country is divided to-day between those who believe that the only way of tackling the crime wave is to make punishment more severe and those who believe that we are going to abolish crime only by rescuing the actual and potential delinquent, particularly the young delinquent, by treating him as one would like to see one's own child treated. The division is not simple. I am not trying to stick a label on any noble Lord who disagrees with me by saying that he is either reactionary or not as good a Christian as I am. We on these Benches belong to the second group of reformers, but there is no monopoly of this view in your Lordships' House and in the country. But if we could discover a new and united national approach to legal punishment, it would strengthen the law immeasurably by placing behind it that public opinion which, in this country, has an even stronger force than the law.
We believe that a new and far more hopeful approach can be made to the crime problem if we can establish training outside prison as a new and evermore powerful element in our penal system. Some of your Lordships will have been reading what Sir Basil Henriques has been saying on this subject, as a result of his study of the experiment in Boston. We will certainly be pressing his ideas on your Lordships'

1081
House, as the most constructive contribution that has been made for many years. I must not stop to dwell on details now, except to say that under his scheme young delinquents would spend two hours every weekday evening in compulsory training. Of course, this could be combined with probation and might run for three months—there is no magic in figures—and it could be something like 130 hours. I expect that your Lordships will hear a good deal about the Henriques scheme and I am sure that there is no one whose views would carry greater weight than Sir Basil Henriques. But the scheme has to be judged on its merits. To me, the scheme represents not just a small corner of the plan, but the germ of a whole new penal philosophy, which will reconcile, as nothing else can, the need to make punishment unpleasant with the instincts of criminal ethics as interpreted in the 20th century.
I believe that the House has the opportunity to pave the way to the greatest step forward in the penal field since the probation service was established in 1907. This Bill will do good; at any rate, it will do little harm—I hope, no harm—but we hope that the Government will join with us in seeking for deeper truths and more far-seeing solutions than any contained in its limited clauses.

THE LONDON DOCK STRIKE
4.0 p.m.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, may I have your Lordships' permission to intervene in the debate to answer the Question which the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition put to Her Majesty's Government earlier this afternoon? The statement I am about to make corresponds with one which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour in another place, and is as follows.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has personally satisfied himself that the London Dock Labour Board was entirely within its rights in permitting the use of listed labour, and it appears to be the fact that the strikers themselves accept this. At the same time, given the resumption of normal work, there is nothing to prevent
1082
the men from raising through their union any objection with the Board, including their wish for a further investigation of their complaint about Lower Oliver's wharf. We are informed that this is the advice the men have been given by their union.
It is understood that the immediate reason for the stoppage—that is, the use of listed men at Lower Oliver's wharf—has disappeared for the time being, as no unloading work is taking place there at present: in fact the work involved is only two days in each month, or occasionally in each three weeks. In the interest of the country, the men, and the future of the Port of London, the Government would therefore urge the strikers to return to work at once and take up the matter through constitutional channels.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer. I think that to make any comment on it now might injure the course of negotiations; and obviously we wish success to the negotiations.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
4.2 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, at the outset I should like to refer to a matter not mentioned in the Bill, and that is the total abolition of capital punishment. I believe that there are occasions in life when one is entitled to call a spade a spade and not "an adjectival shovel"; and this is one of those occasions. The existence of capital punishment in this country is, in my view, a blot on our civilisation and a stigma on our social and criminal system; and the sooner it is abolished, the better. However, it may not be in order on this Bill to move an Amendment for the total abolition of capital punishment, and it may be in order only to move an Amendment to restrict to 21 the age at which this punishment may be inflicted. At all events, I will take advice on the matter. I propose on the next occasion to move the widest possible Amendment, and I shall call upon all men and women who have a soul and who have a conscience to draw themselves up in the arms of righteousness and abolish this abominable punishment.

1083
Otherwise, this Bill is a serious and efficient piece of legislation to deal with a most perplexing problem, and I feel that we should be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the customary lucidity with which he has explained its provisions. This is a complex problem, because crime has increased; and this includes juvenile delinquency. Before the last war there were nearly 3 million unemployed, and in those days one could understand people losing heart and floating into crime. But that is not the position to-day. There is practically no serious unemployment: good wages are obtainable by most people, including young people, who want to work. Yet crime has increased. And, incidentally, the conditions of imprisonment have deteriorated. In March of this year, 162 young persons under 21 years of age were sleeping three in a cell in Wormwood Scrubs. However, it is no good weeping about this matter, and we must try to make some constructive suggestions. It is admitted that there are insufficient detention centres, and the borstals, senior approved schools and remand homes are all over-full. It might be useful to extend and tighten up the procedure by way of probation. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has referred to certain suggestions which have been made by Sir Basil Henriques, and I will merely draw attention to them again.
That brings me to the question of attendance centres, which were introduced, of course, under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. There are now 40 of these centres, and in 1959, 25 offenders, aged 12 to 17, attended them. The Bill lowers from 12 to 10 the age at which boys may be sent and raises the maximum hours of attendance from 12 to 24. An extension of these attendance centres might be useful. They could be held in schools, instead of just on Saturday afternoons, and staffed by school teachers and police officers. Most of the staff would be part-time, and the whole scheme would be far less expensive than residential treatment and detention. There would, indeed, be a great saving of money—and that always appeals to me, being Scottish. As a condition of a probation order a youth could be required to attend one of these centres for two hours of every weekday for three months,
1084
making about 130 hours, and then to report back to the court, either to be discharged or ordered some other form of treatment. The effect of this arrangement is that the offender remains at home and does not lose his job. No doubt your Lordships are saying to yourselves: "Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America." It is perfectly true that this scheme has been tried there, with success, and I see no reason why we should not try the same arrangement in this country.
I should like to refer to a few other specific minor but not unimportant matters. Under Clause 1 the present requirement is that the Prison Commissioners should supply a report as to suitability for borstal training. It is suggested that this may be inadequate, and that no offender under the age of 21 should be committed to any form of institutional training unless the court has first considered a full social and medical report on him. Under Clause 4 (which refers to committal to a detention centre) there is at present no statutory requirement for any report to be made. It is suggested that an adequate social and medical report should be made, as where an offender has been considered for borstal treatment.
Clause 5 deals with detention in a remand home. It is suggested that this should be completely abolished. Clause 7 deals with length of detention: it provides that a young person should be detained in a detention centre for consecutive sentences far a total term which shall not exceed nine months at a time. It is suggested that six months is the maximum term which should be served. Under Clause 15, which deals with temporary removal from an approved school, the maximum time for which a young person should be detained in a police cell is 48 hours. It is suggested that the maximum time should be 24 hours.
Those a re only a few minor points. The major point is the abolition of capital punishment, and although I may be the only person in your Lordships' House who is in favour of abolishing capital punishment—
A NOBLE LORD: Oh, no, you are not.
LORD MESTON: —I intend on the next occasion to move an Amendment for that purpose, and I call upon everybody who has soul to support me.
4.8 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I think I ought to explain why I was not in the Chamber when this Bill was introduced, and to apologise to your Lordships. The reason is that I was across the way in the Home Office attending a meeting of the Advisory Council, to which certain matters connected with this Bill have recently been referred, including that to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, made such extensive reference—namely the question of a non-residential, non-custodian treatment of young offenders. That is a principle with which I should imagine everybody could have nothing but sympathy, though it is one which seems to me, at first sight at least, to present a number of technical difficulties, into which I will not go at this stage. Certainly I hope that the Advisory Council may find it possible to give some pleasure to the noble Earl when they finally make their recommendations: but as to that, I cannot say.
By and large, and in principle, I think this Bill is one to be welcomed and one upon which the Government are to be congratulated. No doubt it is capable of improvement in details, and no doubt it will be by your Lordships so improved. It is to be commended, in particular, for these four features. First, for the extention of the compulsory after-care to cover large numbers of other prisoners; secondly, for the emphasis which is placed in the Bill on detention centres, remand homes and remand centres; thirdly, for the express determination as soon as possible to get rid of all short prison sentences for young people; and, fourthly, for the increased penalties—increased in their severity—which the Bill includes. As to that, I should like to say a word.
There is, I think, a wide feeling in the country that over recent years so much attention has been given to the deterrent quality of punishment and to its reformative object, that the first and primary element in all punishment has tended to be neglected, or at least to be under-emphasised. That first and primary aspect of punishment was called by our forefathers by the perhaps rather unfortunate word "vindictive", which, of course, suggests to us an element of revenge. That, however, was not, and is not, its meaning. The translation of the Latin word vindicta simply connotes
1086
that essential element without which, whatever treatment is accorded to an offender, simply is not punishment. It is that element of unpleasantness, as the noble Earl called it, or of suffering which is in some way due from the offender to the society against whose laws and morality he has offended. Without that element in punishment, there is no moral distinction between the treatment of a criminal and the treatment of a patient in a hospital, whether for physical diseases or for mental diseases. Without this element of the vindictive, the repayment of that which is due, it would obviously be only common sense to treat all criminals as one treats hospital patients, and to keep them in prison as one keeps a patient in hospital until he is cured. That, however, would be a manifest offence against justice.
The whole concept of punishment, therefore, requires that there be this element. Indeed, I think your Lordships will agree, on reflection, that punishment never becomes effectively reformative unless and until it is accepted by the criminal upon whom it is inflicted as being in some sense due from him. It is only at the stage at which he is prepared at least to consider that the treatment which he is receiving is in some sense meditative, that we begin to get that essential element of cooperation from him without which no reform can be achieved. It is the prime business of Governments, and of the legal officers of Governments, to arrive at the just penalties for various classes of offences. They must be neither too heavy nor too light. If they are too heavy they will not be accepted as just: they will be resented, and they will cause sullenness and rebellion. But if they be too light, certain unfortunate consequences will ensue.
It is, after all, only natural that ordinary people should tend, if not to pass their moral judgment, at least to consider, in forming their moral judgments, the fact of the standards of penalties in force as representing, on the one hand, the objective gravity of the offence and, on the other, the extent of social disapproval of behaviour of that kind. Therefore, to get the penalties wrong and to make them too light is inevitably to suggest that the offence is less grave than in fact it is, and that the social disapproval is less marked than in fact it

1087
is; and so, in the end, one confuses the moral standards and judgment of the people.
In applying these penalties when a decision about them has been reached, it is necessary to take into account not only the gravity of the offence but also the degree of responsibility on the part of the offender for his action. This is often a matter of extreme difficulty, and the fact that we now realise far more than used to be realised that there is such a thing as diminished responsibility, and that not all criminals are equally responsible and guilty for their offences, means that we require in our penal system as great a flexibility in the imposition of penalties as we can possibly arrive at. It also means that those who are charged with the duty of pronouncing sentence must have at their disposal as much knowledge of each individual case as can be offered to them. But how that can be done, how adequate reports on the medical and family history of each prisoner can be placed before a sentencing judge or magistrate without causing an intolerable delay in the beginning of the sentence, I have no idea.
It may be thought that the penalties envisaged by this Bill go too far in the direction of severity. I do not myself think so, and I am very glad indeed that there is no provision made within this Bill for the reintroduction of corporal punishment. The arguments for corporal punishment, and the arguments, such as they are, against it, are well known to us all, and I do not propose to go through them this evening, though if an Amendment were unhappily to be tabled, I should be very glad again to enter the fray and to marshall the arguments against reintroduction of corporal punishments as strongly as I can—but not to-night.
To-night I will content myself with only three more points. The first is that, with the passage of this Bill, the urgency of completing the building of the detention centres and of considerably increasing the number of remand homes and remand centres will become extremely pressing. Under this Bill many young offenders will have to be sent to prison on remand, because there are no remand homes and no remand centres to take them. My second point is that under this Bill, with the extension of
1088
compulsory after-care, which I so greatly welcome, the burden which will fall upon the existing probation services will be one which they cannot possibly be expected adequately to discharge at the very high level of service which they render at the present time. They will have a case list which is quite beyond their discharge, and either they will break down or their standards will drop.
I hope that the Government are acutely aware of the immediate necessity of recruiting extensively into the probation services and, I should imagine, of improving the conditions of service, and so attracting the best people into this kind of work. I hope, too, that not all the after-care work will fall upon the probation services. I hope that room will continue to be found for the voluntary societies, though these are at the moment, I think, even weaker, so far as personnel goes, and certainly weaker, so far as training goes, than the probation services. So there will be an obvious case for the diversion of yet more pubic money to the support and encouragement of the voluntary societies to enable them to give a more adequate training to their workers.
Lastly, I would say one word about the powers which the Home Secretary will take under this Bill to issue directions to the managers of the approved schools. I hope very much—and I was very cheered by what the noble and learned viscount the Lord Chancellor had to say about this—that any powers which the Home Secretary exercises in this respect will be so used as to leave the maximum amount of discretion and responsibility to the managers, whether they be the managers of wholly independent schools or managers of schools under the local authorities. It is, in my judgment, absolutely vital to the good work of the approved schools that there should be for every one of them a body of managers, locally recruited from persons of sufficient leisure, sufficient public spirit and sufficient sympathetic understanding, to be able to enter into the schools and take a personal care and interest for the children in attendance at those schools. I have some experience of one such school, where the boys are divided, with a prescribed number made the personal responsibility of each one of the managers. The managers visit the school, speak with the boys who are

1089
their especial responsibility and take a personal care and interest in them; and they even make plans for their future after release. I believe that if we could ensure that for every approved school there would be managers prepared to take this personal interest in the children, the results would be even more impressive than they are. But we shall not get the right kind of person coming forward to act as manager, and to give all his time and care to the work, if he is robbed of all responsibility and discretion. With those reservations, my Lords, I am happy to commend this Bill.
4.23 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I confess I find this Bill disappointing, not because of what is contained in it, but because of what is left out of it. I think the Bill is admirable, so far as it goes; but it ignores the imperative need, as I see it, for drastic remedial action to combat this rising volume of violent crime. I find a lack of urgency in this Bill. Any stranger who read this Bill through for the first time would think there was nothing very much wrong with the state of crime in this country at the present time, and certainly nothing to be alarmed about. I do not say for a moment that there is complacency in the Government's general approach, but I do miss that sense of urgency which I think we ought to have at the present time.
These figures of violent crime are frightening, and we have just heard of a further considerable increase in current statistics; and we are much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for asking that Question. The latest official statistics we have are those for 1959, which we have all, I have no doubt, read through at different times; and pretty grim reading they make. I want particularly to draw attention to two forms of crime in these statistics: one is violence against the person, and the other is sexual crimes. The number of cases of violence against the person rose from 1,583 in 1938 to 7,079 in 1957 to 9,148 in 1959. The number of sexual offences rose from 2,300-odd in 1938 to 5,600-odd in 1957 to 6,161 in 1959. To-day we have heard that in most of those—all except sexual offences—the increases in current numbers are about 10 per cent. What one finds so distressing is that, if
1090
my arithmetic is correct, about 40 per cent. of the cases of violence and 35 per cent. of the sexual offences were perpetrated by persons under 21 years of age.
For 13 years no court has been permitted to sentence a person to corporal punishment. For 13 years even schoolmasters when wielding a cane have been conscious of a certain risk of being summoned for assault. I came across a case only the other day, where the enraged parent went hot foot to the headmaster of the school where his son had been given a jolly good caning the day before, and threatened him with action. Fortunately, the Home Secretary has come out just recently with some very welcome forthright remarks extolling the use of the cane by both parent and teacher alike. There has been no flogging for 13 years, and there has been a steadily rising volume of crime, lawlessness and thuggery.
I followed with great interest the deliberations of the Standing Committee in another place on this Criminal Justice Bill. I was particularly intrigued with the eleventh and twelfth sittings of that Committee, when the honourable Member for Ayr proposed a new clause incorporating a sentence of corporal punishment for offenders under the age of 21. I can only express my amazement that after this clause had been discussed for four or five hours the honourable Member succeeded in getting only six votes, including his own, in favour of the proposition, while 26 voted against. Frankly, I was flabbergasted. I do not know whether the honourable Member was correct when he stated that he thought about 80 per cent. of our adult population were in favour of the restoration of corporal punishment. I should not be surprised if that was an under-statement. All I know is that certainly 90 to 95 per cent. of those I have asked are unhesitatingly in favour of corporal punishment being restored.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said at that Committee (col. 522 of the Report of the Committee):
"Judicial corporal punishment is out of line with modern penal methods and it would militate against the success of reformative treatment."
With great respect to the honourable and learned gentlemen, have you ever heard

1091
such rubbish! Does he realise that we are in the middle of the greatest crime wave of the century? Reformative treatment, of course, is a desirable thing: nobody denies that. But we are not going to check, let alone reduce, the crime wave that is afflicting the country at the present time by relying exclusively on any such idealistic treatment. Surely idealism must be reasonable and practicable and discriminating; it must not be allowed to shut out all vestiges of realism. Is it not obvious that more active, drastic measures are required? And the absence of any such proposal in this Bill frankly alarms me. I believe that the old saying:
"Spare the rod, spoil the child"
is profoundly true. I believe that this "Cissy" treatment of young thugs and hooligans is utterly wrong. You are not thereby reclaiming the young criminal; you are ruining him. You are not reforming him; you are edging him towards the precipice of serious crime and the shadow of the gallows. I believe that the situation is far too serious to go on dallying with, and being content to rely on, this so-called reformative treatment.
And where does the chief fault lie? Not in these stupid, irresponsible, undisciplined boys and girls themselves, but in us adults, their elders, in allowing such a situation to develop over these post-war years; and, above all, my Lords, with their parents. There, in my opinion, lies the root of the trouble. There is the festering sore of this juvenile crime. Parents have largely relinquished their duty towards their young children and are content to leave them to look after themselves. If I had my way, I would introduce a law forbidding mothers with young children to leave them all day alone and go out to work. Surely a woman with a husband at work should remain at home and look after her children. I would go further. I would make the payment of these bonuses, or bounties, or whatever they call them, of 8s. a week for the second child and 10s. a week for every succeeding child, conditional on the mother remaining at home and bringing up her children in the way they should go.
"Train an a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it",
1092
says the Book of Proverbs—a little optimistic, your Lordships may think; but it is the right principle. In the vast majority of cases, with wages at their present level, there is no need for both parents to go out to work, and there is every need for young children to be under parental control. Can anybody reasonably doubt that some such measure as I have indicated would bring about an improvement in the existing deplorable situation so far as juvenile crime is concerned?
Before I leave this question of the restoration of corporal punishment, let me say that I am firmly of the opinion that it would, in fact, act as a deterrent to violent crime, although I know that abolitionists hold the contrary opinion. I am not forgetting the Cadogan Report which I have browsed through and through. But the Cadogan Report was published in 1937–38–23 years ago; and circumstances and conditions were very different at that tme. The very fact that corporal punishment is retained in Her Majesty's prisons for infliction in certain cases of violence against prison warders and so on, would appear to indicate that there is recognised to be a deterrent value there. Why this punishment of flogging should be so strenuously opposed by the Home Secretary and his advisers is a mystery to me. Having been brought up in the hard way myself, as no doubt have most of your Lordships, and having borne many stripes, my surprise is perhaps not unnatural. Beating has never done anyone any harm, and in countless cases has done a power of good. The only objection I see to a judicial sentence of whipping (as they like to call it) is the delay in admistering the punishment. Of course it ought to be carried out at once, but time has to elapse, apparently, while an appeal is pending, and I can see the difficulty there. But I wonder whether it is insurmountable. I look forward to hearing any comments on this subject from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and perhaps from other noble Lords.
Let nothing that I have said, and nothing that I have yet to say, be thought to imply that I have anything but the greatest respect and admiration for the right honourable gentleman, the Home Secretary. My only quarrel with him is that he is too kind-hearted. In the triple

1093
crown that he wears with such distinction—Home Secretary, Leader of the House of Commons, Chairman of the Conservative Party, added to which, of course, he holds the unofficial but none the less arduous post of Deputy Prime Minister—the burden, I should have thought, was well-nigh unbearable, accentuated by the fact of the right honourable gentleman's well-known extreme conscientiousness in all that he undertakes. Nevertheless, I believe that he is wrong in thinking that we can overcome the present crime wave without drastic alterations in the existing law.
My Lords, I have not finished yet. There is just one word that I would say on the working of the Homicide Act. I realise that this is perhaps going a little way from the Bill, but it has been mentioned by the noble Earl opposite and by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who I am sorry to see is not in his place. There is no doubt that there is general anxiety in the country, a growing apprehension, over this matter of capital punishment. There have been a number of manifestations of public disquiet, at meetings and gatherings of different kinds and letters to the Press. People are disturbed.
Your Lordships will remember that the Homicide Act, 1957, rules that the death penalty may be inflicted for crimes of capital murder but not for non-capital murder. The Silverman Bill of 1956, which sought abolition of capital punishment, had passed through all its stages in another place but was firmly rejected here in your Lordships' House. The Homicide Act was brought in as a compromise measure, designed to bridge the gulf between the abolitionists and the retentionists. I think that is a fair description of it. Whether it has fulfilled that function or not is difficult to say. What it certainly has not done is to stop, or even to check, the ever-increasing volume of violent crime. For that reason, I cannot help thinking that if any bridging of that gulf has been achieved it is probably in the direction of the abolitionists coming a little nearer to the views of the retentionists. I would certainly expect that.
Nothing will make me believe that the death sentence is not a deterrent. I have read with great care the Report
1094
of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment. I am one of those, I am afraid, who do not base my support for capital punishment solely on the deterrent value, but on the basis also of retributive justice. I believe that people who are found guilty of murder of any kind should be put to death. I myself believe that persons found guilty of certain other revolting and diabolical crimes against humanity should also be hanged—but this is not the occasion for raising an issue of that sort. I believe that the time has come to reconsider the bisection of the crime of killing into capital and non-capital murder, and that the courts should be empowered to sentence to death all killers, other than those convicted of manslaughter. I believe that this amendment of the Homicide Act is overdue.
I hope that nobody will dub these propositions of mine as panic legislation; one has given them much thought in the light of the steadily worsening crime situation. I wonder why abolitionists as a whole are so obsessed, or appear to be so obsessed, with the welfare and the protection of the criminal. And why do they appear to give the impression of indifference, and even callousness, towards the victim? Why are they determined to give solace and comfort to the malefactor, yet refuse sympathy and compassion and justice to the injured party, or to his or her sorrowing relatives?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I realise that the noble Lord is speaking with great conviction, from the depths of long-pondered views, but I really hope, considering there are quite a number of abolitionists in this House who are known to him personally, that he will withdraw the suggestion that they are not concerned about the victim. The noble Lord must know that that is untrue, and I hope he will withdraw it.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, the last thing I want to do is to make any kind of accusation, but I do ask why, in their general action and general approach towards this question, those people appear to have more thought for the criminal than for the wretched relatives of the victim who are left behind. I am not making any attack. The noble Earl must know that.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not know it and I am afraid that what the noble Lord has said, as he will see when he reads it in Hansard, must be regarded as an attack on those ladies and gentlemen concerned, in that they are very active in public life, in the country and in this House and are completely within the power of the House to be cross-examined at any time. No-one has higher standing in this House than the noble Lord, but I resent any suggestion that abolitionists are not concerned for the victim.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I should not like the noble Earl to think I was making any attack. I believe I am a reasonably fairminded person, and I am certainly far from being a sadist. Perhaps I get the wrong impression.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I have almost finished. I find that no sooner is a man found guilty of a crime by the ordinary processes of trial by jury, no sooner is he sentenced by the Judge in accordance with the existing law, than forthwith a hue-and-cry develops to show cause why the law should not take its course—owing to misdirection by the Judge to the jury, to the fact that the true facts of the case were never divulged, or, worst of all, to the fact that there was misconduct of some kind by the police. I say "worst of all", because of all sections of the community to-day the police force, overworked and undermanned, are, in my judgment, the most deserving of support, sympathy and understanding in their almost superhuman tasks in the detection and suppression of crime; instead of which we find increasing numbers of cases of vindictiveness and grossly unfair charges levelled against them. I am not so foolish as to suppose that there are not saints and sinners in the police force, just as There are saints and sinners in your Lordships' House, but I regard it as intolerable that among certain sections of the country it has become fashionable to harry the police and to associate in witch-hunting and determination to brand them as inhuman and dishonest in the way they carry out their duties. I can only say that I believe such action to be the gravest disservice to the nation.
1096
I have kept your Lordships too long. I had hoped to say something on the question of these terrible cases of rape and violation of young children, and my regret at there being no reference to these horrors in the Bill. I hope some other noble Lord will refer to these questions and the urgent need of some positive action to combat the rising incidence of these savage and bestial crimes. I realise that I have strayed a little from the normal Second Reading speech, for which I apologise, and I am grateful to your Lordships for your indulgence. What I have been trying to say is that we are in a jam and I do not see that the provisions of this Bill are going to take us very far along the road in getting us out of this jam.
4.45 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, I am very conscious that your Lordships are to-day concerned with many matters that are of great consequence to our country and with many problems that are vexing all who are concerned for her welfare. We know of the rate of increase of crime in recent years. Taking the years 1954 and 1959 alone, I understand that the rate of crime among males in the age group 14 to 17 was nearly half as much again in 1959 as in 1954. If we take the age group between 17 and 21, the rate, in the latter year, was almost double that of 1954. There appears to be not only in this country but in some other countries as well, a malaise affecting some—but most emphatically only some—groups of younger people.
No one could be indifferent to the anxieties and, indeed, to the disappointments that that state of affairs arouses. Conscious of all that, I welcome this Bill and I hope that your Lordships will endorse the principle and the line of approach that the Bill enshrines. While we should all wish to endow the courts with all necessary and desirable powers, I sometimes feel that we ought to guard against thinking that if we do that, then the major responsibility for the prevention of crime passes to the courts alone. It is a few years now since I had the responsibilities of a Judge of Assize. I have had for many years, and continue to have, those of a chairman of quarter sessions. When we see someone in the dock convicted of offences passing beyond the minor ones (and I speak now of

1097
young people), something has already gone wrong. There may have been a failure in the home or the school or there may be a complete lack of the anchorage of any beliefs. There may have been the misfortune of being denied good influence in those years when, in the case of anyone, that is so desirable.
The courts cannot as if by magic suddenly bring it about in any particular case that the trends of a recent period should be reversed. Our penal system is not a kind of flood-gate which the courts can operate and, merely by doing so, by themselves control the flood of crime. The reason why I welcome this Bill and why I very much hope that it will meet with your Lordships' favour is that I believe it provides—and I am speaking mainly in regard to young people—measures of punishment which have deterrent potency while at the same time combining the best reasonable hope of being able to achieve some improvement in the person concerned. When we see a young man in the dock, it is a sad and grievous thing to send him to prison for the first time. We struggle and struggle against that, consistently with our public duty.
I think that this Bill combines a deterrent effect with a reasonable possibility of achieving redemption of the person concerned. A great writer on criminal law, Chitty, many years ago wrote that
"The object of prosecutions is not vengeance for the past but safety for the future."
In considering safety for the future we must certainly consider the safety of potential victims, the possible victims of the future, of force, of brutality, of dishonesty and of all the manifestations of conduct that can strike fear into those who are entitled to be protected. How, then, can a court best deal with a case? A young man is a member of our community and is for many years ahead to remain a member of our community. I would submit to your Lordships that in this Bill we see an approach of providing punishment that is certainly not mild or easy, but punishment that at least holds out a reasonable hope of being able, in proper cases, to see that for the future there may be a change.
I most wholeheartedly welcome those provisions of the Bill providing for after-release supervision. At quarter sessions,
1098
before we even begin the business of a new sessions, we go through the reports of the probation officers in the case of those whom we have put on probation. We remember the cases, the facts; we remember our anxieties as to whether we were doing the right thing; and we read through those reports with much concern. Such knowledge as I have of the work of probation officers, the wholly admirable and dedicated work of probation officers, leads me to think that provisions for after-care supervision should be fruitful, of great advantage. My Lords, when a court of law is able to take a course that has the result that someone, instead of being for the future an enemy of society, becomes a useful member of it, then the law has its finest hour.
4.53 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I understand that my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Lest has just addressed the House for the first time. If so, I should like to say that I think your Lordships are always pleased when one of the distinguished Judges who are Members of this House gives his advice on matters connected with the administration of justice, and I hope that my noble friend will make it a habit to do so.
When I addressed your Lordships on this subject a year ago, I expressed the hope that the Government would not be stampeded by the Durand Report into making unnecessary changes in the law. I would not describe this Bill as a stampede, but there are a number of provisions that seem unsatisfactory to those concerned with juvenile delinquency. In the first place, there is the reduction in the age of admission to borstal from 16 to 15. I think there are many objections to that. One of them is this. As I understand it, borstal has not provision for educating boys. Boys of 15 are, of course, still schoolboys and they come under the Education Act and have to be given full-time education. I understand that borstal has no facilities for giving them full-time education, and if the clause concerned is carried into effect we shall have to start schools, which will in fact be approved schools under another name and under another authority.

1099
The next provision to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention is in Clause 1, where it is provided that a borstal sentence
"shall not be passed on a person who is under seventeen years of age on the day of his conviction unless the court is of opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate."
I should have thought that that was the duty of every court in every case. I have been for 33 years chairman of a bench of magistrates, and in no case did I pass sentence, or be a party to the passing of a sentence, unless I was satisfied that there was no other way of dealing with the case that was more appropriate. I should have thought that if it was necessary to give some advice to the courts, it should be more specific.
I pass to Clause 15, the clause that deals with approved schools and with the question of the police. It is there provided that a boy cannot be removed to an approved school by a magistrates' order, except by a policeman. Of course, every school depends for its success on the respect which the pupils have for the staff. The staff of every approved school contains a number of able-bodied men, and that they, individually or collectively, should be considered incapable of dealing with any single boy seems to me calculated to destroy the respect the boys have for the staff. That is not all. The boys at an approved school are generally unhappy boys and boys who come from bad homes. Many of them are illegitimate. Some have fathers in prison; some have fathers who have deserted their mothers; some have stepfathers with whom they are on bad terms. The success of the treatment at an approved school depends on its having, as a substitute for the father, some member of the staff who can manage the school in a proper way so that it shall be, so far as is possible, like a happy home. Of course, it cannot be quite like that. But the noble and learned Viscount, I was pleased to see, was cheered when he visited an approved school; and I do not think he would have been if he had found a policeman there. I think that the whole idea of bringing policemen into approved schools is quite wrong.
Then we have a provision about police stations. A boy may be kept for 48 hours in a police station. In these days it is
1100
not the custom to keep people for long in police stations, because if they are not given bail very speedily they are sent to prison on remand to await their trial. I do not say that it is impossible to keep a person in a police station for 48 hours, but there is nobody at a police station whose business it is to look after an unhappy boy for that time. Then we come to remand centres and remand homes, to which these boys who are removed from approved schools may be sent. I do not know anything about remand centres, but I know a remand home in my own county. I have here a cutting from last week's local paper, in which it says that a committee of the county council have been inquiring into complaints by local inhabitants about the behaviour of boys who abscond from the remand home. These complaints are justified, my Lords. The fault is not that of the superintendent, who is very competent. But the remand home is a villa on the side of a main road. It is quite unsuitable as a place of detention for boys who are too tough for an approved school. Then, Clause 15 says that the Secretary of State may order that a boy shall be returned to the school from which he was removed. I wonder to whom that is going to do any good.
I turn from that to the powers given to the Secretary of State under Clause 18. I do not complain that the Secretary of State should have these powers: I think it is proper that he should. He is responsible, and he must have the power to enable him to fulfil that responsibility. But it is provided by subsection (2) that where he is not satisfied with the managers he may withdraw his certificate of approval. Of course, he has that power now in certain cases, and he has sometimes exercised it. When, in the past, he has withdrawn his certificate of approval, the approved school has ceased to be a school. He has done that in the past, as I understand, in cases where the school has been unsatisfactory, not merely on account of the behaviour of the managers but because, for example, the building has been unsuitable. Nowadays, the school with which I am connected belongs to the Government, and the Government are spending a great deal of money on it. It seems absurd that (as I take it would happen) if the Secretary of State, because he was dissatisfied with the manager, withdrew his certificate of approval, the school would

1101
have to close down. It may not be so, but that is how I read this clause.
Then we come on to the provision that, if he is not satisfied with the managers he may appoint some extra managers and put the existing managers on the right path. Your Lordships will have seen from subsection (3) that this applies only to schools not provided by the local authority. That is to say, managers are divided into two classes, the sheep and the goats—and I am one of the goats. I think it is quite right that the Secretary of State should have these powers, but I think it is also right not to exclude these voluntary managers. There is only one more point that I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention, and it is with regard to the Second Schedule. That is a very long one and difficult to understand, but the effect of it is, I believe, that boys who are recalled to an approved school after having been released, when they are released for the second time are, or may be, no longer subject to supervision. I may not be right about that, but that is how my informants advise me, and I think that that point should also be considered.
My Lords, I think I should not end on a note of condemnation. There is a great deal in this Bill for your Lordships' approval; but I should like to call the attention of the House to two suggestions which have been made. One is that, instead of sending bad boys to borstal and detention centres or places other than approved schools, there should be certain closed approved schools—schools which are just like approved schools as they are now but which would have an enclosure from which boys would be unable to escape. The second is a point which has been suggested by the Howard League, who have been good enough to send me their recommendations. It is that, in all cases where boys are found to be unsuitable by the approved school in which they are, they should be returned to the classifying school which sent them there—that is to say, the police should not be sent for, and they should not be sent to remand homes or detention centres. They were sent to the approved school by a classifying school, and if they are returned to the classifying school that school may be able to find some other school in which their behaviour would be more satisfac-
1102
tory. I hope to move some Amendments to this effect on Committee, but I thought it as well to give your Lordships a general Idea of the Amendments which I shall propose.
5.4 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, in my days at the Bar I had the advantage on more than one occasion of being led by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Ciest, and it is only right that I should follow him on this occasion. At any rate, it enables me to add my welcome to his appearance in this House and my congratulations on his speech. I feel certain that he will be a great asset to the House and to the Cross Benches.
May I say at once that, in my view, the Government are to be congratulated on this Bill. Many, and particularly the Press, would have people believe that the views of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary in regard to penal treatment of young offenders and my views are radically opposed. May I say at once that, so far as I know, our objectives are the same, and that in all except one respect the means by which those objectives are to be attained coincide. May I first, therefore, say a few words in support of this Bill?
The Bill deals almost entirely with the young offender, the under-21, and I do not think that anyone would question the fundamental principle that the penal treatment of young offenders should be primarily remedial and that it should be carried out in institutions separate from adult persons. It is to this fundamental principle that the Bill adheres. The central feature is the indeterminate sentence of borstal training—a sentence ranging from six months to two years. It is a little confusing that it is called borstal training, because a sentence of borstal training under this Bill will, in fact, apply not only to those who would be sentenced to what we call borstal training to-day but also to all young offenders who would to-day be sentenced to imprisonment ranging from six months up to three years. It might, of course, he said that this was a restriction on the power of the courts to give what sentence they thought was appropriate—for example, twelve months in a prison or borstal training. This is perfectly true; but it is a restriction which I, for one, welcome.

1103
Whatever information a court receives before sentence, it is quite impossible, from seeing the offender and from hearing what information is there, to decide exactly the treatment which he requires. That can be discovered only after he has been under observation, and therefore in custody, for a matter of weeks, or even months. Unfortunately, as your Lordships know, the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal has lately been so great that appeals come on only after considerable delay. That has had this good effect, however: that when the appeal is heard more information is available, and it may then be seen that someone sentenced to borstal training did not require long institutional training at all, but merely a short sentence of imprisonment; and, vice versa, that someone sentenced to imprisonment really needed training. I for one welcome, therefore, any restriction that it may be thought this Bill puts on the power of courts, and it is a restriction, I think, which all Her Majesty's Judges would welcome. Indeed, at some later date I myself should welcome what I may call a senior indeterminate sentence to apply to those in the next age group, when it becomes a question of: "Shall they go to prison or shall they go to corrective training?".
Now, my Lords, at the lower end the Bill envisages detention centres, and detention centres in sufficient numbers, that will gradually take the place of any form of imprisonment of under six months. I personally am a great believer in the detention centre, but, most unfortunately, our penal reforms always go ahead of our penal establishments. Here we have an institution that was recommended in 1938, and the building of which began in 1948, when the legislation had provided for detention centres. Thus here we are to-day when, for all practical purposes, the courts have had to abandon detention in these detention centres as a sentence because there is never a vacancy available. I welcome the assurance that steps are being taken now, as a matter of urgency, to provide more and more of these detention centres. I only hope that it will continue to be treated as a matter of urgency, and that the Order in Council envisaged by subsection (5) of Clause 3 can soon be made.
1104
In this connection, I also welcome the provision for supervision after an offender has been released from a detention centre. Ever since the case of Evans, when in the Court of Criminal Appeal we felt constrained, as a matter of interpretation, to say that it was impossible to provide at the same time for detention in a detention centre and for a period of probation afterwards, I have always hoped that such a provision might be introduced. I would also particularly draw attention to Clause 8, subsection (4), under which parents will become liable for any compensation which the court orders to be paid under Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. That power to order the payment of compensation is rarely exercised to-day, presumably because it is thought that in many cases it will be completely ineffectual. But if parents are to be liable to pay, there will be the less reason for exercising that power, and, above all, it will encourage the parents to discipline their children.
My Lords, finally, in dealing with the remedial aspect of the treatment of the young offender, may I urge the Government to give further consideration to the scheme about which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke. I refer to the scheme about which Sir Basil Henriques has written on many occasions. It is, I venture to think, something which is required to-day. It may be said that the idea of probation is that a man should be free; that probation should not be coupled with any form of either punishment or training. But, my Lords, is that a sound argument? To-day the young man who is put on probation thinks he has got off. And, at any rate when it comes to a second period of probation, would it not be right to make it a condition of that probation that he should work, or at least undergo some form of training?
Having said that much, my Lords, I feel constrained to point out the limited powers of the court to inflict punishment as such. As I have already said, the fundamental principle in regard to the young offender must be that the penal treatment should be primarily remedial. But I venture to think that it should not be exclusively remedial; and particularly is this so during the present age, when, as has been pointed out, crime among young offenders is increasing, and

1105
continuing to increase at quite an alarming rate. For the last two and a half years since I became Lord Chief Justice have, I am afraid, on every available opportunity drawn attention to this increase. To-day I believe that even those who have consistently shut their eyes to the facts, and who have sought to belittle the increase in crime, are being forced, not by my utterances but by public opinion, to face the facts.
Again, in the last two and a half years I have been urging the old principle that the certainty of punishment is a far greater deterrent than its severity—and I have urged that in your Lordships' House. I have read with delight the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the Police, and I am still more delighted that its recommendations are being implemented. Let us hope that, as a result, there will be an increase to the police forces, and an increase of the right type of recruits. But however sound that principle is, it is difficult to see its complete success in the sense that every offender will be caught. Something more, surely, is necessary. I venture to think that the courts, as well as the Government, owe a duty to the community—a duty to do their best to halt this crime wave. But if they are to do so, they must have the necessary weapons of punishment.
It might be said that under this Bill there are two such weapons: first, there is the power to detain in a detention centre for discipline; secondly, there is the power to give sentences of imprisonment of three years and over. So long as detention centres are looked upon as places of discipline and punishment, well and good. But, as I understand it, the position is that not only will there be insufficient centres for some time to come, but they will become again places of training, of remedial treatment and not primarily of punishment.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I be permitted to interrupt to ask the Lord Chief Justice a question? Does he draw a very sharp distinction there? Surely he would like a young man in whom he was interested, and who was sent to a detention centre, to corm away a better young man, even if other people were also deterred by the kind of treatment taking place there?
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, we always want both; but the prime object of a detention centre, I should have thought, was to submit a man to harsh discipline as a punishment.
So far as sentences over three years are concerned, I confess that I am horrified at long sentences for the young unless they can be avoided. It is these considerations that have always led me, and I am afraid still lead me, to be a reluctant advocate of corporal punishment—I say "reluctant" because I believe that no one likes the idea. I am certainly not one of those who approach the matter in a revengeful spirit, though I quite recognise that there is a risk that I shall be included in what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, called the other day the "rough and tough brigade". But it is surely a matter which requires further consideration.
The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary is reported in the Press to have said at Exeter the other day:
"We must punish crime hard. I pledge myself to support every measure which I think will be effective in the campaign against crime."
My Lords, it is in that spirit that I urge the right honourable gentleman to think again on this matter. The pros and cons, as has been said, have been gone into many times. It will be said, and can be said with some force, that the matter has only recently been considered by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Young Offenders. Needless to say, I have the greatest respect for every individual member of that Council. Nevertheless, I should not be doing my duty, I think, if I did not criticise, very shortly, the reasons they have stated in their Report.
It is said, first, that to reintroduce corporal punishment would mean putting the clock back. So be it. If it is necessary, why should we shrink from it, especially when it is the hooligans themselves who have retarded the clock? We do not shrink from the bombs of modern warfare, weapons which are thought to be necessary deterrents. Yet those who lived in the days when corporal punishment was thought necessary, would no doubt have been horrified at the idea that any civilised community should have weapons of this character. In this

1107
connection, may I remind your Lordships of the recommendation of the Cadogan Committee's Report, from which all this stems? In the conditions of 1938, they put it no higher than that the balance, of advantage lay in abolition; but nobody suggests that the conditions of to-day are anything like they were then.
The second reason given by the Council is that the reintroduction of corporal punishment might lessen our prestige and damage our reputation abroad. Really, I should have thought that such a reason had only to be stated in order to be put, not second, but long last, if at all, in a list of reasons. Thirdly, my Lords, it is said that it affronts the conscience of a civilised community, and ought to be reintroduced only if it would substantially reduce crime. That reason contains two elements. First, does the idea of corporal punishment really affront the conscience of a civilised community? I myself am clear that it does not—always assuming that this country is not wholly uncivilised. It is said (and I do not think that anyone challenges it) that something like 75 or 80 per cent. of the population of this country are in favour of corporal punishment. A Gallup poll showed that it was not only the women who were in favour: there was an equal division of men and women. The Judiciary are largely in favour of it. The magistrates, also, in spite of the evidence given by their Association, are largely in favour of it.
The second element is the question whether the reintroduction of this punishment would substantially reduce crime. I suppose that that depends largely on what is meant by "substantially". The Council themselves recognise that in a certain number of cases it would act as a deterrent, both to the offender and to others; and I, for one, should welcome it if it acted as a deterrent in only 10 per cent. of cases. But, of course, it would do more than that. No doubt a few offenders would not be deterred—no doubt a few of them will glory in their martyrdom, and do it again. We have heard of such cases. But where does this argument lead us? A not inconsiderable number of offenders who go to prison commit further offences. Is it to be said that, for that reason, imprisonment should be abandoned as being no deterrent?
1108
At the expense of wearying your Lordships, I cannot refrain from referring to one of the many letters I have received on this subject—letters both ways. This is a letter from an old man of 78, written, I venture to think, in his own inimitable and illiterate style. He says:
"Dear Sir, what you say, violence treated sloppily! You are right, Sir, I know. I am now 78 but I still remember as a boy of 15 I was given 6 strokes of the birch. I was a bad lad then, but I stole because I was hungry and I used violence to get the handbag. I was caught and received the birch. I still used to steal but I never used violence again. It hurt too much. Mr. Paddy Child was the magistrate. The place was Rochester Row. I think myself if we used the birch back we would stop a lot of violence. They do not like what it hurts. The prisons are like hotels nowadays to what they were 60 years ago."
Another argument put forward is that the position of crime is not so grave as is generally supposed, and that severer sentences of imprisonment should be given by the courts. Again, there are two elements. I think that the crime position is more or less grave—I leave it to the good sense of the House; but I would submit that there is only one answer. The second element is this question of severer sentences of imprisonment for the young. Presumably as an indication of possible sentences there are set out at the end of the Report, in Appendix H, the maximum sentences which can be given for certain offences—sentences ranging from five years to life imprisonment. Presumably, the implication is that the courts have ample power to deal with matters by way of imprisonment. My Lords, I view any suggestion of long sentences for the under 21, except in very rare cases, with absolute horror. I should like anyone to come and sit in a court, and see a young man under 21 sentenced to three, four, five or more years of imprisonment. At that age it is a lifetime. And what happens to his education? What chance have young men, so sentenced, in afterlife?
Only the other day, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, we had a case of four or five young men, of good family, who three years ago had begun, no doubt in a high-spirited manner, systematic burglary. They had been doing it to the tune of several thousands of pounds, and in the course of it had persuaded other young men to come in. The judge of

1109
assize had felt constrained to give those young men five years' imprisonment, and they appealed. The plea put forward was this: Is there not another method of punishment, however severe, that can be substituted, which will allow these men to finish their education? One, it was said, was likely to be an eminent scientist. One was a budding engineer. What chance have they in after-life? I do believe, and I feel it very strongly, that for cases of this sort some form of corporal punishment is far kinder to the offenders. Some form of corporal punishment which, if need be, could be coupled with a short period in a detention centre would surely enable these young men to make a better start in life.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the noble and learned Lord is advocating corporal punishment not only for crimes of violence but for any type of crime?
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I was coming to that in a moment. I feel that anything is better than nothing.
May I come to another reason given by the Advisory Council for opposing corporal punishment? It was stated under the head of "Practical reasons", and refers to the delay. This is, I venture to think, the real argument against corporal punishment. I confess that I see no way of getting round it, other than to say that corporal punishment shall never be administered except for a second offence, after warning. Suppose one were to say to a man, "You see that fire. If you put your hand in it you know you are going to get burned. I am saying to you that, as surely as that, if you go and do this again, you will be caned or birched", or whatever the form of corporal punishment might be. Then I venture to think that, whether the punishment takes place 24 hours or 24 days after the offence, it can do no harm. The offender has done it, and chosen to do it with his eyes open. Of course, one may laugh at it and say that it savours a little of the dog who is said to be allowed one bite. But if this question of delay is to be faced, then I think that corporal punishment should be given only after warning and, therefore, for a second offence.
Once again I urge the Government to reconsider giving the courts this further
1110
weapon. I care not whether it takes the form of caning or birching; either one can hurt, and either, or both, have that element of indignity which these young people fear. I care not whether it applies to all offences or whether it is made to apply merely to those which involve gross personal violence. It certainly should not be given automatically, but only as a matter of discretion; and it should be capable of being imposed coupled with other penalties. Please do not think, my Lords, that I envisage a kind of wholesale corporal punishment. My own feeling is that if the weapon were there the need to use it would be very rare; and, indeed, if it were thought that there was likely to be excessive use, then confine the power, by all means, to courts of quarter sessions and assizes.
I apologise for having occupied so much of your Lordships' time, and I ask you to forgive me; but this is, naturally, a matter which concerns the courts very closely. The courts I feel, owe a duty to the public; and I feel that I should not be doing my duty if I did not once more put before your Lordships my views on the matter.
5.32 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was extremely encouraged, as I am sure my noble friends were, to hear the Lord Chief Justice say that his objectives and the means of attaining them were the same as those of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary: that was, until he developed his one exception. I am bound to say that I am much more reassured by the Prime Minister's statement that corporal punishment forms no part of the Government's penal system. I am not nearly as old as the old gentleman who wrote to the Lord Chief Justice, who I think he said was 78, so I have not personal experience, like that old gentleman, of the benefits of the birch, but my grandmother was old enough to have witnessed as a child the public hanging of a child. That had about it some measure of indignity. That also was the kind of punishment that one would have thought would have been such a deterrent that it would have been very rarely inflicted, just as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice thought that if we had the penalty of flogging or birching it would be such a deterrent that the Bench would rarely have the need to inflict it.

1111
My Lords, we do not hang children any more for stealing; that is a deterrent which is no longer necessary. But the reason and the justification for the argument of the Lord Chief Justice for birching and flogging springs from the same germ as the arguments which no doubt were passionately put forward in your Lordships' House a hundred years ago for the retention of such punishments as the sentence of hanging for larceny.
The Lord Chief Justice was speaking almost as if there were no deterrent in our present penal system; that the prisons were not prisons any more, but were more like hotels. I have visited some of those "hotels" in different parts of the country, and I am in correspondence with scores of the inmates. For what satisfaction it may give, I can assure your Lordships that the penal system in all its aspects is a very strong deterrent indeed. Yet, in answer to a Question before this debate started, we learned to-day that there were in this country, in 1960, 742,714 indictable offences, one in 70 of the whole population; and that every form of offence, except sexual offences, showed an increase, of which the smallest increase was 6 per cent. and the largest 15 per cent. It does not look as if the deterrent is working very well, does it? If offences increase in one year by 10 per cent.—and they have been going up steadily every year—is it not at least a prima-facie reason for looking at the penal system, as my noble friend Lord Long-ford suggested, and asking ourselves the question: is it not all wrong?
It is true that the size of the prison population and the incidence of crime among young people compel us to admit the need for the additional prisons and remand and detention centres of which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has given us details this afternoon. But, in my view, this need is the unhappy fruit of the long years spent in pursuit of a wrong policy; of the years during which almost all official thought of all kinds has been directed more towards filling prisons than emptying them. It would make more sense if we devoted a much larger proportion of our thinking, our money and our effort, first, to stopping people going to prison, and
1112
secondly, to ensuring that, if they do go, then once released they will never return.
I should like to confine my remarks to considering ways of reducing the numbers of both new entrants and re-entrants to prison. Of the young people who fall foul of the law, the majority come from the 60 per cent. who are potentially anti-social. They are the youngsters who are not members of any church or of any kind of youth organisation. If they have parents who attempt to exercise control, they are either resentful of it, or indifferent. They are thus virtually devoid of any real adult contact. Money has made them superficially mature. Yet inwardly they lack the experience of life, which came earlier to our generation because of the tougher economic conditions. At 18 they are much younger than we were; and they know it. That is why they are aggressive—to show that they are tougher than they know themselves to be.
What is the average tough teenager's attitude to established institutions? He regards all authority as the horrible untouchable, strictly for the birds. He has no respect for age or wisdom. He looks at a parson as a fool in a black nightgown. He considers youth clubs childish. Yet, basically, he is wide open to good influence, provided it does not patronise. The difficulty is for the good influence to make contact when every obvious approach is suspect. Left alone, he is a reasonable being, but his way of life leaves him equally vulnerable to the yobs, the yahoos, the gang leaders, the rotten apples in the barrel. Given the right quantities of boredom, alcohol and high spirits, they can turn him into a hooligan, or even a criminal.
Do not imagine, as I did a few years ago, that he is not different from what we were when we were his age. He is different. He was born in the 'forties, when his parents were compelled—I say compelled; the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, said it was from choice—to enrol together in the rat race for money and possessions. His mother perhaps resented having to leave work for a few months to give him birth. She would rather have got some new furniture. She put him in a nursery school as soon as she could, and throughout his early life he did not have sufficient parental affection and discipline. Mum was never

1113
there, and Dad was working overtime. He was a doorstep kid. He was alone. Influenced only by the money symbol, he left school at 15 and got a job. He worked hard and earned enough money to make him independent. That is what he wanted—independence—to be a man, an adult. He does not feel like an adult; all the more reason to seem like one, drink more, swear more, wear flashier clothes. But he is bored, very bored. Money buys the cinema, the café, the beer, but it cannot buy what he needs—a sense of being needed, of belonging, of being important. So boredom leads to the search for "kicks". He pushes a billiard cue through the ceiling, or his fist in somebody's face.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, who is not here at the moment, wanted to answer this sort of thing with virtually everything, so far as I understood, except the rack and the thumbscrew. Yet you cannot appeal to the tough teenager by force, because he has no history of imposed discipline. That is why, in my view, those who say "Birch 'em" are so stupidly, utterly wrong. You cannot appeal to his soft side—he has not got one; Mum did not give him one. It is terrible; it is dreadful. But it is true, and we must not minimise it or ignore it.
Do not think that you can make contact or turn him into a useful citizen by thrashing him or sending him to borstal. That is why he is a problem, and if we either ignore him or try to flog it out of him, we might as well give up entirely and leave the future of this country to him and his like. But society cannot allow these young people to be outcasts. We must—and again I say without patronage—make contact on a man-to-man basis. Because, despite all outwardseeming—and I have tried this—the vast majority of this group of young people can be as decent, courageous, adventurour and potentially responsible as ever we were.
I think that an improved, expanded and, above all, an enlightened youth service would make a great difference. But unquestionably, once they are delinquent, the best possible man-to-man contact for them is with the probation officer, and the ideal method of straightening out the incipient young criminal—it is the best I have ever heard of—is
1114
the idea which has been mentioned several times this afternoon, and always with approval and support. It is an idea put forward by Sir Basil Henriques, most of whose experience has been in the East End of London, a part I know very well, and it is to combine a probation order with an order to attend at an attendance centre.
My Lords, most of these young people will never need an approved school, let alone borstal, and I therefore warmly welcome the proposal in the Bill to reduce the minimum age for attendance orders to 10 years and to increase the maximum hours of attendance to 24. But I hope that we shall be able to persuade the Government, at a later stage of the Bill, to increase the maximum hours of attendance. I should not like at the moment to specify to what maximum, but I am most interested in this possibility of a period of three months with attendance on week-day evenings for children for a total of 130 hours. I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would let us know if that would be possible under the Bill as it now stands, provided that it was combined with a probation order; that is to say, if 130 hours total attendance at an attendance centre would be possible under the Bill, if it were combined with a probation order. If it were not, of course, then I think that at a later stage we should move a suitable Amendment. But I am certain that that would provide a much better opportunity for training and for instruction in the constructive use of leisure.
But if these proposals are to become really effective, the Government must ensure that there are more attendance centres, that they are open in the evenings, so that children can attend, instead of on Saturday mornings, and also (I do not think this point has been made before) that programmes must be provided at different times for different age groups, because youngsters, whose ages range from 10 to 17 years, cannot possibly be taught at the same time, or indeed in the same place; certainly, not in the same room. I hope that we can hear something about that.
But more important, in my view, than anything in this Bill is the need to expand the probation service, because it is impossible for any man to deal

1115
adequately with 60 to 80 cases. The service is already heavily overloaded, and the increase in statutory after-care, however welcome, will thrust an additional heavy burden on it. My noble friend Lord Longford mentioned that there would be 12,000 additional cases per annum, and I believe that he meant without considering after-care from detention centres. That is an enormous number of additional cases. Therefore, my Lords, these provisions will remain so many words on paper, unless we can have an assurance from the Government that they will forthwith implement plans for a considerable increase in the number of probation officers, and give a pledge—perhaps the Lord Chancellor will be able to say something about this—that the Bill's provisions for statutory after-care will not become operative until the additional officers to cope with it are in post. Otherwise, I think it will be a tremendous disappointment.
I think that any extra expenditure of this kind would be a tremendous saving of public money, quite apart from the incalculable social gain, because the probation service is the greatest single agency for rescuing people from a life of crime, and thus reducing the prison population. The individual consideration, the man-to-man approach, must be continued when the attendance centre is inappropriate and the court orders a young person to a detention centre.
The Home Secretary has promised that the régime at the detention centres will be hard and severe, and that principle was very much approved by the Lord Chief Justice. My noble friend Lord Longford did wring from him a statement that he regarded severe discipline there as a punishment, but surely the object—if it has any objective at all—must be rehabilitation. And this hard and severe régime, however necessary it may be for the ordinary tough, the uncomplicated case, is surely going to be unsuitable with many who are given sentences of less than six months. It will be disastrous for them; some are disturbed, others merely slow, stupid, weak, dull-witted, and for them the ordinary tough régime would be quite unsuitable. It may put them right over the edge. There must be, therefore, a variety of detention centres, or at least
1116
of detention régimes, to cope with different types of youth, and it is surely imperative, as my noble friend has said, to include social workers in their staffs.
I hope that when, at a later stage, we raise these points in detail, the Government will accept our Amendments and give the necessary firm assurances, because they are all directed towards ensuring that once a youngster has committed an offence, his treatment is appropriate to his needs, with the object that he never comes back for more. In most cases that does not mean undue severity, but finding out what is missing and trying to supply it. Those who insist that corporal punishment and toughness are the only cure are, in my view, either ignorant of the facts or indifferent to them. Indeed, some who constantly bay for blood are fundamentally just as wrong and misguided as the youngsters their ignorance would destroy.
I should now like to deal briefly with the subject of after-care which, in the foreword to the Pakenham-Thompson Report, has been described by my noble friend, Lord Longford, as "the most neglected corner of the Welfare State", as indeed it is. It is incredibly stupid that, whilst the Government spend £15 million a year on keeping men in prisons, they spend less than £250,000 on after-care to keep men out of prison. We keep a man in prison at a cost of £8 a week. When he comes out of the prison gates, blinking in the early morning light, we give him 5s. and a travel warrant, thus making as sure as we can that he will be back behind prison bars again very soon.
We maintain, in the Prison Commission, an efficient central organisation to keep men safely in prison, but we have no central organisation at all to try to see that, once free, they do not go back. My noble friend Lord Longford mentioned something about Pascal. It is rather obscure, but it led me to think of different degrees of insanity. There cannot be any difference of opinion about this sort of system. To spend £15 million a year on keeping men in prison, and less than £250,000 on keeping men out of prison, is just plain "daft" in any language.
My noble friend Lord Longford also made reference to the television film series, "Probation Officer", and, in par-

1117
ticular, one programme which he quite rightly criticised. I saw that programme myself, and I remember the incident to which he referred. It was unforgivable, and one would like to think that it could not happen at any detention centre. I should like to put, as fairly as I can, the other side of the medal. I have never in my life plugged commercial television, but if I am at home on Monday evenings I endure the advertisements for the sake of watching "Probation Officer" on A.T.V. Most of the plays stand up on their merits as such, but in addition most of them, so far as I am able to judge, are accurate documentaries, and, as a whole, I would say they constitute a valuable social service. Two weeks ago, they had a play dealing entirely with prison after-care, which was so impressively convincing that I am hoping to have it shown in the Grand Committee Room so that as many of your Lordships as are interested can see it, because it gives a clear insight, and an accurate insight, into the difficulties which beset discharged prisoners.
A man comes out with 5s. and neither job, home nor friends. A sandwich and a cup of coffee, and he is almost penniless. The National Assistance people cannot help him until he has an address which, in his case, has to be a dosshouse. The Labour Exchange send him after innumerable jobs with a plague placard in the shape of an employment card with no stamps. As soon as he shows it, the answer is "No". I think this continuous failure of the authorities to find a way out of this stamp difficulty is one of the most vicious pieces of official cruelty that I know. This particular man is persistent, and goes to the probation officer, and so things begin to happen. But how many will have that sort of persistence? It is common knowledge in prisons among prison officers that if a regular is not employed within two weeks of coming out of prison he starts to work his way back. This stupidity must surely be ended. It is intolerable, inhuman and very expensive. More statutory compulsory after-care is welcome, but it will be almost useless unless the present system is radically altered.
Last year the National Council of Social Service published the Report of the Pakenham-Thompson Committee on
1118
The Problems of the Ex-Prisoner. With my noble friend Lord Longford as chairman, the Committee comprised representatives of industry, the Press, probation officers and voluntary societies, and they had the invaluable assistance of the General Secretary of the National Association of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies. I should have said that, although it was a voluntary Committee, the composition was sufficiently wide and experienced to merit the full consideration of the Home Secretary and the authorities. But I understand that a copy of this Report, Problems of the Ex-Prisoner, was sent to the Home Secretary last November, but he has not yet made any public statement about it. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount, when he comes to wind up this debate, will let us know, if he can, the Government's views on those particular points.
Time EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I should not like the idea to go about that I am acquiescing in the feeling that we have been treated in some way with discourtesy by the Home Secretary. I understood that this Report, along with other relevant documents, had been referred to the Advisory Council, which is now looking into the matter. I may have my own opinion as to whether they are moving fast enough, but that is the reason why we have had no public statement.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend, but I think what I said was accurate—that there had been no public statement, and the Report was published some six months ago. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount might be able to tell us if the Advisory Council has yet started work, because it would be a step in the right direction if we could be told that. In any case, the proposals which most interest me and, I think, merit the most careful consideration are the proposals to set up at the Home Office a Department to deal exclusively with after-care, under a director with the status of a prison commissioner, and to recruit and maintain under his direction after-care officers with the same standards and training as probation officers. There is the suggestion to increase the number of prison welfare officers to a number sufficient to

1119
ensure that prisoners are properly prepared for re-entry into the world long before they are discharged. Will they also grant-aid voluntary societies in the provision of hostels for homeless ex-prisoners and in the training of sponsors or associates who are willing to help individual prisoners? With many ex-prisoners it is not so much the difficulty of getting a job as of keeping it. I know from experience that if these men, even those with bad records, have a friend who trusts them they will not let him down. That is why it is so important that there should be these associates, trained people though voluntary, who are willing to be friends to these men.
Above all, it is important that, if a director of after-care is appointed, or whatever other medium the Government propose to set up, he must have at his disposal the funds to ensure that a prisoner will be kept on his feet while he is finding and settling into a job. Anything else is quite disgraceful. You simply "chuck" them out with a virtual certainty that they are coming back. It is no use pretending otherwise, and it is no use complaining about the growing numbers of the prison population if we do not take sensible steps to reduce them. I am quite sure that even the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, would agree that once a man has paid the price to society and served his sentence, he should be given a chance outside and not have things made completely impossible for him.
If this sounds like more money, I would still advocate it, even if that were the case. But in my view it is absolutely certain that money spent on trained personnel and organisations for obviating the need to send delinquents to prison, and on the rehabilitation of ex-prisoners, will provide a big financial saving. Much more important, however, it will enable us to make good citizens of those who would otherwise be lost, and enable those who have broken the law and paid the price to resume their place in society and find themselves again.
6.0 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, may I first join in the welcome to my noble and learned friend, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest? Your Lordships will have
1120
noticed throughout his speech that high principle, careful accuracy and that warm humanity which he always displays with us on all occasions.
This Bill will be most sincerely welcomed, because it is a constructive effort to do remedial work among our young offenders. As the Lord Chief Justice said, our penal reforms have often outstripped our penal establishments, and it is so in this case. Let me divide them into the main stages. First, the period when we put the youngster on probation. Let us first have, as has been strongly recommended, the attendance centres, as Sir Basil Henriques, Lord Longford and others are suggesting; and have these youngsters attend every day, in the evenings or at suitable times at those centres.
Another thing which has not been mentioned but which I should like to bring forward is the provision of probation hostels. I tried a case recently. Let me cite the sort of case. A mother had an adopted child which she had brought up from babyhood, and they were entirely at arm's length in the house. She exercised too much control over him; so much so that on one occasion he set light to the blankets upstairs and ran down out of the house and said: "I have done it this time; you can't get at me again". He was up for arson. It was clear it was wrong to put him on probation so that he would simply go back to his mother.
It is no good sending a boy back home where he had bad surroundings or bad associates or bad home conditions. In those circumstances it is necessary to be able to ask the probation officers whether there is a probation hostel, to take him away from where he is, perhaps in Brighton, and put him in London in a hostel and let him go to work there, away from his old surroundings. Very often the answer is that there is no room; but in that particular case the probation officer did find a place. There is a great need for probation hostels where the youngsters can be taken away from bad surroundings, sent to another district, and to have work there. That is probation.
The next step is detention centres. How glad I am that the plans are in hand to increase those, so as to accommodate all these youngsters whom one

1121
does not want to send to prison, whom one does not want to send to borstal, but who need a short, sharp, severe period of discipline! That is the next stage. But the cardinal, central feature of this Bill is taking away the power of the court, in effect, to sentence a man to imprisonment when he is under 21. They will be able to sentence a man only to over three years—a very rare thing—or under six months. In between the court loses its power to give a sentence. It can give only an indeterminate sentence; it can only say, "You are to be sentenced to borstal training". That means he is there for anything from six months to two years, and the judges in the court have no control over it. That is our old system of borstal training applied universally to people under 21. Although at one time I did not like the idea of taking the power of punishment away from the courts and putting it into the hands of prison officers or borstal officers, nevertheless I believe it is the right way. The young person can be classified, taught, trained and disciplined. I have looked at a centre for young persons under 21, with their strict régime. It is a very fine thing for bringing them back to sanity; and that, in effect, will be the general system of borstal training.
When I speak of this, I would suggest that the plans which are now proposed are inconsistent with the reintroduction of corporal punishment, and I say that for this reason. I have been on the Bench long enough to be one of the Judges who, before 1948, inflicted corporal punishment. I remember a case where it was a question of what to do with a youngster aged 20 who had been guilty of robbery with violence. That was practically the only case in which one could give corporal punishment, for many years before 1948. He had come up behind an old man sitting in his chair, knocked him over the head and taken a few shillings from his pocket. He had not injured him seriously, but it was a clear case of robbery with violence. I wondered what to do with him. There were, in effect, two alternatives; to sentence him either, as in the circumstances I thought appropriate, to three years' penal servitude, which would mean two years' effective, or to eighteen months' imprisonment plus 20 strokes of the birch. I chose the
1122
latter, which would mean that he would be out after twelve months.
A Judge, when he gives corporal punishment, of course reduces the length of the sentence which he is going to inflict. Under this new system the Judge would never be able to adjust the sentence with the whipping, if whipping were brought in. He has no control over the sentence going from six months to two years; it is whatever the Prison Commissioners think right. If the judge is to have no control to equate the whipping with the length of sentence, it seems to me inconsistent to introduce, or suggest introducing, into this Bill the question of corporal punishment.
But I would go further. I regret to differ from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice on this point. For many years before 1948 whipping was practically confined to robbery with violence. Now it would be introduced for all crimes: wounding with intent—the youngster who gets a broken bottle or a cycle chain and hits another over the head—or the rape of young girls. All these, I suggest, would be cases supposedly for corporal punishment. wonder whether it would be right for the Judges to have a responsibility which is so different from rightful infliction of corporal punishment by a schoolmaster or parent, where it is personal and immediate. This is altogether different: a judicial sentence of corporal punishment which is delayed and impersonal and may be after a long period of time, inflicted in altogether different circumstances, when the person who is beaten is screened from the whipper so that he does not know who he is, and indeed with the governor and medical officer being there, months after the offence.
I often think of this question to myself. We should not, on our collective responsibility, do an act which individually I believe none of us would be prepared to do, or even to witness. Indeed, if you read the report of the Advisory Committee, you will see that the chief officers of police all say: "Do not give it to the police." The prison officers, the senior officers, say: "Do not give the job to us". The probation officers, of course, would not dream of doing it. It seems to me it is the same when one is in the Army; you do riot ask a man to do what you will not do yourself. So, indeed, we ought not to ask anyone on

1123
our behalf to do a thing we would not do ourselves.
It seems to me that the right measures, and the right degree of public denunciation, which, of course, is an essential matter in the enforcement of our criminal law, is attained by the system that we have: the system of detention centres, borstal training and, if need be in the last resort, as at Notting Hill Gate, long sentences; but only in the last resort. That is a far better system than going back to the haphazard, delayed and, I think, unfortunate system of corporal punishment. But that is a difficult question. I will not detain your Lordships on it now, except to say that the whole trend of this Bill and its provisions, and particularly the provisions for supervision after the people come out, is wholly to be welcomed.
6.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I would venture to welcome this Bill as providing as tough a remedy for the state of crime in the nation as is compatible with public opinion. It astonishes me that any noble Lord, after reading the provisions of this Bill, should describe the Home Secretary as insufficiently tough, or as excessively loving kind. A family fined the substantial sum of £10, plus damages, plus the loss occasioned as the result of the misbehaviour of their child of under 14, will not, I think, be inclined to pay much tribute to the kindheartedness of the Home Secretary. It seems to me that the fines will do a vast amount of good in forcing upon slack and casual parents a measure of responsibility.
May I also cordially welcome the increase in the penalties for helping young persons to escape, be it from a detention centre or from a remand home. I have seen something of the terribly bad consequences that ensue when a child is enabled to escape from a remand home, and I trust that some means will be found, perhaps by the motoring organisations, perhaps by the Transport and General Workers' Union, perhaps by means of notices in transport cafés, to warn the motoring and lorry driving public against the grave harm that may be done by giving lifts to unexplained young persons by the roadside.
1124
With one modification I welcome the attendance centres. The subsection instructs the magistrates, before awarding such a sentence, to take into account the availability of public transport. I fear that that will mean that boys in remote villages, who often need the attendance centre as much as boys in towns, will not get the benefit of it; and I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government the possibility of making arrangements in certain cases for special constables to be employed, of course on payment of expenses, in taking young persons to attendance centres when other transport is not available.
May I express the hope, too, that great attention will be paid to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, which coincide exactly with advice I have received from the headmaster of an approved school. It is felt in those quarters that the Bill has certain defects in so far as it deals with approved schools; and the inability of Her Majesty's Government to put into effect the recommendation of the Durand Report for at least one closed approved school is lamentable, although one realises the difficulties in which the Home Office is involved in its exceptionally large building programme. The headmaster with whom I discussed the matter was strongly opposed to the clause which allows a boy to be removed directly from an approved school to a borstal institution. He felt that the distinction between an approved school and a borstal institution must be most sedulously preserved. It would seem altogether wiser that the boy being taken from an approved school should be sent to some institution where his conduct can be studied by psychiatrists and other experienced persons in order to determine to what extent his bad conduct was psychotic, and to decide after prolonged and careful examination whether what was needed was a borstal institution or mental treatment.
At this point in my speech I must confess to great embarrassment. Many years ago, for a few years, I served as a schoolmaster, and I thought that I would venture to offer to your Lordships a few remarks from a scholastic point of view. What was my shock on receiving the list of speakers, to discover that I was to speak in front of the headmaster

1125
himself—a most distinguished headmaster of the time! I offer him every humility, every excuse. But there is a point to which I hope attention may be given by the Ministry of Education: it concerns the classroom teaching in approved schools. On this point I have had the advantage of consultation with a lady of great experience who has taught in a girls' approved school which was divided into classes—the house girls who did little work in classrooms, and the school girls who did a substantial amount of classroom work.
She informed me—and I can very well understand it—that one of the great difficulties attending teaching in these schools was that the girls came up from ordinary schools where they were at very different levels of educational progress, and owing to the shortage of teaching staff (and I wish that steps would be taken to induce more teachers to go into approved school work; there are grave difficulties about that) it was necessary to take girls of quite different rates of progress in the same class. This induced an appalling sense of frustration in the girls—and no doubt this applies equally to the boys—who were compelled to learn again subjects which they had already studied.
Those of your Lordships who are in touch with schoolchildren will appreciate what a schoolchild means by the word "done"—" I have done arithmetic"; "I have done decimals"; "I have done Australia". Arid one may even get a collector's piece, "I have done the Trinity". It is exceedingly frustrating for these girls to have to face in their lessons subjects which, as they would put it, they have "done". I wonder whether educational experts could devise some course that would avoid that particular End of frustration; some course, that is, which avoids the stock class-room teaching in history, geography, arithmetic and so on. Possibly foreign or European history might be a substitute.
I would also stress the great educational importance in these schools of really good art training, which gives the pupils who suffer from so much frustration by their surroundings a chance to liberate their spirit in constructive work. May I add that I am much more concerned at the girls' approved schools than I am at the boys' approved schools—I am very doubt-
1126
ful indeed whether we are right in applying to girls in trouble anything like the same treatment as to boys who are in trouble—especially as in the girls' approved schools young prostitutes have to associate with wild girls of quite different background.
May I say a word upon the vexed subject of corporal punishment? I served for two years in a day school in America where no corporal punishment was allowed. I then served for a year in a boarding school in India where corporal punishment was allowed and was carried out fairly frequently. Let me confess—although it will no doubt lower me in the opinion of some noble Lords—that it did not affront my conscience that at the end of my experience I remained very doubtful indeed whether it did very much good. If that is true of corporal punishment in schools, I feel far more strongly opposed to the reintroduction of judicial whipping.
Finally, it may be—it must be—true that many factors contribute to the appalling situation that faces us. No doubt much responsibility lies in the home. No doubt there is a strong case to be argued on the subject of certain television programmes. But do not let us forget this: these boys and girls in trouble are, or until very recently have been, schoolboys and schoolgirls. We must realise that the school, in our education system, cannot escape a great share of responsibility for the antisocial attitude of a very considerable proportion of our juveniles—more considerable, I am afraid, than criminal statistics reveal. These young people go about in gangs, and while the gang-leader may be caught the rest seem to be just as antisocial in their fundamental attitude.
I am very much concerned by the moral condition of some of our State schools. A feature of the day is the immense popularity of private schools of all kinds. They are flourishing wherever one goes. I understand that that is largely due to the fact that parents of children who have failed to pass their 11-plus examination send their children, often at very great sacrifice to themselves, to any kind of 'private school that is available. I have heard the mother of a family who are in a very bad economic position, and for whom the maintenance of the barest minimum of decent standards is a matter of constant anxiety and trouble, say: "Whatever the

1127
fees, and whatever the cost of the uniform, I am going to send my child to a private school because I do not like the moral influences that it will meet in the State school."
When I say that, let me hasten to say that I am not attributing blame to the staff or the management of the State school, because the headmaster of the State school is deprived of the most powerful weapon which the headmaster of the public or the private day school possesses; that is to say, the power of expulsion. Most of your Lordships, and I daresay some of your Ladyships, were at public schools. We know that the tone of our public schools was very largely maintained because the headmaster had the power, in his sole discretion and without assigning any reason, of expelling any pupil whose conduct was such as to injure the tone of the school. And let us remember that the headmaster of the State grammar school or a secondary modern school has no such power. What is the position of a headmaster who sees one of his pupils injuring and ruining the moral tone of his school? He can punish very moderately; he can exhort—which is seldom of much value. Those measures having failed him, he must be content to see the evil influence spreading.
It is not a matter which we could introduce into this Bill, but I would urge that serious consideration be given to providing the managers of all schools with power to bring any of their pupils before a magistrates' court and to plead that the pupil in question is beyond educational control. After all, that would be analogous to the power which a parent possesses to bring his child before a court and plead that it is beyond parental control. The court would then have power, if it found the complaint of the school managers, briefed by the headmaster, fully justified, to commit the child to an approved school as in need of more control than the day school could give. I would beg that this solution be very seriously considered, in the interests of the vast bulk of children attending the schools who must be preserved from evil influences.
6.31 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, I want to speak very briefly indeed this afternoon, because I am essen-
1128
tially a layman in penological matters and I feel a great deal of diffidence in speaking at all in front of people, some of whom know a great deal more about this subject than I do myself. Nevertheless, from the nature of my job I know something about young people, particularly boys, and something, I think, about their problems; and, like everyone else, I am alarmed by increases in juvenile crime and anxious to support any measures which arrest or, still more important, prevent them. There are, perhaps, two preliminary things I should like to say before I make the single main point I want to make about this Bill.
First, I think one cannot say too often how alarming it is that we really know so little about the causes and treatment of delinquency. Whenever one comes to think about it or speak about it one realises that, compared with so many other subjects with which one is accustomed to deal, here one is trying to deal with something in ignorance. Of course, that ignorance has been analysed and discussed with the greatest skill by two Members of your Lordships' House who are here at this moment, and I do not say any more about it. Nevertheless, a realisation of that position should surely make us aware that any attempt to deal with crime by legislation must be accompanied by a no less real determination to experiment wisely in our treatment and to encourage in every way we can these social investigations which will in time, we hope, help us to understand.
Secondly, in considering these questions it is always necessary, I think—certainly for the layman—to remind ourselves that, serious though the statistics may be, it is easy to lose a sense of proportion in talking of crime waves and that sort of thing, and to forget that, in spite of the harmful publicity given to every kind of crime by some of the Press, in itself a factor which may not improbably be a predisposing factor to crime, it is only a tiny percentage of the juvenile population that is involved. One might easily get the impression that juvenile violence, in particular, was a widespread and common phenomenon; that the young spend their time now running round with flick knives and coshes and the rest. Yet I find that in the three months' period ended January 31

1129
this year, out of 825 offences found to have been committed by juveniles in Manchester, not a conspicuously law-abiding city I should have thought, only five were offences against persons.
To me it is indeed sometimes surprising that young people remain as moral as they do. The influences of school, which we allow to end for the majority at fifteen, not a great age—and some of us, your Lordships may remember, have been attempting to get that age raised, unsuccessfully so far—and of the church, where it exists, and of youth clubs, where they exist, have to fight against an environment which can scarcely be called an encouragement to the good life. With a new and temporary affluence, the boy or girl in his or her late teens is all too vulnerable against a background where often the only escape they know from squalor is the culture of the amusement arcade, the juke box and the motor bike on the by-pass.
Nor do we make it easier for the young when the ideas with which we present them, through some of our Press, the "telly" and the film, are those of easy money and easy virtue in a world of moral ambiguity. It is no use, really, talking about crime prevention in isolation. One has to think of the other agencies. It is no use economising in education, because if we economise in education we shall need Criminal Justice Bills to deal with rising crime statistics. The way of the social life of the young is, in fact, dependent on the stimulus we give.
Having said that, I want simply to return to one particular omission from the Bill that I regret, one that has been referred to. One of the questions we may well ask is whether the methods of punishment and treatment, particularly those that do not involve removal from home, are varied enough and of the right kind to encourage and reform in the way we want. Fining in these days of high wages is not a very severe punishment. It contains no reformative element and, associated as it is in the public mind with offences like parking, it cannot be said to involve much element of moral disapproval. Probation is an admirable system. From all that one knows and hears it is impossible to speak too highly of the overworked officers who run it.
1130
But in the minds of some young offenders it has few overtones of punishment or even of inconvenience. There may be the feeling that they have been let off—they are not, but they may feel that. The attendance centre is admirable in idea and practice for the comparatively trivial offence.
What then? It is, of course, partly the feeling that the courts need further sanctions, other than removal from home, which has led to the outcry for corporal punishment. That subject has been discussed so much that nothing significant remains to say. I think it is unfortunate that so much of the discussion has been purely sentimental; and it is necessary, I believe, to try to get sentiment out of one's mind in discussing this. Of course, I mean it has been sentimental on the part of those who defend corporal punishment in the sense that the dearth of hard evidence for its effectiveness means, really, that nothing but sentiment remains. Yet how much we need hard evidence to make us believe in it
After all, it is intrinsically improbable that a young man, who has probably been savagely beaten on many occasions throughout his life, as a very large number of those appearing before the courts have been, should be improved by more beating. It is intrinsically improbable that humiliation should be the right treatment for an aggressive personality that probably springs from previous humiliations. It is intrinsically improbable that our young people are so much worse than young Frenchmen or Swedes or Russians that ours, alone, should be the only penal system, pretty well, in the civilised world that needs this particular sanction. It may be that those improbabilities can be removed, but we shall need some pretty hard evidence to remove them. But all the hard evidence that exists on this difficult problem shows that, in fact, juvenile corporal punishment is not a deterrent.
The only new evidence, apart from opinion and sentiment, that so distinguished an exponent of the case as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice could produce this afternoon was a letter from an aged ex-delinquent; and, if I am faced with the alternative, I prefer the Advisory Council as evidence. That is why we are in fact so often driven back on sentiment. If I

1131
may state my own view, for what it is worth—headmasters are traditionally, if not always in fact, supposed to know about corporal punishment—it is that judicial corporal punishment is practically ineffective, morally dubious and, very often, psychologically harmful—and when I say "psychologically harmful", I do not mean to the criminal; I mean to the community that inflicts it. I think that most of those of us who are actively concerned with young people will be delighted that Her Majesty's Government have resisted the clamour of opinion and sentiment on this matter.
But, having said that, there is surely a case for trying out any new form of punishment and treatment that offers reasonable hope of success; and here we come to this idea of a training centre, tried in Boston, that has been recently commended in the strongest terms by Sir Basil Henriques. I simply want to say that, from the point of view of a layman who knows something about education, this seems to me to deserve the most careful investigation. For five nights a week for three months the offender, who is also on probation, attends the centre for two hours for instruction and training. Now this is a scheme which should appeal both to those who want to stiffen the punitive side of our approach and to those concerned with reform. The deprivation of liberty is serious, and would certainly, I think, be a very real deterrent, in my experience of young people.
But far more important is the genuinely educative effect which would certainly follow in a number of cases. There is a real chance that, given this length of treatment, something positive might be accomplished. The offender is removed for two of the most dangerous evening hours from the diseducative environment of the street to the genuinely educative one of the centre. There is a chance for formal teaching, particularly for remedial teaching for the illiterate or semiliterate—and how much crime at this level, one wonders, is associated with a low level of literacy. If the physical training is supervised, as I suppose it would be, by police officers, there is a chance to build up a new relationship with authority.
1132
Above all, from the educator's point of view—and that is the only one from which I am qualified to speak—there is the chance for the boy to associate over some time with men whose moral standards are themselves firm. It is the power of example which is really at the root of successful moral education, and it is this principle which gives the probation service its many triumphs. These centres would give that process of learning a far greater chance of success than it has now. If we want another argument for at any rate some experiment along these lines, then we can use the argument of cheapness, because such centres would be cheap. The saving of money which would result in reforming those who might otherwise be candidates for residential institutions might be very great indeed. The saving of human material—and that, after all, is the object of any of these exercises—by combining part-time educational work of this kind with the merits of probation may well be no less, and far more important.
The truth is that the more alarmed we are about delinquency the more we should be prepared to innovate. Here we have a simple, inexpensive and, to someone who knows a little about education, clearly promising line of experiment, and I, for one, should have hoped to find provision for something like it in the Bill that is before us.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, on the question of psychology, is it not a fact—I am not sure whether it is or not, but I certainly have read it—that one of the main reasons why flogging and all forms of flagellation were abolished in the Royal Navy was largely because of their psychological and physiological effects, akin to the effects of certain forms of perversion? If that is a fact, it strikes me as a very strong point in the argument that is going on now.
6.44 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I am one of those who welcome this Bill, but I think it does not go anything like far enough. At this late hour I shall try to be brief, but there are some points that I wish to make because I, together with an increasingly large proportion of the population, am more and more perturbed by this present wave of crime and violence. I myself have served with

1133
British soldiers during two world wars, so I love my fellow men—I cannot do otherwise—and in between them I have been an employer. The outstanding feature about the average Briton is his ready response to leadership and his ready adoption of a decent standard, if he can be introduced to it. Is it really necessary that we should have this wave of crime and violence? I am inclined to doubt it. I have been much impressed by many of the official and other publications on the subject of flogging and against capital punishment, but the public must be protected. The reformers, the sentimentalists and the advocates of a soft policy may well be right in theory, but they have failed lamentably. Perhaps they are right in the long run, but, if so, they have been most unlucky in their timing.
What is the background to all this? In the last 40 years we have had two world wars in which violence was, of necessity, laudable. This toughness was the answer to the King's enemies; and I submit that we should now get equally tough with the Queen's enemies, the criminals. Over this long 40 years we have had more and more education of a sort, which seems to have stimulated amongst the idle ones a desire for easy and quick riches. Religion is on the decline, largely owing to the poverty of the churches, and this has led to less consideration for one's fellow man. At the same time, and above all, we have had a Press which has glorified crime and glarnourised sex, and a cinema trade by means of which immorality and violence are made to appear commonplace and laudable. Television, also, is by no means innocent. At the same time, the penal reformers, advocating a soft policy, have created an atmosphere in which it does not appear disgraceful to be a pervert or a criminal. Such people are not made to feel that they are public enemies, but are led to believe that they are clever, interesting, pitiable and, indeed, rather smart. My Lords, I have heard with my own ears a quite intelligent lady say, "Oh, he must be clever; he is a homosexual", and she would not have hesitated to ask him into her house.
The results of all this we have seen: almost daily rapes, murders, robberies with violence and rife homosexuality. A large number of people go in daily
1134
fear of their lives—solitary old ladies, innocent girls, and respectable cashiers. The soft policy has failed lamentably and the public must be protected. It is time that we returned to a tougher policy. We did not have all this trouble in the past, when justice was tough. To look back a long way, it is common knowledge that hanging did away with sheep stealing in a very few years. First, we must clean up the Press and cinema. Next, we must encourage and make it possible for the churches of all denominations to exert more influence. Above all, we must demonstrate most forcefully that rape, homosexuality, robbery with violence and murder do not pay. We must step up the penalties by making hanging and flogging the punishments for certain stated crimes; and hanging need not be confined to murder.
Where a sexual or homosexual crime is repeated, it is not unreasonable to hold that the criminal has forfeited human consideration, and that in order to protect the public the criminal must be treated as an animal. There is a simple operation in everyday use whereby intractable male animals are rendered tractable, and I submit that where such crimes are repeated, that operation should with certainty be performed, a s it is indeed in some foreign countries. In aggravated cases of rape, such as have recently occurred, the operation might well be carried out on conviction of the first offence.
Finally, I am led to wonder whether our whole social system in the past has not been partly to blame. It is evident that crimes of violence and sex are rare among those who have had the advantage of education at a public school, or a good grammar school. Perhaps the self-discipline and the standards of behaviour and religion therein inculcated enable that fortunate minority to resist temptation. The effect on a man of joining a good régiment is very similar. It is interesting to speculate what might be achieved by better leadership and better education, with the encouragement of all the various denominations among the churches. If we can thus improve our general standards of social conduct over the years, then that would be the time to talk again about the sort of policy which has now been such a failure. I must here declare an

1135
interest. I have suffered grievous bodily harm at the hands of a criminal, but before I sit down to await the caning which I shall no doubt get from some of those on the other side, I should say that I had plenty of good canings when I was at school. They did me good without exception, even the odd ones which I did not deserve, and so I await my next caning with equanimity.
6.52 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat evidently appreciates that he has favoured the House with sentiments which were more characteristic in this country, if I may say so, in the eighteenth and very early nineteenth centuries than they have been for a long time. One wonders how much it is necessary to controvert what he has said. For example, he said it was well known that hanging had put down sheep stealing. I should have thought that if there was one historical fact in the history of criminal administration which was accepted by every historian, it was that it had done nothing of the sort. I found it almost impossible to understand how the noble Lord had ever come by the idea that the capital punishment which was so characteristic of criminal jurisprudence in this country in the eighteenth century had had any effect in the way of checking the violent crimes which were endemic all over the country at that time.
Bad as the crime wave is now, if the noble Lord would only take the trouble to read the great work, History of English Criminal Law in the Eighteenth Century, by Dr. Radzinovicz, which is in the Library and which he can take down from the shelves quite easily, I am sure he would be disabused of that idea in a very short time. The theory that the crime wave is due to softness is supported by no sort of evidence at all, so far as I can see. It is possible that there may be an element of truth in it, but surely one needs some evidence before changing and deflecting the course of all recent criminological progress. If the noble Lord will study what has happened in the United States, I think he will see that certainly in some States there has never been this soft policy. Criminals guilty of the crimes to which he has just referred are sometimes
1136
executed, and in many cases are sent to prison for tremendously long terms. Twenty-five or thirty years are not at all uncommon terms of imprisonment in several States of the United States of America, yet he will find that the crime wave there is worse than it is here—there is no question of that. The increase in the criminal statistics for crimes of violence and crimes of dishonesty are even worse there than here. I do not wonder that the noble Lord is disturbed by the situation. We all are, and I suppose that those who know most about it are even more disturbed than others.
One of the weaknesses of this Bill seems to me that its framers have not bee paying attention to such research as has been going on. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, I was very glad to see, emphasised that even now, after we have got on to research, we are still doing much too little and are very ignorant of the causes of crime and of the best way to handle it. That is unfortunately very true, although no doubt, particularly with the present Home Secretary, steps are being taken to remedy the position.
My objection to this Bill is that the Home Office seem to be ignoring the results of the research which they have in fact done themselves, some of which has thrown a good deal of light on some, at any rate, of these problems. For example, there is the particularly valuable Mannheim-Wilkins researches into prediction in connection with borstal treatment. These very able researches are following up the work done at Harvard by Professor and Mrs. Glueck on predicting the probability of young lads becoming hardened criminals. They have made an investigation into a substantial number of borstal boys, and have in fact found a very similar pattern to that which the Gluecks found in the United States—namely, that a substantial number of criminals become recidivists, no matter how they are treated. Actually, the Mannheim-Wilkins investigation was made in borstal, and they discovered that there are a substantial number of boys who can be relied upon not to go wrong again after they have been to borstal. There is another substantial section of boys who can pretty well be relied upon to go wrong after they have been to borstal.

1137
The interesting thing is that Sir George Benson, to whom we owe an enormous amount for his unflagging interest in these problems, and for the research that he has done in person, is a very good example of a man becoming interested in these problems through having been subjected to prison treatment himself. He was a conscientious objector during the First World War, and the country had what I might almost call the bad taste to subject him to a term of imprisonment. But undoubtedly in the long run that paid off remarkably well, because it gave a man of very great ability and human sympathy an objective in life. And though he has been a valuable member of Parliament, I think that most people would agree that the best contribution he has made is with regard to these problems of criminality. Sir George Benson has discovered that the Mannheim-Wilkins results apply over the whole field, whether we are using fines, or imprisonment or detention centres. Even in the probation field, the result works in the same way. This is very disturbing. It suggests that we need to re-think from the beginning in regard to these matters.
We need to be able to pick out that section of criminals, fortunately the substantial majority, who are not likely to become recidivists: those who are arrested and brought before a court, who are subjected to the disapproval of their own families and neighbours, who are sensitive to this salutary shock and afterwards go right. It does not matter very much whether we send them to prison or fine them or put them on probation. If this is true (and in the House of Commons Sir George Benson produced a substantial amount of evidence to show that it is true, or at any rate enough to establish a case for much further research) it means that we must think about starting again and possibly modifying our ideas on these matters. It seems to me that, in producing this Bill, the Home Office have neglected these researches and have failed to understand what is implicit in them.
As the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, said, we must be looking for new ways of punishment, or of treatment, if your Lordships prefer to look at it that way. I am sorry that this Bill does not go further—it does go a little
1138
way—towards putting the obligation on criminals to indemnify people they have injured, whether personally or in relation to their property, by making it clear that they can be made to pay where the law perhaps was not altogether clear before. Again, through the instrumentality of a refugee professor, the Home Office have done valuable research work into this problem, and I am sorry that that is not reflected more concretely in the Bill.
One aspect of this matter which has come closely to my attention over recent months is the tremendous amount of damage being done by week-end hooligans in the national parks. We were debating the Report of the National Parks Commission only a week or two ago in your Lordships' House. I was up in the Peak District the week-end before last, and I heard some of the grievances of the farming community about these young louts who come out from Sheffield and Manchester and other big towns and destroy farm property just for the "fun" of doing so—pushing down walls, bashing in barns and destroying agricultural machinery as it lies in the fields. I should like to be able to take these people and make them put right the damage they have done: build up the walls they have knocked down; clear out the streams they have blocked up, and otherwise indemnify the people whose property they have injured. I think that one of the things that we are failing to do is to bring home to the prisoner the injury which he is doing. If we could bring him more directly in relation to the damage which he has done and make him see what is involved in it, we might be on the way to getting a better type of punishment.
My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on the problem of probation. Sir George Benson's findings in relation to probation are very disturbing, and I feel that they ought to be checked up carefully. They are not in accordance with my own experience at quarter sessions. It is true that I work in a county with hardly any urban population, and it may well be that the situation there is not characteristic of other parts of the country. I have found that our success with probation is a good deal more than the 70 per cent. which Sir George Benson found in his figures. But whether or not he is right, it is clear that in some parts

1139
of the country, at any rate, we are not getting quite the right type of probation officer. I wonder whether perhaps it is not the case that the people who choose probation officers, and the people who train them, look for too intellectual a type. Sometimes the sort of probation officer one would hardly expect to be a success is the most successful. Probation officers are dealing with a primitive type of mind and personality, and the ability to understand such minds, and put oneself en rapport with them, is not necessarily the ability possessed by a man with an intellectual approach, who can answer questions on Lombroso's theories about crime and that sort of thing. I think that there may well be improvement to be looked for here. In any event, it is clear, as indeed the noble Earl, Lord Longford, very cogently argued this afternoon, that a substantial increase in the number of probation officers is required under the Bill. Maybe it will be possible to obtain them from among rather less intellectual types. I do not suggest that the standard should be lowered, but that in some parts of the country it might be reasonable to look for a different type of probation officer.
The next point on which I would say a word or two is that of lowering the age for borstal to that of 15. I am not satisfied that this is altogether a wise move. If courts make use of the new power at all extensively, it may well be that the result will be worse than the cure. To put boys of 15 into borstals with older boys, even if they are only boys of 17, may have exactly the opposite effect to that which is hoped for. I think that before this step is taken it is certainly imperative to obtain a much fuller report on their antecedents than is provided at present for the courts. As a chairman of quarter sessions, like any other chairman with his fellow magistrates, I have to deal with a large number of cases sent by the lower courts to the quarter sessions for borstal sentences, and with other cases in which we have to consider whether borstal training is the right course to take with young lads coming before us in the ordinary way of indictment. The present Commissioners' Report, which is one of the items in the dossier, so to speak, is altogether too cursory and not sufficiently informative.
1140
I do not want to go into the whole question of getting more information about prisoners, a matter upon which the Streatfeild Committee have reported, and with which I understand my noble friend Baroness Wootton of Abinger will be dealing in her speech. But this is an aspect of the matter which has been much in my mind for a considerable time and I feel that an opportunity ought to be taken in the present Bill, particularly in connection with the transfer of boys from approved schools to borstal institutions, to insist that much fuller information is provided for the tribunal which has to undertake this responsible decision.
I imagine that one of the reasons for providing for this transfer is to deal with the absconders from the approved schools. That is a very real problem, and it seems to be a growing one. We need approved schools where the security arrangements are much better than they are at most of the approved schools at the present time. Only at the last quarter sessions I had two boys before me whom the master said he would not take back because he could not keep them for 24 hours. One of them had absconded four times, and he had always taken some other boys with him. They had always immediately broken into houses, in which they did a great deal of damage, and most of it just wanton damage. Obviously it is necessary for boys like that to be restrained in such a way that they cannot get out, and I should have thought it was better to do that by having full security approved schools than to rely on borstal.
And these absconding boys are not only those of over 15. The particular boy who was the ringleader in the case I mentioned had started this game of absconding at 13; and he was only 14 when I had him before me. I would suggest that the limitation on the power to transfer these boys from approved schools, which I understand in the Bill is at 15, should be removed. Obviously this type of conduct is by no means confined to boys of 15, and I do not understand why the limitation of the age of 15 should appear in the clause.
I am very much in sympathy with the after-care provisions, which I feel are most important. I entirely agree with everything my noble friend Lord Long-

1141
ford said as to the lack of importance which has in the past been attached to this problem, and it is most helpful that during the last few years people like my noble friend and the late Miss Fry have been paying so much attention to it. It seems to me, without claiming to have any particular knowledge of it, that the after-care arrangements depend tremendously on finding jobs for these people to go to. I suppose that is a truism. At the present time, on the whole, it is not altogether difficult to find jobs, but it is not easy to keep the lads or the men in those jobs: it tends to leak out that they have been in prison, and that immediately causes trouble. It is not always easy to find them jobs of the steady-going variety, which require a certain amount of skill, and in which a man is more likely to settle down. I think a significant fact is that the jobs obtained are casual jobs, such as working in a hotel, where the lad soon gets tired and goes off and gets into trouble again. If you could train him to work requiring a good deal of skill, in which he could take pride, I feel that he would be much more likely to settle down. I appreciate that there is a committee working for the Home Office under Sir Wilfrid Ansom on the problem of prisoners, and I hope that they are devoting particular attention to this question of training the young prisoner, which seems to me to be of special importance.
I do not myself believe that it can be done, so to speak, in vacuo. I was interested in what the noble and learned Viscount said about visiting approved schools and being impressed, because I have had exactly the same sort of feeling of the wonderful work going on there. The workshops are often extraordinarily up to date, with fine lathes and beautiful machines. And yet one always has a slight suspicion that as the lads are not working to earn wages, or to sell their products, or something of that kind, there is a certain lack of reality about it, and that with much less beautiful machinery they might be trained in a way that would be more likely to have long-term results, if they could only, so to speak, be harnessed to the general industry of the country.
I appreciate that this opens up difficult problems in relation to trade unions and things of that sort, and we have discussed
1142
it in the more general conspectus of this problem during past debates. But every time I go abroad or hear about the arrangements which are being made in foreign countries, whether in Western European countries or in Communist Russia, I am very much impressed by the fact that they succeed in those countries in harnessing the prison population, or much of it, into the general industrial community: they earn trade union wages, and their goods are sold, and in that way they are in a position to step out of the prison atmosphere into the atmosphere of the general world and settle down, and are much less likely to go wrong again.
Finally, I should like to support what has been said about the winding up of the Prison Commission. I am sure that this would be a serious mistake. It is all very well to talk about the position having changed in the Home Office and that sort of thing; but I have yet to see any really cogent argument for breaking up the Prison Commission. The Prison Commission over the past 50 years or more established its authority in a quite unique way. It may be that in the earliest days it was simply concerned to execute policy decisions taken in the Home Office, but I think that from the time of Sir Ruggles-Brise onwards it has obviously been cross-fertilisation, with most of the fertilisation coming from the Prison Commission. I just cannot imagine that if the Chairman of the Prison Commission was, so to speak, an anonymous bureacrat, head of a division in the Home Office, its present influence for good would continue. I am interested to know that a substantial number of ex-prison governors take the same view; and I believe that even a number of present prison governors (although one cannot pray them in aid, at any rate by name) are of that opinion, too. I am sorry that this clause has come to us from another place, because I had thought that it would be taken out. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again, because I am sure it would be a most unfortunate thing to do. We shall have opportunities to try to get some of these mistakes in the Bill put right on the Committee stage, and I hope that we shall take advantage of them.
7.19 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I rise with a certain degree of temerity, first,

1143
because it is late in the evening and, secondly, because I do not fall into that exalted and revered category of being a legal luminary. But I take part in this debate because I feel very concerned about the increase in the crimes of violence which is occurring throughout the country. I am concerned with this Bill, like my noble friend Lord Ailwyn, not for what it contains, but for what it omits.
I am concerned that there is no measure in this Bill for the reintroduction of the use by the courts of corporal punishment. I am aware, my Lords, that this is a highly controversial subject, and one about which people hold very strong views. I am aware also that it is a subject which is apt to raise deep passions. I respect, indeed, the views of those people who are against the use of corporal punishment, and I realise that those views are held with equal sincerity and just as strongly as are my own views, which are in favour. I shall try to bear that in mind, my Lords, in the course of what I have to say.
There must be few people who are not gravely concerned about the increase in crime which is occurring throughout the country. The incidence of crimes of violence and sexual crimes is far too high for anyone to be complacent, and it is my opinion that those crimes would not only be fewer but would also be more justly punished in some cases were the reintroduction of the birch and the cane for people under 21 brought about. I think it is an acknowledged fact that the majority of irresponsibility most easily corrected by corporal punishment takes place in people under 21, who have no particular responsibility, are unmarried and are not fully adult.
To my mind, the advantage of corporal punishment lies directly in two ways, although it has other indirect advantages. Its two advantages are, first, as a punishment and, secondly, as a deterrent. I am of the opinion, my Lords—and I see no reason to be ashamed of it—that a person who transgresses the law should be liable to be punished for it and that suitable punishment may in certain cases be corporal punishment. I think that those of us who are against corporal punishment, as well as, indeed, those of us who are in favour of it will admit that we dislike all forms of punishment. I do not care for corporal punish-
1144
ment for what it is; I do not care for prisons and all that the thought of them conjures up—borstals and the thought of people contained in them. But, my Lords, I dislike far more the thought of harmless and respectable people being coshed and slashed, and girls being assaulted, not by people who cannot control themselves, but by people who can control themselves but will not.
The second direct advantage is, to my mind, the deterrent value. It is sometimes said that corporal punishment is no deterrent. Of course it is a deterrent. But what is important is whether it is more of a deterrent than the other things which exist for punishing offenders. I do not propose to try to prove to your Lordships that it is a deterrent, because I believe that that is impossible; it is indeed as impossible as it is to prove that it is not. Arguments and statistics can be brought forth on both sides. They may be brought forth but they are no proof; they merely add weight to one's case. I would merely draw your Lordships' attention to the words of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, when he spoke in one of the debates on capital punishment. He said:
"You can never tell when the deterrent has worked. You can only tell when it has failed."
How true that is! But it does not stop me from being convinced in my own mind that corporal punishment is a deterrent, as also, I believe, is the Home Secretary convinced, for, of course, he retains it for use in prisons.
My Lords, crimes of violence have increased alarmingly since the war—in fact, by a startling amount. If one looks at just a few statistics, one sees that in 1938 there were 2,721 crimes of violence, and in 1959 there were 13,876 cases: an increase of 510 per cent. Of crimes of violence by people under seventeen, in 1938 there were 116, and in 1959 there were 1,231: an increase of 1,061 per cent. Of crimes of violence by young males between seventeen and twenty-one, in 1938 there were 163, and in 1959 there were 2,366: an increase of 1,451 per cent. It may be said that, when corporal punishment existed before the war, there were five times fewer crimes of violence, and in the case of young people crimes of violence were ten times fewer. I would not be foolish enough to claim

1145
that that is entirely the result of abolishing corporal punishment. I merely state the facts and let noble Lords draw whatever deductions they wish from them.
But, my Lords, I believe that totally inadequate steps are taken to deal with these young offenders. Instead of punishment being given to the young offender, on so many occasions we are often led to believe that he is some form of mental patient. I believe this attitude to be wrong in many cases. There are many young thugs who commit crimes of violence and are not lacking in mentality at all, but who are lacking in discipline and who, far from considering others, merely use others as a means of inflating their own egoism. Here, my Lords, I make one great distinction. There is all the difference in the world between the man who has a warped and diseased mind and who, as a result, cannot help committing some crime or some sexual act, and the lout who does not care about the thoughts or lives of other people, and is merely out for his own self-gratification. The first deserves all the benefits that modern mental treatment can give. The second, to my mind, frequently deserves the birch. Furthermore—and this is the point—the second should not, for the sake of convenience, or for the sake of the appearance of being broad-minded, be confused with the first.
Without question, the general public are alarmed and terrified at the waves of crime that are passing through the country. The Home Secretary has suggested that the newspapers should "soft pedal" on the subject, and that they are inflating it to extravagant proportions. With respect, my Lords, I think that he is wrong. I think that the public should be fully aware of the terrible and detestable crimes which are being perpetrated, and of the measures by which these young thugs are dealt with.
I should like, if I may, just to quote an odd case or so of the type of thing that has happened in my own county of Norfolk within the last eighteen months, a place which one would not consider to be a hotbed of crime. In one case there was a group of young Teddy-boys who made an unprovoked attack on a group of Royal Air Force men in King's Lynn. It ended up by being a fight between the leader of the Teddy-boy gang and one of the R.A.F. men. The remainder
1146
of the gang linked arms and encircled the two, so that the public could not interfere and could not help. The R.A.F. man was kicked unconscious by the youth, who was wearing specially studded and plated boots. In the course of the fight, the Teddy-boy had half his ear bitten off. As a result of the prosecution the youth was fined £20, and afterwards he bragged to his gang, in front of both the police and the public, that the penalty meant nothing to him. Within three months he was prosecuted again for using threatening behaviour, and fined £5. This is not an uncommon incident.
Another concerned a group of Teddy-boys who mounted the top deck of a double-decker bus, where there were a few grammar-school boys. The leader of the Teddy-boys picked on a fourteen-year old boy and assaulted him without provocation. The senior boy, who was a prefect, intervened and remonstrated with the leader. The remainder of the gang attempted to provoke him to a fight, but without success; whereupon one Teddy-boy attacked and struck him violent blows in the face with his fist, which was reinforced with a metal chain wrapped around his knuckles. The Teddy-boys left, assaulting two or three younger boys on the way. They were reported to the police later that evening, and the whole gang were arrested. The court put them on probation.
The third case to which I would draw attention occurred when a thirteen-year-old girl was brutally assaulted by a married man aged 20. He tried to have intercourse with her against her will. When she screamed, he kicked her in the face and subjected her to severe physical blows. He was fined £50 for indecent assault and £6 15s. costs. I am aware of the danger of quoting in your Lordships' House things out of their context. But I would merely say this: Are we right, in these types of cases, to debar completely the use of corporal punishment by the courts should they deem it fit to use it? Are we convinced that the measures available to the courts are strong enough to punish the offender, to deter the potential criminal, and to protect the public? I think that they are far from adequate, and I would welcome a strengthening in the power of the courts with regard to the cane or the birch. They may not be used frequently,

1147
but they would at least be another weapon in the armoury to be used when occasion justified it. I think there is nothing more pathetic than to read of a Judge or a magistrate, who has heard the case and all the facts put forward on both sides, and who has the interests of the public and the offender in mind, giving judgment and saying, "Of course, I should like to send you to be birched, but I am not allowed to." These types of case are happening frequently all over the country.
If I may trouble your Lordships, I should like to quote an extract of a comment of the Sunday Dispatch. It says:
"Yesterday the Dispatch made a random selection from local papers in the London area. They all carry reports of crimes committed last weekend. One paper actually records: 'Local police, C.I.D. officers, dogs, and ambulance men were working non-stop (coping with robberies and attacks) from dusk on Friday until dawn on Monday.'
"This is the tally:
"Local paper No. 1.—Sixteen crimes ranging from burglaries to indecent assault.
"Local paper No. 2.—Ten crimes, from a gang fight to a threat to carve up young girls.
"Local papers Nos. 3 and 4.—Fifteen crimes including thuggery and assault, menaces, insulting behaviour, indecent assault, housebreaking and burglary."
I think this is a terrifying state of affairs, and one which should be dealt with with the utmost urgency and expediency.
My Lords, I believe that corporal punishment, far from doing harm, is often better than the alternatives of prison or borstal. The penalty is of short duration. It may be painful, but it is not harmful, and it is a lot better than closeting up a young man with a number of hardened criminals. That is the best way to turn an amateur criminal into a professional. It is of interest also to note the contents of a letter published in the Daily Mail from a master of a borstal institution who conducted his own private inquiry among the 53 boys under his charge. His name, curiously enough, was Mr. Gash, and of the 53 boys under his charge, 51 favoured the reintroduction of corporal punishment. Some of the reasons given were these:
"It would teach us a better lesson than this place—it's a 'kip' here.
"It would stop lads getting into trouble more than once.
1148
"It would stop lads like me getting a record.
"I got borstal for my first offence and I've learnt more about crime here than I ever knew.
"The birch would hurt us. Borstal doesn't. It's too soft—that's why we don't mind a second time inside."
We all hate crime, and I think we all hate punishment. I believe that it is surely the prime duty of the Government to protect the lives of the citizens; to make towns and streets and the country places safe for people to live in, to work in and to walk in. To my mind, the Government are failing in this respect. I have tried to explain why I think the reintroduction of corporal punishment is not only desirable but essential. I am aware that, in so doing, I have taken up more of your Lordships' time than I should have done, and that in the process I may have offended the views of some of your Lordships. If I have, I certainly apologise. But the fact that I hold these views also entitles me to hold the view that the Home Secretary and the Government, by introducing a Bill such as this present Bill, with no provision for corporal punishment, are doing a disservice against not only the interests but also the wishes of the vast majority of the country.
7.36 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, particularly Clauses 4 to 7, and implicitly the great building programme the Government have undertaken, without whioh these clauses cannot be implemented. These are the clauses which provide more appropriate methods of punishment for the younger offenders between the ages of 14 and 20 by greatly extending the system of detention centres, thus keeping young offenders under 21 away from the demoralising effect of prisons. As I see it, these detention centres will be, and are, more of a deterrent than the prisons and, at the same time, far more remedial. In them, you have a brisk régime; there is something going on all the time. There is education and guidance, and the main thing about them is that the whole day is organised and these youths kept on the move, whereas in prison there is a lot of waiting about and the general atmosphere is much more demoralising and less bracing. I should say that many of these Teddy-boys prefer the prison atmosphere much more than the atmosphere of the detention centre.

1149
That brings me to the matter of the régime of the detention centres, and I must admit that I do not know very much about them. I have not actually been to see one, and what I know is derived from reading the papers and from hearing what people say who have been to see them. This régime becomes of paramount importance now that in a few months' time, or at any rate in a year's time, there will be a large number of new prisoners entering a greatly increased number of detention centres. I believe the ultimate number of centres will be twelve. It may well be that the courts will inadvertently commit young men to these detention centres who in some way or other are unsuitable for the rather strenuous régime there. Therefore would urge Her Majesty's Government to consider very carefully the régime which takes place in the detention centres and, if necessary, to vary it to take into account those abnormal people who may be mentally disturbed—they may be inadequate; they may be incompetent in some way—and who are incapable of deriving benefit from the standard régime at present in force in those centres. In this respect, I would endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said when he advised that each detention centre should have, a social worker attached to the staff.
Especially welcome is the extension of compulsory supervision and after-care to the three categories of prisoners mentioned in Clause 21 and the Third Schedule. This provision marks a great step forward and should do much to help the prisoners concerned to rehabilitate during the vital year following their release, and probably also may save some of them from relapsing into a life of crime. This is clearly going to lead to a great increase of work for the hard-worked probation officers, and I sincerely hope that the Order bringing it into effect will not be made until the manpower position of the probation service, on whom the burden will mainly fall, has been improved. It is to be hoped also that there will be room for increased activity by the voluntary societies; and here I would echo what was said by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, who suggested that the State should give some measure of support to these societies.
On the issue of corporal punishment I allowed myself to be influenced by
1150
the two Reports, the Cadogan Report of 1938 and the Departmental report of 1960. Having read both the Reports and all the evidence which is summarised in them under the various headings of medical evidence, statistical evidence, evidence from various societies and individuals, and also the practical difficulties involved, I was persuaded that judicial corporal punishment should not be reimposed; and I congratulate the Government on having resisted the agitation for the reintroduction of corporal punishment. In view of those Reports, I think it would have been difficult to have reintroduced corporal punishment. I am not saying that corporal punishment is not a deterrent; it obviously is. But there is nothing about it which is more specially deterrent or more deterrent than other forms of punishment.
In conclusion, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on introducing a Bill which at the same time takes account of the necessity to deter firmly the young offender from crime while also going some considerable way towards establishing more humane and scientific methods of treatment for offenders, thereby making the repetition of crime less likely.
7.45 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, perhaps the best description of this Bill might be that it is a generous pouring of new wine into old bottles. This is a practice against which we have been warned at the highest level; nevertheless we sometimes find ourselves in the position that we have new wine which we wish to use and the supply of appropriate bottles is altogether inadequate. In this case some of the wine, I think, is in the Bill, and the bottles are the physical buildings which we have inherited from an outmoded penal system, on the one hand, and to some extent also, on the other hand, a traditional and obscurantist philosophy. I do not know which is the more lasting obstacle to reform, but I suspect that to some extent both are already crumbling.
Much alarm has been expressed, and understandably, at the increase not only in crime as recorded in the statistics but, more particularly, in serious crimes of violence, and I am sure that we all share in a sense of grave concern at these incidents. I never quite understand, at the

1151
same time, why it is regarded as particularly deplorable that so high a proportion of our crimes is committed by young persons. About one-third of indictable offences are committed by people under 17, and about half the offences of breaking and entering are committed by persons of that age. After all if you turn that fact the other way up you might get very considerable encouragement, because at least it is evidence that as we grow older we grow better, and I think it might be a great deal nastier if crime continued throughout life perhaps at an ever-increasing rate of aggravation. But after the age of 30, in the case of the male—and the crimes committed by females are, as we know, negligible—the crime rate drops, as your Lordships are well aware, to something about one-eighth of what it is in the peak age group of 14 to 17.
Let us cheer ourselves up for a moment by recalling that from the age of 14 improvement begins. Crimes of serious violence are, of course, an incident particularly of young manhood. They are not so much an incident of the under-17's. I myself—and I think of this with a sober concern—reckon that I must have personally tried something between 6,000 and 7,000 juveniles. I do not think that I can recall more than about one in a thousand—some half dozen of those cases—which were offences of serious violence.
After 17, from 17 to 21, of course the incidence is greater, and it is, I suppose, to that age group particularly that this Bill is directed. We welcome very much the clause of the Bill which proposes to keep out of prison persons under 17. This is a remarkable and welcome advance, and I think we are prepared—or some of us are—subject to safeguards, to accept the lowering of the borstal age to 15. On this there can be two opinions. But we must recognise that there are young persons of 15 who are a serious public danger.
I have in mind an acquaintance of mine who has an irresistible desire to drive other people's motor cars, and a rather high-class taste in the exercise of this practice. The last time he appeared in my court he was charged with taking and driving a car, and eighteen other similar cases were taken into consideration, none of them concerning a car less expensive than a Jaguar. I think we
1152
should all agree, that such a young man must in some way be restrained. But we are very much concerned at the idea that young men, indeed boys of 15, who must be detained and for whom a borstal régime, whilst rather more grown-up, might be more suitable than approved schools, should languish in prison for a number of weeks while waiting to get there. The Ingleby Committee recommended that magistrates' courts should have power to commit direct to borstal, and I think it must be a corollary of the lowering of the age that direct committal should be permitted. A remand centre is not necessarily the answer. It is not only the delay in prison to which objection can be taken.
Now let us turn for a moment to the "new wine". The "new wine" of this Bill is, I think, the emphasis on a flexible treatment. It was, to me, a very great encouragement to hear the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, alike welcome the provision that makes for flexible treatment in the case of the young offender, even though this deprives the courts of the power which they have hitherto had. I am not sure that we have fully appreciated the implications of the indeterminate sentence. The Lord Chief Justice, I think, went so far as to say that in some cases he would welcome an indeterminate sentence, even in an older age group. The essential implication of the indeterminate sentence is that it commits us to a particular objective in sentencing. It commits us, in determining the length and nature of the sentence, to considering what the result of the exercise is going to be, and it must be essentially a sentence directed to the future.
If we are trying to assess the culpability of an offender, that is a relatively simple matter inasmuch as it is a matter only of past history. It is a matter of considering the nature of the offence and any mitigating circumstances; but it is all over and done with, and the offence is in history. If it is a matter of considering the result of a sentence, then the sentencing becomes a question of a rational act directed towards a particular end, and it becomes a matter which must be judged by rational criteria. If a sentence is to be indeterminate, the Prison Commissioners will not take into account the blameworthiness of an offender in

1153
considering when he should be released; they will take into account the probability of his offending again and the effect upon the public of his being returned to the community. They will, in fact, be thinking of the future results of their actions, and not of the punitive effect upon a particular individual.
I do not know whether your Lordships could bear with me if I were to refer for a moment to the great emphasis on this aspect of sentencing which was laid recently by the Streatfeild Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member. In the Report of that Committee we read:
"… the key to advance in this field is to recognise the fundamental difference between assessing culpability and pursuing the other objectives of sentencing t namely, that where a court is seeking to reform, to deter or to protect, it is seeking to control future events rather than simply to pass judgment on past events.… Where a court passes a sentence of corrective training rather than imprisonment, it is implicit that it has reason to believe that corrective training has a better chance of reforming the offender.… The most satisfactory ground for such beliefs is that similar sentences previously imposed in similar circumstances have had the desired result.… Unless the results of this observation are properly marshalled and systematically made available to the courts, sentences aimed at controlling future events are largely speculative, and the court cannot even know whether such objectives are practicable."
My Lords, in the debate to-day we have heard a great many expressions of opinion: one believes in corporal punishment; one believes in capital punishment; one does not believe in corporal punishment or capital punishment. These are all expressions of personal opinion, and they are often stated with considerable emotion. What I think is important in this indeterminate sentence is that it nay lead us out of the field of opinion and omission into the field of exact observation and information. I do not propose to say anything at all about either capital or corporal punishment. There is no reference to corporal punishment in the Bill, and I hope that there never will be. I listened with the closest attention to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, in a rather despairing hope that there might be one sentence with which I could find myself in agreement. There were in fact two such sentences, one when he said that the Homicide Act, 1957, was a compromise—with which I myself am glad to be associated; I mean the sentence not the
1154
compromise—and the other when, in his opening observations, he regretted that the Bill did not go far enough. For my part I wish that it had gone further in the opposite direction.
There are one or two omissions from the Bill which I regret, but perhaps we can correct them at a later stage. One omission that I should like to see remedied is a determined attempt to keep the young offender in the community. The Bill lays considerable emphasis throughout on custodial treatment, and particularly upon detention centres. It has now, I think, become the reasoned doctrine that short sentences of imprisonment are to be deprecated. Magistrates have repeatedly been told that a short sentence merely familiarises a man with a penal institution and gives no opportunity for reform. I think we need to be a little careful that we do not substitute a short sentence in the detention centre for a short sentence of imprisonment, with all the same objections.
I notice that there is a special language for detention centres. The appropriate adjectives are "brisk", "bracing" "energetic", and the appropriate noun is always "discipline". The detention centres have lived always under the shadow of a particular cliché—that of the "short, sharp shock". I hope that noble Lords who use that expression will remember to finish the quotation:
"A short, sharp shock
"With a cheap and chippy chopper
"On a big black block".
That is the full quotation. That might appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, but I do not think that it was in the minds of those who devised the detention centre. Surely, we ought to try desperately to keep the young offender in the community. So far as the young offender is concerned, and possibly so far as the offender of any age is concerned, the only real reason for incarceration is the protection of the public. That is the basic reason why people must be segregated from the community. It is a compelling reason in cases of serious violence such as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, quoted. But these are still exceptions, and most of the offences which figure in criminal statistics have a high nuisance value and perhaps not a very great deal else. And it is surely important that young people should learn, by an educative process within the community in which they are

1155
to live their lives, not to commit these offences.
One of the greatest drawbacks of our existing penal structure is, I think, its irrelevance. The disciplined, brisk, bracing, energetic régime is all very well. It lasts for a few months, but no one is able to explain very clearly how it teaches someone to behave better. I remember very well going to a detention centre and noticing the emphasis, in the quasi-military discipline then laid upon the boys, on folding their clothes in the proper way and placing them at the end of their beds. They had to be exactly so. I looked at this and asked the warden if he would tell me how emphasis on the correct way of folding one's clothes on a bed each day taught anyone not to steal. It was not a very popular question.
I believe that we must give attention, above everything, to the relevance of the way in which we try to re-educate those who will not keep to the rules; and this applies no less to the attendance centres, which I greatly hope we are going to see, of the type to which so many noble Lords have referred to-day, and about which Sir Basil Henriques has spoken. I do not think we can accept the view that handicrafts are necessarily a corrective of delinquent tendencies, nor even the view held in some quarters that the sight of a high mountain, and still more the effort of scaling the mountain, somehow purges criminal instincts. If we are to have young offenders kept in the community, we must do a great deal of serious thinking about the kind of training, just as much as about the fact that there should be training in these centres; and we have to relate the training to the actual lives the people are going to live and the actual temptations they are going to experience. This is an aspect that we have not thought about enough.
I think that psychologists long ago disposed of the theory that if one is highly trained in one thing it enables one automatically to excel in others—the theory of the transference of mental training. The same theory applies to the artificial régime which prevails in penal institutions. A man who is detained in any kind of penal institution lives a life which is wholly artificial and far removed from any environment to which he is to be returned; and the transfer of what he
1156
learns in prison to what he is going to do outside is a transfer which is very unlikely to take place in the sense that the prison authorities wish.
There is one other omission from the Bill that I deeply regret; that is, that it does not raise the age of criminal responsibility. Perhaps we shall have another Bill, a Children and Young Persons Bill, which will make good this omission. As your Lordships know, this, too, was recommended by the Ingleby Committee. I know it will be said that there is no adequate provision for dealing outside the courts with difficult and naughty children between the ages of 8 and 12 years. At a later stage perhaps we can meet that argument. But after a long experience of 20-odd years in the juvenile courts, the one firm impression that I carry away is that they are, at the best, totally inappropriate instruments for dealing with young children. We cannot teach children to behave by parading them in front of strangers.
When the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary was speaking on the final stage of this Bill in another place, I believe he claimed—and rightly claimed—that he had been very modest about it. If I may borrow a somewhat famous saying from another context, I would add that he had plenty to be modest about—and not only he. All of us who, in however humble a capacity, are associated with the administration of criminal justice in this country have reason to be modest, indeed to be humble, even ashamed. And if I may say so without disrespect, that surely goes for Her Majesty's Judges, for magistrates and for prison officials. For we are all great failures.
The evidence, my Lords, lies in the criminal statistics. It lies in the facts of recidivism, the full extent of which we do not fully learn. The most astonishing evidence of all lies in some figures quoted in another place by the honourable gentleman, Sir George Benson, which show that whatever the treatment meted out to offenders, be they sent to detention centres or to prison, be they given short sentences of imprisonment or long sentences, one can tell, before they go in, in which cases the treatment is going to succeed and in which it is going to fail. In other words, our vast and expensive penal

1157
structure does not make a ha'p'orth of difference to the persons who are subjected to it. Perhaps one should not put it as strongly as that; but at least this Bill shows that we are going to try to think constructively about the aims of our policy.
The Bill contains no fundamental rethinking of our penal philosophy, but it has at least accepted the view that the right penal policy is the one which succeeds, which discourages crime. The figures suggest that the right penal policy in that sense has not yet been found. But once we admit that that is our objective we are well on the way to marshalling the experience which will show us the road to that goal. Exact observation and orderly marshalling of experience have conquered space. I think it is the merit of this Bill that, at least by implication, it admits that the same weapons might prove no less powerful in the conquest of ourselves.
8.9 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have one very pleasant, personal reason for enjoying making this speech, and that is that this debate gave an opportunity for the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. He has gained distinction as a lawyer and a judge, and as a prominent Welshman and Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales. But, more than that, he has conferred distinction on many friends by the friendship which he has extended to them, including myself for many years. It was a joy to hear him, and we wait with great expectation for his next speech.
The second point which gave me pleasure was the flat statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, that this is a subject in which none of us can feel pride but in which every one of us can feel a spur of stimulation to try something better. There was only one point on which I did not agree broadly with her approach. I would respectfully say that she underestimates the effect of discipline and the activity and energetic approach to the detention centre. At the end of this very long debate, I am sure I shall put it badly, but I should like to give her the way it appeals to me. If you start from smartness, and proceed from smartness to combine with it fitness and
1158
endurance, and if you learn at the same time the ability to take orders without resentment, and often with pride, then you come not only to hope and expectation of efficiency in yourself but to a mastery of yourself which I cannot but believe is helpful on a return to the outside world. I know that some of my noble friends will not have to look very far to find the source of these remarks of mine, but they convey something in which I believe very strongly.
I think that, apart from the questions of corporal and capital punishment, one of the remarkable features of this debate is that it has not raised great issues or divisions of principle. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I deal with a number of points of great interest, but of secondary controversial value, which have been raised by the various speakers. May I take the first one of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, which comes into my mind? The noble Earl asked me about the general problem of the recruitment of prison staff. I should like to put the position to him as I see it. I agree that we are suffering from a shortage of prison officers. Our need is for about 300 recruits a year to keep up to present strength at the present rate of wastage, which is about 25 a month. In addition to the replacement of normal wastage, we are committed to the opening of new establishments, and for these we shall require about 500 extra men if these establishments are to be fully manned and if our commitments in relation to existing establishments are to be fully met. We are also committed, as I think the noble Earl himself has reminded us on previous occasions, to introducing an eleven-day-fortnight as and when the staff position enables us to do it.
It is quite true that the recruitment figure dropped seriously in the autumn of 1960, but an increase in pay ranging from 18s. 6d. to 25s. 6d. a week for the basic-grade prison officer was agreed in January last, and this, coupled with vigorous measures to stimulate recruitment, has already resulted in an improvement in the recruiting situation. The latest figures for officers who have joined for training are those for the April batch, in which 115 men and 7 women joined, compared with 89 men and 9 women in the February batch, 75 men and 8 women in the December

1159
batch and 64 men and 7 women in the October, 1960, batch. These batches represent a two-month intake. We have carried out an intensive series of test advertising campaigns in the North and North-West of England, where plans are advanced for an increase in publicity among members of the Armed Forces and for an increase in recruiting literature being distributed through Ministry of Labour offices. I agree, and I know that the noble Earl takes this view, that the prison service is doing a fine job. It offers a very rewarding career, if one that has its difficulties, and the Government are taking all steps open to them to make the excellent opportunities which the service offers more widely known. So I ask the noble Earl to believe that we have that problem in mind. I do not want ever to try to over-paint the picture, but, from the beginnings, it appears it may be getting better.
The noble Earl asked me what the position was in regard to approved schools; whether the clauses are only a stop-gap, and whether more fundamental measures are contemplated. The answer is that the Bill is already based on the main recommendations relating to approved schools of the Ingleby Committee and the Durand Report—that is, in so far as they require legislation. The Ingleby Committee say, in paragraph 91 on page 162:
"The existing blend of management of approved schools by local authorities and voluntary bodies should be continued, but there is need to improve the position as regards the constitution of voluntary committees of management."
That is what we are trying to do in this Bill. As I said in my opening speech, we believe the existing system is basically sound, though it needs strengthening in certain respects, and the Bill gives what additional powers are needed for that purpose.
I do not want to dwell at any length on the question of the film which was referred to at the beginning of the debate. The position, as I understand it, is that the Prison Commissioners saw the script, criticised it in a number of particulars and asked for alterations. They saw a rehearsal for the film, but on the bare floor and without the settings of properties. They again asked for a number of alterations, and some were made, but the company were not pre-
1160
pared to make them all. My Lords, it is very difficult to obtain authenticity in fictional entertainment. The Commissioners had no power to ban the film, but it does not represent their policy. In particular, they repudiate the portrait drawn of the warden. I think that is almost entirely what the noble Earl thought the answer would be.
May I say one other word? The former warden of the detention centre was moved not because of some defect in his work or policy; it is quite unfounded to say that he was. He was moved to another establishment in the normal course, about a year or so ago, having spent several successful years at the centre since its opening. My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked me to say that he had no intention of suggesting that the warden was moved as a punishment, or because of some defect. The noble Earl is here, but I have much pleasure in saying what he asked me to say.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I thank the Lord Chancellor very sincerely for that answer, which I feel will give a lot of comfort in excellent quarters? Since he mentioned the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I should like to say that I did not understand him to say that anyone has been removed, and so I hope he is now much happier.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I also say that I saw the film, and while I support my noble friend in the comment he made, I would say that the warden in the film was portrayed as a wholly sympathetic and understanding character.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. I did not see the film. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that the series was useful and helpful, and one with the right approach. I must say that the two or three of the series that I have seen bear out entirely what he said as to the general approach of these films. I do not think I have seen more than two or three, but, so far as I have seen them, they do do that.
With regard to the question of the abolition of the Prison Commission, I tried to describe the situation as it exists today. Although I could go into the

1161
question at greater length, I am sure it is a matter the noble Earl and his friends will want to discuss on the Committee stage; so, after this long debate, having put my general point, I hope the House will not think me discourteous if I do not go into that detail now. As regards Annual Reports, it will be observed that Clause. 25, subsection (3), provides that an Order in Council transferring any functions of the Prison Commissioners must require an Annual Report to be made to Parliament by the Secretary of State in respect of transferred questions; so I think full information will be given.
Finally, I think the noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked me about the organisation of after-care. As he knows, because he mentioned it later, the Home Secretary has asked his Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders to review the arrangements for the organisation of statutory and voluntary after-care for persons discharged from prisons, borstals, detention centres and approved schools, and to consider whether any charges are necessary or desirable. The Boston scheme has also been referred by the Home Secretary to the Advisory Council, and the terms of reference are:
"To consider whether there is scope in this country for new methods of non-residential treatment of offenders under 21, with particular reference to the provision of training on the lines of that provided by the Citizen Training Centre in Boston".
So both these points have been referred to the Council. Someone asked me whether they had actually started, but I am afraid I have not that information. However, in both cases I was given the terms of reference, and about ten days ago these were referred to the Council. The paper I have is dated, but it may have been earlier than that; and if there is any relevance to the point, I will let the noble Lord, Lord Stonham know.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, perhaps it would help your Lordships if I said that the Advisory Council had its first meeting on these matters this afternoon.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then that answers the point. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his help.
Now we come to the major points of principle which were introduced into our discussions, in the perfectly proper way that they were not in the Bill and that,
1162
in the opinion of various of your Lordships, they ought to be. That is, and I hope always will be, a perfectly proper approach to a Second Reading debate.
On the question of capital punishment, there are many people who, like the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, conscientiously believe that capital punishment is wrong and cannot in any circumstances be justified. There are many others who regard it as the only appropriate penalty for the more brutal forms of murder and as a unique deterrent—I think my noble friend Lord Ailwyn mentioned that. Again, there are others who believe that it should be retained, at least for certain types of murder, but who would like to see the minimum age of eligibility raised from 18 to 21. What is perfectly clear is that all these views not only exist, but are held with great strength. In the light of these conflicting views, the Government believe that, for the moment, the right thing is to leave the law unchanged.
The existing law, which was laid down in 1957 in the Homicide Act, was the result of much anxious consideration and earnest debate. I was responsible for it in your Lordships' House, and your Lordships will remember the debates we had on the Committee stage. In the view of the Government it is too early yet, after only four years' experience of the operation of the new provisions, to attempt to assess their value or to consider any amendment to the law. For the comfort of my noble friend Lord Ailwyn, however, I may say that I have certain figures which are comforting to me, at any rate. I know all the dangers about statistics, but I should like to give them to the noble Lord because I know how much consideration he has given to the point. The annual average of the number of murders known to the police, including cases which were subsequently dealt with as manslaughter on account of diminished responsibility, from 1952 to 1955, was 140. The average for the period 1957 to 1960 was 165, an increase of 18 per cent. The corresponding increase in crimes of violence during the same period was 80 per cent. I think that, without pointing the moral or adorning the tale, those figures bring some comfort on this question.
Now, my Lords, I come to the other question, corporal punishment. That has

1163
been earnestly stressed with great restraint, if I may say so, by my noble friend Lord Ailwyn, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, my noble friend Lord Fortescue, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I think they would all agree with this: that before reintroducing this form of punishment, the Government would have to be convinced that it would be an effective deterrent and/or that it would give increased protection to potential victims of crimes of violence. I take these two points because they are really the double thesis on which my noble friend Lord Ferrers advanced his argument.
I accept that my noble friends and those who advocate corporal punishment (and I recognise that they have much support in public opinion) believe that it would make a useful contribution to the reduction of violent crime. But this is not the view of those who have made an objective study of the available evidence. Only last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary asked his Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders to consider whether there were any grounds for reintroducing any form of corporal punishment as a judicial penalty in respect of any category of offences or offenders. The Council's Report, which was published last November, shows that it was the unanimous opinion of its members that judicial corporal punishment should not be introduced.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter will correct me, but I think that it is broadly understood that this endorses the view of the Cadogan Committee only in the present circumstances, whereas the Cadogan Committee were dealing with the circumstances of 23 years ago. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, who I am sorry to say is not here, mentioned the arguments of the Advisory Council and I think that it would be fair for me to summarise as shortly as possible the arguments on which the Council depend. The first is that
"it would mean putting the clock back not twelve years, but a hundred years."
I think that that is broadly correct, because, for some 90 years before 1948, the only offence for which the "cat" was used was robbery with violence.
1164
Noble Lords are really going back to the position of 1861—and that is a fairly long way to turn the clock back. It makes one think. The second argument, to which my noble and learned friend was not inclined to attach much importance, is that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would be certain to damage our reputation as the country which had been a pioneer in the use of enlightened methods of penal treatment. My noble friend Lord James of Rusholme adopted that view, if I caught the sense of his remarks rightly, by asking, "Why should young people in this country require treatment which is not needed by the young people of other countries in Europe?" That was his presentation of the argument.
Then the Council say that
"There is no evidence that corporal punishment is an especially effective deterrent either to those who have received it or to others."
This is a matter which the Cadogan Committee went into very carefully, as the Advisory Council have done again, and that is their conclusion. Then there is the point that
"judicial corporal punishment is out of line with modern penal methods and would militate against the success of reformative treatment, such as probation or borstal training."
My noble and learned friend Lord Denning gave a limited example of that, but as I understand them, the Council deal with this on the broader line that it would have an adverse effect on the line of conduct we are pursuing. They also say that
"many of the new methods contemplated under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, have not been fully tried and they are to be greatly developed in the immediate future."
I should like to come back to that aspect in answer to the point of my noble friend Lord Ailwyn and his worry that we are not proceeding with a sense of urgency and energy. But before I do so I must take the final point—the practical objections and difficulties which strengthen the case against judicial corporal punishment. There is the one which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning mentioned, about who is going to do it; and there is the one which my noble and learned friend Lord Parker of Waddington admitted was his greatest difficulty. As the Council put it:
"The most important of these objections is the delay that must occur between the commission of the offence and the infliction of the

1165
punishment. This would be particularly harmful to juvenile offenders."
These, my Lords, are six formidable reasons. We considered them and the Government accepted the recommendation based on them. But I want to say to my noble friend Lord Ailwyn that we do not think that, by advocating the increased use of these methods, we are being lazy and not showing a sense of urgency or energy. I would ask my noble friend to believe that there are few positions in life more difficult than that of the Home Secretary, responsible for putting new methods into operation at a time when there are all other claims of houses, factories, hospitals, nuclear development, and all the other matters with which my noble friend is so familiar. I tried to show in my speech that whatever was the position of responsibility in earlier days, we are now getting the building programme going, and we hope that that, coupled with the considerable improvements that are made in methods by this Bill, will give everyone concerned a better chance on the treatment side. I should like to assure my noble friend that it is in that spirit of going ahead with drive and energy that we believe the problem will be tackled.
I come now to a point that was raised first by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter, and later developed by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Both expressed some doubt about the ability of the probation service to bear the extra burden of work that will result from the Bill and hoped that the Government realise the importance of improving recruitment to the service. Other noble Lords had the same feeling. I should like to tell the House that at present the probation service is the subject of a study by a Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Morison, which was appointed in May, 1959, and has therefore had an opportunity of making a good deal of progress with its task. The Government must await the Committee's report before considering what needs to be done to strengthen the probation service. Then (and this is a point on which I was asked for an undertaking), the various provisions of the Bill are to be brought in stage by stage, and the process will be timed so as not to place too heavy a burden on the service. I think that that is what the noble Lord, Lord
1166
Stonham, wanted me to say before this debate finished.
My noble friend Lord Raglan had doubts about the reduction of the borstal age to 15. Of course the general argument for that is that there are 15-year-olds whom we do not want to send to an approved school, but, on the other hand, we do not think there is a need for them to go to prison. My noble friend was worried about the educational side of it. I should like to tell him that education classes are already held at all borstals, mainly in the evenings; but at some there are day-time classes for backward boys, or for those of more advanced standards who may study for the General Certificate of Education. There are part-time and full-time tutor organisers at each borstal; professional teachers are provided by the local education authorities, and the arrangements are inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education. If my noble friend would like further details, he will find fuller information in the Prison Commissioners' Annual Report for 1959, at page 82.
My noble friend Lord Raglan also said that it would undermine respect for the staff of approved schools if policemen were brought in to remove recalcitrants. Unfortunately, the experience of the Carlton School has shown the need for a power of the kind conferred by Clause 15 of the Bill. The Government are sure that it will seldom be required, but the existence of the provision for use in emergency will greatly strengthen the hands of the managers and staffs of approved schools to deal with a small proportion of difficult inmates who might otherwise disrupt discipline.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? Was it not the case concerning the Carlton School that the headmaster gave an undertaking in court that five difficult youngsters would be removed to another school; that they were not so removed, and that caused the trouble? There would have been no need to bring in the police if the undertaking had been complied with.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord will not hold it against me, but it is some time since I read that Report, and I am afraid I cannot confirm or deny what he says. I do not

1167
impute that he would say anything rashly, but I just do not remember. I will look into that.
With regard to the other points that my noble friend Lord Raglan raised, I will look at them carefully again, and, as he said, it will be open to him, if he wishes, to pursue them by putting down Amendments on the Committee stage. However, if there is any point on which he would like information before then, he knows that he has only to ask or to write to me and I shall be pleased to see that it is given to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked whether attendance of 130 hours at an attendance centre would be made a requirement of the probation order. Such consideration as we have been able to give to it in the intervening period makes it seem doubtful, as the clause stands, whether it would be proper for such a requirement to be attached to a probation order, bearing in mind the extent of the deprivation of liberty and the fact that in 1948 it was thought necessary to confer specific power on the courts to send young people to attendance centres for twelve hours. There is a great difference between 12 hours or 24 hours and 130 hours. Indeed, it would really require a different type of attendance centre, with a different régime. That is one of the points which the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders would have to consider in relation to the scope for new forms of non-residential treatment of persons under 21. I think the noble Lord wanted to be informed of the position as I saw it, and he now knows it and can think out his future action.
My noble friend Lord Iddesleigh, in what was, if I may say so, a very thoughtful speech, raised some interesting points on the educational side of approved schools. He was good enough to give me notice of two of them and I have tried to inform myself about them. He was rather concerned about the staffing. Approved schools, like other educational establishments, suffer from some shortage of teaching staff, but there is no serious shortage of teachers in either girls' or boys' approved schools. I understand that of the 439 teaching posts in the schools in England and Wales only about 30 are at present
1168
vacant. Teachers in approved schools are paid on the Burnham salary scale, including graduate and training additions where appropriate, together with an addition for qualified teachers of £120 a year carried beyond the maximum of the scale; most teachers also receive an extraneous duty allowance of £216 a year for an average of fifteen hours a week for supervision duties outside the recognised hours of duty; the value of promotion inducements is fully recognised, and it is usual for senior posts to be filled from within the service.
My noble friend also pointed out that delinquent boys and girls are, to some extent, the product of our ordinary schools, as well as of their homes, and he raised with me a number of questions about the general training for citizenship undertaken in our schools. He was doubtful whether enough attention was paid to character training, particularly in secondary modern schools; whether there was a case for more ethical teaching, apart from religious instruction; whether there was any machinery by which a school inspector could find out the incidence of delinquency among his pupils or ex-pupils of a particular school; and whether there is sufficient liaison between the Home Office and the Ministry of Education.
On his major problem he would be the first to recognise that it is not a new one. I myself only go so far back as Plato, but it was certainly one which was in evidence at that time. In more modern days, my right honourable friend the Minister of Education drew attention to the problems involved and the way in which the schools in this country try to solve them, in an interesting pamphlet entitled Citizens Growing Up. If my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh would look at pages 11 to 15. 40 to 42 and 42 to 45, I think he would get some help on his points.
I am afraid that the information published about crime does not identify the criminal's school. It would be rather unfair for a school to be judged on the proportion of criminals among its old boys, because some are in a much more difficult position than others. But I want to assure my noble friend, seriously, that Her Majesty's inspectors pay attention to the tone and atmosphere of the school, and to its standards of

1169
discipline, in the course of their inspection, and will do their best to advise the teacher. I also want to tell him that the Home Office and the Ministry of Education work closely together on this point. He also deplored the decision not to provide a closed approved school. The relative merits of a simple closed school and several closed parts attached to existing schools have been considered, and it was thought that the balance lies in attaching closed parts to certain of the classifying schools.
My noble friend Lord Fortescue raised the great question about the effect of the different forms of the treatment of crime. I suppose we all put something into our reading of history by the way we read it, but certainly I have been convinced that in the earlier days, when the philosophy underlying the system was purely vindictive and retributive—that is, when death or mutilation were regarded as the suitable reply to crime—it did not work. Then one passed to the deterrent phase, and it was thought till relatively late in the nineteenth century that, although you had cut out the purely retributive and cut down the number of offences for which death was the penalty, you must still rely on deterrents alone; that is, you put your people in horrible buildings, doing horrible and wasteful work like work on the treadmill. It may be a little earlier, but I think it is Bentham, is it not, who quotes the example of somebody deliberately blunting the tools in order to make the work more difficult, because they
1170
believed that, if it was difficult and frightful, in awful conditions, that would be a deterrent.
It was found that that did not work, and it did not stop crime, and that is why we are emphasising both deterrents and reformation. But I could not agree more than I do with the right reverend Prelate that one must never entirely eliminate—to use a technical term—the vindictive element, in the sense in which he used it. But although it must be so, and although the sentence must be such as to show the disapproval of society, to show that society does make a reply to people who, as one noble Lord said, simply use society as a means to their ends, it must have not only the deterrent element but also the reformative element. That is what we are seeking to do, and that is, really, the object of this Bill.
My Lords, I should like to say, despite the disagreements on these two points, which I have tried to answer as best I can and to answer with great sympathy for the strength in which my noble friends hold their views and the restraint with which they have advanced them, that I think we are on the right lines, and I am grateful for the general support for the Bill which your Lordships have been good enough to give me to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.