Sitting of 10 December 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  London Government (Coulsdon and Purley)
  Mr. Charles Doughty: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a Petition to this honourable House on behalf of 22,710 local government electors in the Urban District of Coulsdon and Purley.
  The Petition which I am about to present gives the reasons why those electors do not wish to be included in the Greater London area. They point out, amongst other things, that it would be a negation of local government were they to be joined, as is proposed, to the County Borough of Croydon. They suggest that there would be no financial advantage in so doing, and that their area, which comprises more than 50 per cent. of Green Belt, and whose general development is open residential, might well be endangered.
  They further point out:
  "…the County Borough of Croydon, to which it is proposed the Urban District of Coulsdon and Purley should be joined, has expressed the view that the amalgamation of
  2
  that borough with the Urban District of Coulsdon and Purley is neither desirable nor necessary, and the same view has been expressed by the council of that urban district and by others."
  They also state:
  "Neither the reorganisation of the Greater London Government nor the proposed London Borough of Croydon would suffer if the Urban District of Coulsdon and Purley were not included, whilst on the other hand the inclusion of that district in the Greater London Area would seriously prejudice your Petitioners and the other inhabitants of that district.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will ensure that any legislation for the reorganisation of Greater London Government does not include the Urban District of Coulsdon and Purley in the area of the Greater London Council and that the Urban District of Coulsdon and Purley shall retain its own identity as a separate local government area within the County of Surrey.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Nuclear Power Stations
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that the seven nuclear power stations being commissioned between 1962 and 1966 are unlikely to generate electricity as economically as the conventional stations commissioned in the same period, how much of the £500 million to be spent

    3
    on nuclear stations could have been saved if conventional stations had been built instead.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): To provide the same conventional generating capacity would cost about £360 million less. The capital cost of the nuclear stations includes the cost of the first charge of fuel.
    Mr. Digby: As there is a very considerable discrepancy in the two capital charges, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is convinced that the "know-how" obtained from operating these seven nuclear stations is worth while, bearing in mind that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is not persuaded that there would be much advantage to be gained from the "know-how" of operating a nuclear reactor in ships?
    Mr. Wood: We believe that, with the experience gained from building nuclear power stations, the cost of generating electricity by nuclear and conventional means is likely to break even in about seven or eight years' time. That would certainly not have been possible if we had not built a succession of nuclear stations. Therefore, I think one must balance the extra cost of generation which we are incurring because of this programme against the possibility that the generation of electricity after 1970 will be cheaper.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the nuclear power station which is to be built at Sizewell in my constituency will have many advantages as a result of what has been learned in the construction and operation of those already built?
    Mr. Wood: Certainly. The capital cost of the power station to be built in my hon. and gallant Friend's constituency, which will be commissioned in about three years, is considerably lower per kilowatt than that of the first stations at Berkeley and Bradwell.
    Mr. Warbey: Does the Minister's reply to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Dorset. West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) mean that the calculation of break-even point is now different? Earlier this year, he told me that break-even point would come in 1967, that is, in only five years. Will he bear in mind, as I asked him to do on that occasion,
    4
    that if such ridiculously high rates of interest were not charged on the capital cost we should reach break-even point on the station now being built?
    Mr. Wood: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a Question about interest, I shall do my best to answer it again for him. I did say in an Answer I gave a month or two ago that break-even point was likely to be reached in about 1970.

    Steel Offcuts
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Power whether it is Government policy to allow the export of steel offcuts; and what criteria are applied by Her Majesty's Customs for differentiating an offcut from scrap.
    Mr. Wood: Some steel offcuts are, apparently, suitable for further fabrication without remelting. In this case the Government's policy is normally to allow their export. Offcuts may also be material which appears fit only for remelting, in which case they are regarded as scrap. With a few special exceptions, the Government at present allows scrap to be freely exported if its value is £25 a ton or less. Scrap of higher value is still relatively scarce in this country and exports are forbidden. Whether a particular quantity of material described as offcuts is scrap is a matter of commercial usage in this country on which Her Majesty's Customs may and does seek independent expert advice.
    Mr. Longden: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a great deal of time and money is wasted by potential exporters in arguing with Her Majesty's Customs? Has not the time come when there should be a cast-iron definition of a steel offcut?
    Mr. Wood: I appreciate my hon. Friend's wit, but I think that this is, in fact, a common-sense distinction which has been consistently adhered to, that the only things which are not exportable are the valuable scraps above the value of £25 a ton.

    Oil and Natural Gas Reserves (North Sea)
    Mr. Doughtyasked the Minister of Power, (1) whether he is aware of the possibility that oil and

    5
    natural gas reserves exist under parts of the North Sea adjacent to British territorial waters; and, in view of the significance of this for the economy, what steps he is taking to expedite investigation of those reserves;
    (2) whether he is aware that prospectors for oil or natural gas in the North Sea outside British territorial waters will be unwilling to risk the heavy expenditure involved unless their interests are protected, and that this requires legislation; and what action he is taking in the matter.
    Mr. Wood: I attach great importance to the possibilities to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, but I cannot at present say when it will be possible to introduce the necessary legislation.
    Mr Doughty: I thank my right hon. Friend for ageeing that this is a matter of the greatest importance. Is it not necessary that the House should ratify the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and, since it would probably be non-controversial legislation, could it not be done at an early date so that this country could have the benefit of cheap natural gas?
    Mr. Wood: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that legislation will be necessary, and I take note of what he has said.

  COAL

    Smokeless Fuels
    Mr. Darlingasked the Minister of Power whether he will consult the National Coal Board, the Gas Council and the Coal Merchants Federation with a view to improving the distribution of smokeless solid fuels, so that householders in industrial areas such as Sheffield can obtain adequate supplies of suitable solid fuels that will keep their homes warm and also meet their obligations under the Clean Air Act.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): Heavy sales before the ending of summer prices caused some shortages of premium fuels in Sheffield and elsewhere. Supplies of Cleanglow are improving and there is no shortage of Gloco, which is cheaper and will burn satisfactorily in
    6
    a modern grate. I do regularly consult these bodies all of which are represented on the National Advisory Committee on Smokeless Fuels of which I am Chairman.
    Mr. Darling: The information given to me by householders in Sheffield conflicts with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Will he bear in mind, in considering the distribution of fuels, that in many of the grates in smoke control areas it is quite impossible to burn the grades of coke about which he has been speaking? Cannot something be done either to improve the supply of premium fuels or to alter the stoves so that they will burn what is available?
    Mr. Peyton: I think it is possible that difficulties in Sheffield were added to by the closure for overhaul of a plant near Nottingham. I am advised that supplies of Cleanglow are now improving. That is the premium fuel concerned. I am advised also, and aidvised very strongly, that Gloco is a perfectly adequate fuel which will burn well in a proper approved applianoe. If the hon. Gentleman has a case in mind in which there is real difficulty, I should be very glad to refer it to the Gas Board, because the Board is anxious to help individual customers where it can.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Power whether he has yet received any advice from the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council on how to deal with the excessive moisture content in smokeless fuels.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Six, but I expect to receive a report from the Council shortly.
    Mr. Longden: My hon. Friend will remember that on 23rd July last he told me that he was anxious that consumers should have all possible knowledge of the ways in which they could obtain redress. Because there is real difficulty here, can he tell me What steps his Department has taken since then to that end?
    Mr. Peyton: I can only echo the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend in July. I see no mason to depart from it. Steps are continually being taken to deal with the reasonable complaints of consumers. If my hon. Friend has any

    7
    particular case in mind, I should be very glad to look at it and see whether I can help him.

  GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

    Publication
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister without Portfolio if he is aware that the official publication, "The Common Market in Action", contains a diagram that gives an inaccurate picture of the functions and powers of the Commission of the European Economic Community; and if he will accordingly withdraw the publication.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I am not aware of any inaccuracy in this diagram.
    Mr. Warbey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that on page 9 of this booklet, which is supposed to be impartial, the diagram shows that the Commission has powers only to make proposals to the Council of Ministers and to give information to the Parliaments? Why has the Minister left out an arrow indicating the power of the Commission to make statutory regulations binding on the citizens of member-States without the intervention of their Parliaments or their law courts? Are the Government anxious to conceal the undemocratic aspects of this body?
    Mr. Deedes: No. If the hon. Gentleman will follow the cross-reference on the diagram to page 10, where the powers of the Commission are spelt out, he will see a satisfactory summary of the point he wants illustrated.

  HOSPITALS

    Nurses
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many ward sisters in hospitals under his jurisdiction, after 10 years' experience, get no more remuneration than junior sisters of lower standing, and that this is resulting in many experienced sisters leaving the hospital public service and going into private nursing and other relevant spheres; and if he will take steps to increase the pay of ward sisters in hospitals for which he is responsible.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): The pay structure for nurses, including ward sisters, has been remitted to the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council by the Industrial Court.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this is part of the shockingly unjust and misguided system which tends to reduce the salary and emoluments and general status of nursing sisters in this noble profession, which should be recognised as such, and will he take steps to rectify it?
    Mr. Braine: Nurses had their increase of 7½ per cent. with effect from 1st April last. The Whitley Council is currently considering what further adjustments in salary are required; it met on 9th October, 13th and 27th November, and is to meet again to consider the matter.

    Horton Road and Coney Hill Hospitals, Gloucestershire
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. LOUGHLIN: To ask the Minister of Health (1) what were the ratios of nursing and other staff to patients on 12th November, 1962, in the Horton Road and Coney Hill, Gloucestershire, mental hospitals;
    (2) what are the circumstances under which nursing staff and others employed at the Horton Road and Coney Hill, Gloucestershire, mental hospitals are to be dismissed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Diamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Questions Nos. 16 and 17, in the name of My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), refer to hospitals in my constituency, is there any method whereby one can encourage the answering of them?
    Mr. Speaker: I hope not. Lots of people ask questions about my constituency.

    Frenchay Manor, Gloucestershire
    Mr. Hopkinsasked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken, under Section 17 (1) of the Mental Health Act, 1959, to inspect the Frenchay Manor

    9
    mental home with a view to ascertaining the number of children in the home; the number of children withdrawn by the Gloucestershire County Council; the extent to which the home falls below the standards laid down in his regulations; and the action taken to remedy these defects.
    Mr. Braine: I understand the county council has inspected this home several times in the last year and drawn attention to staffing, sanitary and other deficiencies which are being remedied.
    Mr. Hopkins: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him how many children have been removed by the Gloucestershire County Council during the past year, and would he not agree that the home is fulfilling a very valuable work in caring for subnormal children?
    Mr. Braine: I understand that since the beginning of this year one mentally subnormal child and seven normal children have left in the ordinary course of events. With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, the answer is, Yes. As I have indicated, such defects as existed are being remedied, and I am advised that the children in the home seem well cared for and happy.

    Nursing Cadets
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Health if he will amend the scales of pay for pre-nursing students so that they may receive the same increase as was awarded to nurses from 1st April, 1962, and from the same date.
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Health what pay increase he is authorising for hospital nursing cadets.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I am authorising an increase of 7½ per cent. from 1st August.
    Mrs. Castle: While thanking the Minister for having authorised the increase, might I point out to him that this question has arisen each time the nurses have had an increase? Why cannot these hospital cadets, most of whom go into nursing and are keen nursing students, receive the same increase as the nurses from the same date? Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that when I raised this with him last year, he said
    10
    that he would bear it in mind for the future?
    Mr. Powell: I said that the question was not prejudged for the future. As the hon. Lady knows, the cadets received their last increase four months later than the rest of the nursing staff.
    Mr. Lewis: Can my right hon. Friend give us any details of this payment?
    Mr. Powell: It is a general increase of 7½ per cent. applied to all the rates payable to them in their different grades.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Since the nursing cadet scheme has done so much for the nursing profession in staffing our hospital service, and since they get so little encouragement from official sources, does the Minister not think that in future he could make arrangements for these pay increases to be automatic and dated from the time the nurses get their increases?
    Mr. Powell: The date on which an increase was last received by a given class of staff is a very relevant factor in these matters, and it seems to me that it has been properly taken into account here.
    Mrs. Castle: Is not the Minister now penalising these cadets for the fact that there was a delay in giving them an increase last time? He cheated them of four months' pay last time and then uses this as an excuse for cheating them of four months' pay this time. Is it not time that he showed a little more honourable treatment of a section of youngsters whom we should be encouraging to enter a noble profession?
    Mr. Powell: No. There has been throughout this difference in timing of the increase received by the cadets and by the nurses, and it is quite appropriate that the date of the last increase should be taken into account.

    Food Hygiene (Cafés)
    Mr. Proudfootasked the Minister of Health what steps he takes to ensure that food is prepared and served in hygienic condition at transport and roadside cafés.
    Mr. Braine: This is a local authority function. My right hon. Friend gives general guidance and advice.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Can my right hon. Friend say what powers are available and if he is satisfied that they are being used correctly? Would not he consider introducing a code of cleanliness for health inspectors to work to?
    Mr. Braine: The local authorities have powers under the Public Health Act, 1936, and the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, to enter these premises at all hours. As regards the second point, I do not think there is any reason to believe that these powers are not being exercised, but I would concede that where cafés are open 24 hours a day local authorities depend very much on immediate complaints from customers and that a proper standard of hygiene in cafés also depends on the co-operation of the consumer. I hope that wide publicity will be given to my hon. Friend's Question and the Answer. As regards the code, it is for local authorities to ensure hygienic conditions by carrying out the duties laid upon them. My right hon. Friend's part is to provide guidance and help through general circulars, advice in particular cases, visits by his officers and the issue of suitable educational material.
    Mr. Snow: Is there not a difficulty about road-side cafés on the trunk roads where the exact location of the café might be a marginal difference between the Ministry of Transport and the local authority? Some of these road-side cafés are wholly deplorable.
    Mr. Braine: I do not dissent from the latter remarks of the hon. Gentleman, but there is a duty upon him and upon those who use these cafés to bring anything that is obviously wrong to the attention of the authorities. Where such matters have been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend he has acted at once and drawn the attention of the local authority to the matter.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Does my right hon. Friend think that from many of these small local authorities through whose areas these roads run he would get a reply from the sanitary department if he rang it up in the middle of the night?

    Hospital Engineers
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Health, whether he has now considered the report of the study group
    12
    set up by him to consider the nature of the work done by hospital engineers, their gradings, training and qualifications; and if he will make a statement on its recommendations.
    Mr. Powell: I have not yet completed my consideration of this report.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that this report has been in his possession since 16th February this year, and does he not think that it is a very unfair way of treating these most important members of the hospital service, particularly in view of the fact that the report condemns the totally inadequate level of remuneration which is paid to them? Does he not think it is time that he speeded up consideration of the Report?
    Mr. Powell: I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of the report, especially in the light of future developments in the whole pattern of our hospital service, but there is no reason why consideration of the report should hold up negotiations on pay, and there is a claim which is at the moment before the relevant Whitley Council.
    Mr. Rankin: But is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the management side refuse to consider this claim, which does not meet the circumstances of today, on the ground of the right hon. Gentleman's lack of consideration of the report?
    Mr. Powell: That is not in accordance with the information I have received, but perhaps I can get in touch with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

    Nurses (Recruitment)
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Health (1) whether there is a shortage of nursing staff in the eastern area; and
    (2) which hospitals in the Eastern Area have stopped recruiting additional nursing staff.
    Mr. Braine: There is no general shortage: numbers in post have increased further in the last year, and recruitment continues within the financial allocations.
    Mr. Fell: That is a most extraordinary Answer. I am stuck for words

    13
    and therefore hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I take more time than I should. Is not my hon. Friend aware that an instruction has gone out from the Board that no additional nurses shall be taken on for any hospital in the eastern area and that hospitals have stopped even replacing nurses who leave? It is an extraordinary thing that after fifteen years of the National Health Service, or whatever the number of years may be, that—
    Mr. Speaker: This is the time for Questions. Would the hon. Gentleman ask a question?
    Mr. Fell: I suggest that it is very relevant to the Question that after fifteen years of the National Health Service it should have come to the point at which the recruitment of nurses, who, with doctors, are the basis of the whole Health Service, should have been stopped in an area where no hospital is up to establishment.
    Mr. Speaker: It may be very relevant but it is not a question. That is the point.
    Mr. Fell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister what the answer is to this question: Why has the board stopped recruiting nurses in the eastern area? If it has no money left, which I understand is the basic reason, to recruit nurses, will my hon. Friend answer two questions? First, what is—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members do not want to know the truth, but will my hon. Friend answer these two questions? First, what effect will this have on the future training of nurses in this country, particularly if what has happened in the eastern area applies to other areas? Secondly, will my hon. Friend consider the question of administrative staff with a view to cutting down form-filling, and so on, that goes on at requests from the centre so that the board has more money to spend on recruiting nursing staffs which it is no longer able to recruit in the eastern area?
    Mr. Braine: Over the East Anglian area as a whole, in the twelve months ended 30th September last, numbers in post increased by 1·7 per cent. and 13·5 per cent. for whole-time and part-time staff, respectively.
    Mr. Fell: The hospitals are not up to establishment.
    Mr. Braine: Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to answer his extremely lengthy, confused and muddled question. Recruitment continues, but it is restricted at a number of hospitals. Increased real expenditure has been allowed for this year, but the responsibility for spending their money rests with the regional hospital boards, as the House well knows.
    Mr. Fell: In view of the fact that recruitment does not increase and that the reply to the question is thoroughly unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first available opportunity.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health what advice he has given or proposes to give to hospital authorities who are in a position to fill nursing vacancies in their establishment but have insufficient funds to meet the salaries of additional nurses.
    Mr. Powell: It is for hospital authorities to decide how best to use their allocations.
    Mr. Robinson: Is not the Minister aware that region after region has given instructions to hospital management committees to stop recruiting nursing staff, and, indeed, replacing staff, as the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said on the previous Question? We cannot possibly recruit nurses up to establishment when allocations are cut as finely as they have been cut this year, in some cases down to 1 per cent. and even just over ½ per cent. increase on last year. How can one possibly run an expanding Health Service on this financial basis?
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman's last words—"an expanding Health Service" —are right. Allocations everywhere have provided for an increase in expenditure at constant prices and wages as well as for the increase in service which is constantly taking place from a growth in efficiency, but hospital authorities must work within their allocations. These allocations have been adjusted and increased to allow for the increases in salaries and wage awards, and hospital authorities have now, as in the past, a duty to keep within them. Nevertheless, the hospital service has continued to recruit nurses throughout the last twelve

    15
    months at a high rate, and, in the case of part-time nurses, at the highest rate ever known.
    Lord Balniel: While recognising that there may be a problem in some areas, is not the great problem the wastage of trainees? Since student nurse recruiting is improving, is it not right that regional boards and matrons recruiting nurses should place greater emphasis on the quality of recruits rather than go for unlimited quantities of nurses?
    Mr. Powell: I agree. It is noteworthy that the increase this year has taken place at a time when the standards required for entry into the nursing profession have been increasing.
    Mr. Diamond: Is the Minister aware that in two hospitals in my constituency, which come in the South-West Region, far from there being a limitation on recruitment, existing nurses have as a result of his Department's financial stringency been dismissed? Thirty-one nurses and others in two mental hospitals alone have been dismissed. Are not mental hospitals the least well served of all the nursing service? If the Minister's answer is that this must be done because of a proportionate increase in expenditure allotted to every hospital, is it not the case that these two hospitals, which have always shown a very small cost per bed, are, as a result of their economies in years gone by, condemned the whole time to an inadequate standard of nursing?
    Mr. Powell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has found the means to ask the question that he wished to ask about his constituency. The ratio of nursing staff in these hospitals compares very favourably with that in similar hospitals generally. The reductions which have taken place are eleven nurses, of whom six were part-time and four were of pensionable age, and 21 other staff. In many cases these reductions were called for anyhow in the interests of efficiency and good management.
    Dame Irene Ward: Since there is very great anxiety throughout the country about the problem which has arisen, could my right hon. Friend tell me whether he has yet received the request from the Royal College of Nursing to bring a deputation on this subject? Has he yet seen the report from the matron of the
    16
    Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, dealing with the problem on the North-East Coast? Will my right hon. Friend not dismiss this matter in quite such strong terms, as there really is a problem here, as I am sure he is aware?
    Mr. Powell: The rate at which this service and the nursing staff as an integral part of it can be expanded is, of course, limited, although the rate from year to year is one that we can now foresee over a period of years. That is enabling hospital authorities to plan and recruit much more effectively than they could do in the past. I do not recollect offhand having personally seen either of the communications to which my hon. Friend refers, but I will certainly ensure that if they have been received they are brought to my attention.
    Mr. Robinson: Does not the Minister appreciate that there is a special problem here? For various reasons, it is now easier to recruit student nurses than it has been for very many years. Is not he aware that a considerable number of nursing vacancies still exist? If girls who are willing to come forward are not recruited now they will be lost to the nursing profession for good, and it will be entirely the right hon. Gentleman's fault.
    Mr. Powell: The fact is that recruits to the nursing profession are being obtained in increasing numbers. I see no reason to doubt that this will go on in the future. The rate at which the hospital service can be developed is limited not by the rate which the resources offer but by the rate at which resources can be made available along with the other commitments.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the waiting lists for hospital treatment do not reflect a shortage of nursing staff which is accentuated by the financial position in many hospitals; and if he will make an inquiry into the position in other than teaching hospitals.
    Mr. Powell: Yes. All hospital authorities are reviewing their waiting lists.
    Dame Irene Ward: I ask my right hon. Friend whether in fact this decision to stop recruiting on the part of the regional hospital boards in order to match up with the financial commitments is going

    17
    to be a deterrent in dealing with the waiting lists. Could my right hon. Friend please realise that it is not really doing his position any good to give again the argument he has used on previous occasions about this matter? Let us face the facts fairly and squarely.
    Mr. Powell: The hospital authorities have given no general indication that recruitment should be stopped. They only accept the obligation to keep within their financial allocations, which have enabled them to expand their nursing staff in the course of the past year and to go on doing so. The shortage of nursing staff is not the limiting factor in disposing of the waiting lists, which, in many cases, I regard as much too long, and I intend to make 1963 a year in which the reduction of these waiting lists drastically is one of the prime objects of the hospital service.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has told the House a complete untruth in relation to the statements which have been made about the requirements of hospital management committees, and that it is a fact that the hospital management committees have been asked to consider the question of their nursing staff and not to recruit any more nurses unless they can save money in other ways? Is he not also aware that one of the ways suggested is a reduction in the sort of food which is being given to patients—so that the committees can recruit more nursing staff?
    Mr. Powell: No, Sir. There has been no general requirement or instruction that recruitment should be held up. Some hospital authorities have been able to push recruitment forward fast in the earlier part of the financial year, and therefore, naturally they must recruit more slowly during the latter part in order to keep within their financial allocation. Those financial allocations permit an expansion in this aspect as in other aspects of the hospital service.
    Mrs. Braddock: That is not true.
    Mr. Fell: I think there is a great misunderstanding in the House on this point. Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the Eastern Area Hospital Board has sent out a notice to all its hospitals
    18
    saying that there shall be no increase in staff and that no new nursing staff shall be taken on, and that this is having the effect that even the nursing staff who are leaving are not being replaced at the moment? If that is happening in the eastern area, might it not be happening in other areas as well? I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend is responsible for it, but I challenge him to tell me that this is is not true, that the Eastern Area Hospital Board is—
    Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon. Member that this is not the moment for issuing challenges. This is the time for asking questions.
    Mr. Fell: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise, but this is a matter about which I feel extremely strongly. I do not recall a time, even before the war, even before we had a hospital service, when this sort of thing happened. Nurses are getting no incentive at all to be taken on.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must realise that in the interests of the House as a whole I have to ask hon. Members to conform to the rules of order, however strongly they feel about a topic.
    Mr. Fell: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I will simply confine myself to a question. Will the Minister please say whether this instruction has been issued by the Eastern Area Hospital Board or not?
    Mr. Powell: I have looked in detail into the position in the area where my hon. Friend represents a constituency. I shall be glad to discuss the position there with him at any time. Recruitment is still proceeding in that area—
    Mr. Fell: No.
    Mr. Powell: —and recruitment over the past year has resulted in a substantial increase of nurses, wholetime and part-time.
    Mrs. Braddock: That is misleading.

    Cancer (Registration)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Health if arrangements for the registration of all hospital cancer cases have now been completed.
    Mr. Braine: Not everywhere.
    Mr. Boyden: What is holding up these arrangements? Is it lack of money, or is it simply bad administration?
    Mr. Braine: Cancer registration is more complex than notification of infectious diseases, since information is sought on a whole variety of points. My right hon. Friend is asking that this matter should be given higher priority where the coverage is still not satisfactory. The importance of full registration is being impressed upon hospital boards.
    Mr. Boyden: That was what was being done in June. Why is not the Minister accelerating this matter and taking steps to ensure that there is full coverage in the very near future?
    Mr. Braine: I understand that in the case of certainly three hospital boards and eleven London teaching hospitals there is already 90 per cent. coverage, Or better, and that the figures show considerable improvement. I think that the steps now being taken by my right hon. Friend will have the desired effect.

    Hospital Services
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Health what has been the expansion of the hospital services during the last ten years.
    Mr. Powell: I would refer my hon. Friend to pages 146 and 147 of my last Annual Report, and to the Progress Reports on hospital building.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Would my right hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that the expansion of these services over the country as a whole in recent years has been unprecedented in peace time, and if it is a fact will he take steps to make it more widely known?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, I am anxious to take every opportunity of bringing to public knowledge the rapid rate at which the hospital service is expanding and being modernised. Already, since the inception of the service, the equivalent of 65 new great hospitals of 600 beds have been built.
    Dr. Stross: But would the right hon. Gentleman take note of the type of
    20
    information which comes to some of us, certainly to me from Stoke-on-Trent, that despite—perhaps because of—this expansion the finances of the hospital management committees today are such that they cannot properly maintain the old parts of their services such as painting, fabric, and certain alterations which ought to be done and must be done? Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to see they have sufficient finance far this?
    Mr. Powell: The increase in terms of value in the revenue allocations of hospital authorities takes account of the new capital equipment and buildings which are coming into use.

    London Chest Hospital, Arlesey
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the imminent closing of the London Chest Hospital at Arlesey, Bedfordshire; how many of the staff will be re-employed at the Three Counties Hospital; how many will be found alternative employment; how many will be redundant; and what the redundancy terms are to be.
    Mr. Braine: This was announced in October, 1961, and the staff informed. Nearly all have been interviewed; 30 have been offered employment at Three Counties Hospital and more are being considered; at least 39 will be employed in other hospitals and others are retiring or making their own arrangements. Redundancy terms will be as in the circulars, of which I am sending my hon. Friend copies.
    Mr. Hastings: I am grateful for the figures, which do not deny that nevertheless there may be redundancies. Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty amongst the staff at this hospital in view of the fact that the interviews referred to only took place on 3rd December last, and that as late as November advertisements appeared in the local Press advertising jobs at hospitals in the area without any prior notice being given to the staff under threat. Is he entirely satisfied that the board of governors of this hospital has complied with his own instruction, and I quote HM 60/47:
    "Hospital authorities with redundant staff for whom they cannot themselves provide alternative employment should take steps at

    21
    the earliest possible stage to bring their names to the notice of neighbouring hospital authorities."
    Will my hon. Friend look personally at this case to make sure that everything possible is done?
    Mr. Braine: Yes, certainly, I will make sure as my hon. Friend requests. I understand that the board of governors who administer Arlesey have asked the regional body to assist in placing staff who do not wish to move to other hospitals in the teaching group. I think the arrangements I have outlined in my Answer and the supplementary answer indicate that the matter is being taken care of.

    Balderton Hospital
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Health what percentage of the new accommodation for mentally handicapped children at Balderton Hospital is now in use.
    Mr. Braine: About 30 per cent. of the accommodation opened in mid-October.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Will the Minister say whether the inability to bring more of this accommodation into use is due to shortage of nursing staff or of domestic staff, or any other reason? Will he also say whether he will get every help he possibly can to ensure that more of this accommodation is brought into use at the earliest possible moment, bearing in mind the fact that we, at Nottingham at any rate, rely almost entirely on this new accommodation in order to supply the new beds of which we are so urgently in need?
    Mr. Braine: We are, of course, dealing with children, and one can only bring new accommodation like this gradually into effect. Patients will be admitted gradually as staffs are built up to enable the children to settle down more easily in their new environment.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Thalidomide
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of deformed babies so far born whose deformity can be directly attributed to
    22
    the use of the drug thalidomide by their mothers during pregnancy.
    Mr. Powell: This cannot be known exactly, but is less than the 390–302 surviving—whose mothers took or may have taken thalidomide at some stage of pregnancy.
    Sir T. Moore: In view of the tragedies recently revealed, will my right hon. Friend take powers to prohibit any manufacturer putting any drug on the market until it has been submitted to him and approved by him and his medical advisers? If he has not this power, I am sure that Parliament would willingly give it to him.
    Mr. Powell: This is a matter on which I am receiving advice from my Standing Medical Advisory Committee. I have already made an interim statement to the House, and I shall make another as soon as I receive its further advice, which I am expecting.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Since this is an urgent matter, can the Minister say when he is likely to receive the final report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on the matter?
    Mr. Powell: I do not know that the next will necessarily be the final report. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, this is a matter with many ramifications which deserves very careful attention by the highest authorities. I should be reluctant to press them, but I know that they realise the time as well as the other aspects.

    Drugs
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Health if, in negotiating contracts for National Health Service drugs, he will in future disallow costs occasioned by the representatives of firms calling on doctors and half the cost of advertising in medical journals and mail advertising.
    Mr. Powell: No, Sir. I negotiate contracts only for drugs supplied to hospitals.
    Mr. Boyden: In that case, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman's own Department's Journal, the Prescriber's Journal, do for advertising drugs to doctors what the whole industry's advertising does at about one-thousandth of the cost?
    Mr. Powell: I do not think the hon. Member seriously suggests that advertising by manufacturers should be prohibited. If he does, I cannot possibly agree with him, although I agree that the Prescriber's Journal already performs a useful function and will continue to perform a more useful function as time goes on in this respect. The cost of promotion is one of the matters which is taken into account by my Department in negotiating under the voluntary price regulation scheme.

    Medresco Hearing Aid
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Minister of Health whether he will include an induction loop in future models of the Medresco hearing aid.
    Mr. Braine: There is such a model for children at special schools. General issue is not envisaged.
    Mr. Dugdale: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it cannot be allowed, because it would be of immense help to many people?
    Mr. Braine: I am advised that the inclusion of an induction coil would not be of general benefit. It would only be of benefit where premises are specially wired for loop induction or where the aid is used with the telephone.
    Mr. Fell: May we know what an induction coil is?
    Mr. Braine: It is a technical term. I will write to my hon. Friend about it and explain to him exactly how this thing works.

    Spectacle Lenses
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the cost would be about £750,000, he is now prepared to provide spectacles with unbreakable glass for young people between the ages of 7 and 14 years.
    Mr. Powell: No, Sir.
    Sir E. Errington: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter? There would be a substantial saving in replacement casts and, what is more important, there might be the means of saving quite a number of serious accidents.
    Mr. Powell: I have been looking into this matter. My information is that there
    24
    is no evidence of a single case of an accident due to the breaking of a lens. As, perhaps, my hon. Friend knows, wherever there are special clinical reasons—for example, where a child is a spastic or for other reasons is liable to fall—these lenses can be prescribed.

    Medical Scientists
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to induce, by way of grants, those medical scientists who have emigrated to North America to return to Great Britain.
    Mr. Powell: I understand it is open to any British medical scientist to apply to the Medical Research Council for a grant.
    Dr. Johnson: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that, while this will doubtless be welcome news, nevertheless there is a tendency for medical scientists to drift to America, as, possibly, he is aware? Is he aware that there are additional factors as well as financial reasons that keep them there? Will he look into this aspect closely so that we do not continue to lose these valuable people?
    Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend that opportunities for research as well as merely the financial aspect are important. It is, however, the responsibility of the Medical Research Council to allocate the money which is available for research.

    Mentally Handicapped Children (Report)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Scott Report on the Training of Teachers of Mentally Handicapped Children; what evidence he has to support the assertions contained in the preface to the Report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Powell: I cannot yet add to my reply to the hon. Member on 30th July. The preface records the views of the Central Health Services Council.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the statements and the preface are simply not borne out by the Report but are, in fact, contradictions to it?

    25
    Since this is an urgent matter, is the Minister aware that the Report states that we need 5,000 of these teachers but that we have fewer than 2,000 of them? Will he really address himself to this problem and ignore this very unfortunate preface, which poured a bucket of cold water on an excellent Report?
    Mr. Powell: I do not think that the mature consideration of the Report is holding up recruitment of staff. I am as keen as the hon. Member to see recruitment going ahead very fast in this sector. In fact, between the end of 1959 and the end of 1961 there was an increase of from 1,653 to 2,054 in the staff in these training centres. I do not think that it is being held up. This is obviously a Report the decisions on which will influence development for years to come, and I make no apology for the care which is being taken in considering it.

    Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Health what action he is taking following his Department's Report on fluoridation of water; and what will be the dental effects.
    Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are ready to approve, under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act and the corresponding Section of the Scottish Act, proposals from local health authorities to make arrangements with water undertakers for the addition of fluoride to water supplies which are deficient in it naturally. Where this is done, the incidence of dental decay in young children should be reduced by about half.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Is there any medical reason why this treatment of water should not be made universal?
    Mr. Powell: Not the least. Some parts of the country have had the advantage of being able to drink water with natural fluoride since the beginning of time. There is no reason why any part of the country should be excluded from its advantages. This is a matter, however, in which the local health authorities, as responsible for preventive health, will take the initiative in their own areas.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the scruples held by some members of the population about fluoridation? Is he satisfied that his Departmental Committee gave full consideration to the objections made by such people in, for example, a pamphlet called "The fluoridation of public water supply" published by the National Pure Water Association this year?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. I am completely satisfied that these scruples are unfounded and groundless.
    Dr. Stross: In view of the fact that a fortnight ago the City of Stoke-on-Trent passed a resolution without anyone taking exception to it to move forward and have one part per million of fluoride in its drinking water, does the Minister's statement now mean that very soon the City will be able to make its own arrangements with the water board?
    Mr. Powell: I shall look forward to receiving their proposals, which I hope to approve.
    Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend give any idea what the cost of this is likely to be to local authorities?
    Mr. Powell: Yes, about 10d. per head per year in the areas so supplied.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that his decision, although somewhat delayed, will be generally very welcome?
    Sir G. Nicholson: Are my right hon. Friend and his Department 100 per cent. convinced that this is desirable? Why does he not take stronger steps? Dental health is extremely important, both in itself and from the long-term view. Surely, my right hon. Friend ought to be more vigorous.
    Mr. Powell: I cannot do more short of making it mandatory upon all local authorities to do this. I cannot pick one element out of a whole field of the responsibilities of the local health authorities and make that mandatory. I am sure that in this, as in other elements of preventive health, realising the value of this measure, local authorities will come forward steadily and actively to put it into effect.
    Sir G. Nicholson: Says you.

    Doctors (Emigration)
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the continued high rate of emigration of British doctors and the problems of staffing in the National Health Service thereby created; and what steps he is taking within the full context of a free society to keep doctors in Great Britain.
    Mr. Powell: No, Sir, this does not arise.
    Dr. Johnson: Will not my right hon. Friend look at this question in greater depth than he has done hitherto in view of the serious nature of it? Is he aware that the fundamental factor of the situation is a worldwide shortage of doctors and that whereas at the moment we are losing doctors to the other English-speaking countries and importing them from India, Pakistan and elsewhere, this alternative source of supply may dry up by the course of other events which are taking place in India? Will not my right hon. Friend look at the question very carefully, even from the point of view of having more data to compute the estimates that are made in other quarters?
    Mr. Powell: The evidence which I have been able to obtain from the medical schools shows that the percentage of students who take up residence abroad—for example, the percentage of those qualified in the 1950s who are abroad today—is quite small, about 6 per cent. This in turn is only part of the more active flow of doctors and other professional men from one part of the world to the other which has characterised the post-war world. The fact is, however, that the number of British-born doctors, both in general practice and in the hospital service, has been increasing and is continuing to increase.

    Congenital Deformities
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider making it a statutory obligation that all congenital deformities should be officially registered at birth.
    Mr. Powell: I am arranging for returns of children born with recognisable abnormalities. Statutory powers should not be necessary.

    Welfare Foods
    Mr. Jegerasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the decline in taking up welfare foods; and whether, in view of this, he will take steps to reduce the price in order to enable them to be purchased by families in need.
    Mr. Braine: All welfare foods are available free to families in need.
    Mr. Jeger: Yes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that since the price of these welfare foods was increased in June last year there has been a spectacular decrease in the amount of them being taken up? Is he aware, for example, that at Thorne in my own constituency, taking cod liver oil, for example, the decline in take-up for medicament is down by 80 per cent? Is he not aware that many of the children are being deprived of these vitamin foods and that the effect of this can only be known later in life?
    Mr. Braine: Yes, but the Question referred to families in need, and the position there is that families who receive National Assistance or who, by Assistance standards, would be caused hardship by having to pay for welfare foods can obtain tokens from the National Assistance Board to enable them to get free supplies. Of course, in some of these cases the uptake of welfare foods has been increasing in the last twelve months. Far more important is, of course, the question of vitamins, and there is no evidence that, on that score, there is any deficiency.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
    Mrs. Castleasked the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of South African products which are at present being served in the Refreshment Rooms of the House of Commons.
    Sir Herbert Butcher: Sliced pears of South African origin are now being purchased as an ingredient for fruit salad, and South African oranges are also bought at those seasons of the year when price and quality commend them.

    29
    South African wines and liqueurs are available as shown on the wine list.
    Mrs. Castle: While thanking the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee for that reply, may I ask whether he is not aware that he ought to be ashamed of it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Is he not aware that on 7th November last the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution by an overwhelming majority calling on all member States to boycott South African goods and calling on them also to refrain from any act likely to delay or hinder the implementation of this resolution? In view of that fact, is it not outrageous that in the Refreshment Rooms of the British House of Commons South African goods should still be served in open defiance of the request of the majority of the General Assembly of the United Nations?
    Sir H. Butcher: The General Assembly of the United Nations did not send me a copy of that resolution, but we feel it right that in purchasing goods we should attach particular importance to the question of quality and price; otherwise we are in extreme difficulty.
    Mr. Eden: Will my hon. Friend have no part whatever in any attempt to boycott South African goods and take whatever opportunity is open to him to demonstrate the importance to Britain of trade with South Africa?
    Sir H. Butcher: We are the servants of the House, and people who do not like South African food need not eat it.
    Mrs. Castle: Is this not a question whether or not we in the House of Commons believe in supporting the resolutions of the United Nations, and does not the ribald behaviour of hon. Members opposite prove that once again they are not supporters of the United Nations?
    Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members wanted advice about support for the United Nations they probably would not consult the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sandys. Statement.
Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the rules which
30
govern our business, before statements are made we have to dispose of Questions and Private Notice Questions. It will be within your recollection that this morning I sought your permission to ask a Private Notice Question addressed to the Minister of Defence, questioning him on the military situation in Brunei and a number of cognate subjects.
I will not trespass on your kindness by referring to them further now, because that would be out of order, but surely it is stretching our procedures somewhat far for the protection of the Executive if permission is given for a Private Notice Question to the Minister of Defence to be answered and it is then disposed of because the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is about to make a statement.
It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that questions arose at the time of the Suez and the Kuwait operations, but Ministers then sought, I suggest respectfully, to camouflage the facts by making statements and then circulating long statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give us the opportunity, either by accepting a Motion under Standing Order No. 9, or in some other way, of being able to question the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on the important facts of what the military situation is in Brunei, the extent to which troops have been committed, and the extent to which the Government are prepared to reinforce them as necessary, so that, through question and answer, we shall be able to establish for the information of the House and the country what the military situation there actually is?
Mr. Speaker: What is happening now is that I am, without discourtesy, declining to breach the rule which causes me not to have to give in public the reasons for declining permission for a Private Notice Question. If and when the circumstances arise, I will rule on any application made under Standing Order No. 9, but, obviously, we must hear the Minister's statement first so that we can see how many of the matters which are covered by the hon. Gentleman's question are dealt with—what the state of information is and other matters of that kind.

BRUNEI
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) will find that my reply will give him most of the information for which he is asking.
The House will wish me to make a statement about recent developments in Brunei.
Early on Saturday morning an attempt was made to overthrow the Government of the autonomous State of Brunei. This was organised by an underground body which calls itself the North Kalimantan National Army, and which derives a major part of its support from Brunei Malays.
Attacks were made on the police station in Brunei town and on various Government buildings, and the rebels seized control of the oilfield at Seria. Some incidents also occurred in areas of North Borneo and Sarawak immediately adjoining Brunei, where the population includes a substantial number of Brunei Malays.
The Sultan of Brunei asked us for urgent assistance in restoring law and order, which he was entitled to do under his Treaty with Britain. On receipt of this request, troops were despatched immediately by air and sea from Singapore.
The House will not expect me to give details of military dispositions. But I can say that the following Army units, with appropriate naval and air support, are engaged in the area: the Queen's Own Highlanders, the 1st Battalion the 2nd Gurkha Rifles, the 42nd Commando Royal Marines, and a squadron of armoured cars of the Queen's Irish Hussars. Additional forces are either on their way or are being held ready for despatch at short notice.
Police reinforcements have been provided from Sarawak and North Borneo. The Malayan Government have also offered to sand same of their forces should this be needed.
Order has been re-established in Brunei town. But control of the oilfield at Seria has not yet been regained.
32
Operations there have been greatly hampered by the fact that the rebels hold a number of the European staff of the oil company and at one moment used them as a screen to advance upon the police station.
The rebels have operated as an organised force equipped with rifles and automatic weapons. Their plans seem to have included a plot to kidnap the Sultan and to assassinate political personalities in North Borneo and Sarawak. Azahari, who is the leader of the Raayat Party in Brunei, and who left the country several weeks ago, claims to have been appointed by the Sultan of Brunei as Prime Minister of all three territories.
The Sultan has completely denied this, while political leaders in North Borneo and Sarawak have condemned the rising and have dissociated themselves from it.
It is, I am afraid, inevitable that in certain respects the situation still remains unclear. But hon. Members will understand that in a country like Brunei, where roads are few and where many telephone lines have been cut, it is not easy to obtain quick reports.
Our Commissioner-General in South-East Asia, Lord Selkirk, who has just returned to Singapore from Brunei, is in continuous touch with us. I will keep the House informed of further developments.
Mr. Healey: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. We on our side of the House recognise that Her Majesty's Government have a right and duty to protect the lives and property of British people in Brunei and have certain obligations which we recognise under the Treaty with the Sultan.
I think that the House would also wish to express sympathy with the families of those who have already become casualties in the operation.
I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman at this stage on the substantive matters at issue while the situation is still so obscure, but since the Sultan himself has so far not made up his mind about Brunei's accession to the Malaysian Federation, will the right hon. Gentleman think carefully before accepting the Malayan Government's offer to send troops to intervene in the situation?
Mr. Sandys: I would certainly like to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy with the relatives of those affected. All I said in my statement was that an offer had been made to send troops by the Malayan Government, but I fully realise, as, I am sure, the Prime Minister of Malaya fully realises, that there are not only military but political implications in this.
Mr. Grimond: I have three questions. First, are we responsible for internal order in Brunei? Secondly, have we any definite information that this rebellion is connected with the proposal that Brunei should join the Malaysian Federation? Thirdly, did we have no prior information that such a rebellion was likely to take place?
Mr. Sandys: Our obligation is for external affairs and defence, and defence includes coming to the assistance of Brunei should there be a severe threat to the Government and State. We have no direct responsibility for internal security, except in times of emergency, such as the present moment, when we have stepped in. I do not think that we know very much what the immediate objective of this move is, but the leader of the rebellion, in a statement in the Philippines, has said that his objective is to unite the two British territories of North Borneo and Brunei and to create a Federation of Malaysia on lines proposed by the Philippine Government. It is hard to say exactly what the difference is, except that the rebels have an intention to join a federation of a rather different kind.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about prior information. In an autonomous State like Brunei, with its large areas of jungle, it is at all times difficult to get accurate and timely intelligence. On a number of occasions we have had warnings and information about underground activities of various kinds, and have also been warned of troubles that might break out. But, previously, these warnings have proved to be unfounded. That is the sort of situation one is faced with. We were not altogether without information about this particular trouble. On the other hand, it corresponded very closely to warnings on previous occasions which turned out to be baseless.
Mr. Gardner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety felt in the country about the British people in Brunei, especially at Seria, where there are many British employees of the Shell Oil Company? Can he give us an assurance about the present safety of these people and any comfort about their present welfare?
Mr. Sandys: The situation is changing so rapidly that I would hesitate to make any firm statement on that point. We are well aware of the importance of recovering control of the Seria oilfield as quickly as possible, and the Queen's Own Highlanders are now operating in that area. But at the moment I cannot give the House any firm information, although, naturally, we are all anxious to hear as soon as possible that the Seria oilfield and its European staff have been relieved.
Mr. Shinwell: Has the Sultan recently expressed any desire to create an independent State outside the Malaysian Federation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been reported in the Press that that is the principal objective of the rebel leader? Has the right hon. Gentleman also noted that the first battalion to be sent to Brunei was a battalion of the Gurkhas? Will he, therefore, be good enough to advise the Secretary of State for War about this matter, if his right hon. Friend is not already aware of it, as it is understood that the Secretary of State for War contemplates reducing the Gurkha Brigade?
Mr. Sandys: I am sure that nobody in the House under-rates the value of the Gurkhas or their fine record in the British Army. The attitude of Brunei towards the Malaysian Federation is a matter for the Brunei Government to decide for themselves. The Sultan and his Government have been in consultation with the Government of Malaya, on and off, for some months, but they have not yet reached any conclusion as to whether they wish Brunei to join the Federation. This is a matter for Brunei and Brunei alone to decide.
Mr. Eden: Is there any evidence that the rebels are getting support from outside the country and, if so, where that support is coming from? Does not my

35
right hon. Friend agree that this particular action demonstrates not only the importance, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has stated, of the continued strength of the Gurkha Brigade but also of the significant rôole in the maintenance of peace in the area which can be played by the Singapore base?
Mr. Sandys: I do not think I need say more than I have about the value we attach to the contribution of the Gurkhas and I am also already on record about the importance of our base at Singapore. There are indications, but they are not yet firm, that the rebel forces have received, or have undergone, a certain amount of military training outside the country.
Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that intelligence available made him aware that such a rebellion was a possibility. The composite force sent in should, therefore, be balanced and equipped and organised to fight, with reinforcements, if required, available in sufficient numbers and without extensive notice. Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it comes about, however, on the basis of what he has said, that the force is anything but balanced? Will he tell us the kind of aircraft used and confirm whether or not the force has been limited, not by the needs of the situation, but by the capacity of the sea and air lift?
Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman studies my statement he will see that a very adequate force was sent in, and sent in very quickly. More troops are available should they be needed. Some are already on the way, while others are being held in readiness. As for equipment and balance, I have no knowledge—and, certainly, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has no information—which suggests that the force has not been properly equipped and is not in every way ready and fit to carry out these duties.
Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has given the details of the forces. They are the Queen's Own Highlanders, the 1st Battalion the 2nd Gurkhas, 42nd Commando and a squadron of the Queen's Irish Hussars. He has said nothing about the services. Has the force been sent in without a signal company, without any R.Es.,
36
without hospitalisation? Has the force been sent in without those formations because the right hon. Gentleman lacks the lift to move the rest in?
Mr. Sandys: I was not going into every detail about kitchen stoves and the Dental Service, or things of that sort.
Mr. Gordon Walker: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about where the arms, which he told us were coming from outside, have come from? In view of what he has said about the great value of the Gurkhas, does he realise that there is strong feeling in the House that the Government should reconsider what is broadly thought to be their intention to disband quite a large number of these valuable troops?
Mr. Sandys: It is not for me to make a statement, arising out of a report on Brunei, on the future of the Gurkhas, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will be making a statement on this subject early in the new year.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We cannot go on with this now, without a Question. I am not giving the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) any encouragement. I was about to ask the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day. Does he wish to make an application?
Mr. Wigg: I should be the last to take advantage of any encouragement that you gave me, Mr. Speaker, but as I gave notice to the Minister of Defence and was answered by an easy political gibe by the right hon. Gentleman, who suggested that I was referring to the Dental Corps and who did not answer my question about the kind of aircraft which were used in this operation—and I suppose that even hon. Members opposite would think that it was relevant to know whether the troops had ammunition; or do they not?—and as we do not know whether these troops are effectively supplied, I do not know whether to seek permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 so that we can discuss the matter.
Mr. Speaker: Either the hon. Member moves his Motion, giving it to me in writing, or he does not. There is no half-way house about it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.53 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit that this is a Bill to which the Standing Orders relative to Private Business may apply—the words of Standing Order No. 36 are "may apply". If that is so, the Bill ought to be sent to the Examiners.
  A side note to the Rules talks about prima facie Hybrid Bills, but I prefer the language of the rule itself and the answer which was given by the then Clerk of Public Bills to the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills, 1948, when, on page 52 of the evidence, he was asked:
  "Is the principle then, that when there is any doubt at all the bill must go to the Examiners?"
  His answer was:
  "I should say so, yes."
  I propose to submit that in this case there is, at any rate, some doubt and that the Bill should, therefore, go to the Examiners.
  Standing Orders will be applicable if the Bill affects private rights which are not the private rights of a whole class of people. The second paragraph of the Report of that same Select Committee on Hybrid Bills contains as part of its definition of a Hybrid Bill
  "… a public bill, since it accords with the two fundamental criteria of public bills described by Erskine May"—
  those two fundamental criteria are that it should relate to public policy and be introduced directly by a Member of the House—
  "it has also, in large or small degree, the character of a private bill, since it affects the interests of specific individuals or corporations as distinct from all individuals or corporations of a similar category."
  An instance of a Private Bill, and a very common instance, is a Bill local in its application. There appears to be no doubt that if the present Bill related to Birmingham, for instance, it would be a Private Bill and would, therefore, have in it that element of Private Bill character which would require it to be sent to the Examiners. That is the con-
  38
  elusion in Erskine May which, on page 869, says:
  "A bill relating to a city is usually held to be a private bill."
  The question is whether that also applies to the Metropolis. I must say at once that the practice of the decisions about this has not by any means been consistent, but all that I have to show is that there is some doubt. For that purpose I can take a very simple case referred to on page 1 of the Minutes of Evidence given before that same Cornmittee. The footnote says:
  "A bill purely public has been converted by amendment into a hybrid bill. Thus the Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment Bill, 1884–85, as introduced into the House of Commons, applied to every water company in the kingdom. By an Amendment made in Committee it was limited to the metropolis. The House of Lords referred the bill to the Examiners who held that it had become a hybrid bill."
  There follow references to the Lords Journals.
  The practice in these matters is the same whichever House is concerned. The change from a general application to a Metropolis application was held to turn the Bill into a Hybrid Bill. During the course of years, Bilks about the Metropolis were originally introduced as Public Bills; them matters affecting the Metropolis, gradually but to an increasing extent, have been dealt with by Private Bills now introduced regularly year by year. On page 870 of Erskine May there are a number of references to a variety of cases and the general statement:
  "Since 1874 bills for giving further powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works and to its successor, the London County Council, have been introduced and passed as private bills."
  There therefore appears to be nothing in the metropolitan character of London which 'necessarily prevents this Bill from being treated as what it really is—a Bill of local application.
  There is a reference to the point of the Metropolis in Erskine May, but it is no doubt the result of the growth of other large conurbations that the tendency has been more and more to assimilate metropolitan practice to that which would apply to Birmingham, or some other large town. Therefore, if any distinction is to be drawn, it must be a distinction relating to the character of the Metropolis as such. I can see the

  39
  point in relation to the police, for instance, but I fail to see it in relation to a number of matters with which this Bill deals. I submit that there is, therefore, sufficient doubt as to whether the matters should be dealt with in this form without reference to the Examiners to entitle us to have the Bill sent to them.
  From that aspect of the matter I wish to turn to one or two particular cases. It is common knowledge, and has been stated by the Government and reported in the Press, that there were provisions relating to the water supply of the Metropolis which appeared in some draft Bill—which, of course, I have not seen—and which were taken out and do not appear in the present Bill; and which are to be the subject of other legislation, because it was understood that if they were put into this Bill, they would turn it into a Hybrid Bill.
  If one looks at the published statement, called "Future of the Metropolitan Water Board," printed by the Board and containing the report of its General Purposes Committee which was adopted on 19th October, one sees the sort of thing which might,have been the reason for the hybrid character which these water provisions would have imported in the Bill. Page 2 of the printed statement states:
  "The proposed area to be administered by the Council"—
  that is, the Greater London Council which is contemplated in this Bill—
  "is some 750 square miles. Of this only some 420 square miles are supplied by the Board, that is, a little more than half. Moreover, the Board supply an area of about 120 square miles outside the Greater London Council area "
  Later in the statement, when arguing the case, the Board says:
  "… it is inconceivable that at the very time when the Government is endeavouring to improve and regularise the local government pattern in London, a step is proposed which would immediately create an anomaly by giving the Greater London Council jurisdiction for a service in parts only of its area, and permitting ten other authorities to have jurisdiction for the same service in other parts of its area."
  The point of this, of course, is that if we have provisions of this kind we are bound to have with them treatment relating not to a whole class, such as the water undertakings throughout the kingdom, but to a whole class, less some par-
  40
  ticular instance. The particular instance, would, therefore, get the special treatment which imports a private character into the Bill and calls for its examination by the Examiners.
  The Metropolitan Water Board is a statutory body. It is financed by a water fund with the deficiencies out of the fund supplemented from the rates of the constituent bodies. A similar body appears in the sewerage section of the Bill. Sewers are not always treated with sufficient seriousness, but their maintenance is, no doubt, an essential part of local government. They are just as essential as the water supply, and Part V of the Bill deals with nothing else but sewage and trade effluents. Here we get an instance, on which I propose to rely, of what I submit is, quite clearly, exceptional treatment of one particular person; using the term "person" in the sense in which it is used in the definition to which I refer, a Parliamentary person, either an individual, or some public authority or corporation.
  It may be said that this is a small point. But the words of the definition which I read refer expressly to a small degree and I think that I can show the House, or I can show you, Mr. Speaker, that even two sewers may be enough to turn the Bill into a Hybrid Bill, and these are more than two.
  Turning to Clause 35, the first Clause in this part of the Bill, certain sewerage authorities and sewers and sewage disposal works are dealt with. The authorities are to be dissolved in the near future, and the sewers and sewage disposal works are to vest in the Greater London Council. Those authorities cover a considerable part of the Greater London Council area, but not the whole of it. The part which they do cover is referred to in the same Clause as "the sewerage area of the Greater London Council"; and the broad structure of the Clause is to hand over the provision of main sewers and sewage disposal works to the Greater London Council and the provision of what I might perhaps call ancillary sewers to London boroughs.
  There is even a provision for the
  "… power of the Common Council, the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple or the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple to provide sewers …"

  41
  I do not know what they do about it, but there it is.
  Then follows, in subsection (5), a provision which enables the Greater London Council, in effect, to annex adjacent sewers which go with the main sewers which pass to them by virtue of the first subsection of the Clause. The Council can make a declaration and take over such sewers as it thinks are required. Indeed, it is laid down as the duty of the Council that it should examine the whole matter and take action.
  The point on which I rely is that subsection (5), as the operative subsection, is subject to one exception which recurs through the whole Clause. It is that nothing is to affect the property or the functions of the West Kent Main Sewerage Board. That Board, which receives this exceptional treatment—for, in the language of the subsection, it is exceptional treatment—is the sewerage authority which provides for the whole of one, and most of another, of the new London boroughs to be constituted under the Bill.
  On page 89 of the Bill we find that Borough No. 19, which includes Beckenham, Bromley and other places, and most of the preceding borough No. 18, are served by the West Kent Main Sewerage Board. The result of these provisions is, therefore, that if the West Kent Main Sewerage Board had not been excepted its public sewers and sewage disposal works would have been vested in the Greater London Council and the boroughs respectively so far as the Greater London Council thought proper, having regard to its statutory duties.
  It is now not allowed to deal with the West Kent Main Sewerage Board in this way and, therefore, its position, as indeed appears from the language of the Clause, is an exceptional one. This, of course, is not a mere matter of the technical property in this, that or the other sewer. It directly affects the rating powers and the exercise of those powers in the whole area. The effect may not be large, but it is there.
  If one looks at Clause 36 which is entitled, "Expenditure on sewerage", and without going into detail, it is perfectly clear that the exclusion, the peculiar treatment given to this sewerage board in this way, must have some effect—though it is rather hard to see beforehand exactly what it is—on the finances
  42
  of the sewerage authorities concerned, and ultimately on the rating authorities concerned.
  I suggested a little time ago that two sewers might make all the difference. I am sure that the Minister will remember that they did make a considerable difference in 1955 when what is now the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, contained a number of various and wide provisions about rating generally all over the country and was unquestionably, in the form in which it came before the House, a public Bill; and, I should have thought, with no character of the hybrid Bill in it at all.
  During the course of the passage of that Bill through this House, an undertaking was given on behalf of the Government to give exceptional treatment to two sewers. The position was that sewers were to be derated, and the effect of derating the two sewers, which were the London outfall sewers, would be considerable on the finances of the Metropolitan boroughs, on the one side, and the London County Council, on the other.
  The London County Council was taken to be in occupation of the sewers, and, for this purpose, paid rates, which constituted a substantial source of finance, for instance, to the East End authorities. A great deal of pressure was put upon the Government in the House not to upset the finances of these authorities and to make things difficult for the East End boroughs, which, I think, were the ones principally dealt with here.
  The Government gave an unqualified undertaking, but, when the matter came to another place, they broke it. They recognised it, but said it must be carried out some other way. Indeed, I believe that steps have been taken to that end. But the Government broke the undertaking to amend that Bill, and the reason they gave was that to have carried it out would have been to make that Bill a hybrid Bill. This was a case of two sewers, not all the sewers of the West Kent Sewerage Board, which may have been many more than two; and maybe they were two very large sewers, but still only two. This was in a Bill which not only dealt with sewers, because the sewers were dealt with only

  43
  in two subsections of a miscellaneous Clause.
  In regard to the other, I quote from HANSARD of 26th July, 1955:
  "MR. HASTINGS asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to implement his undertaking"—
  that is, the undertaking to which I have just referred, and the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government, replied:
  "It was unfortunately found that the inclusion in the Bill of the proposed Amendments to implement the undertaking would turn it into a hybrid Bill, and this would involve a lengthy procedure for which time is not available. It is, however, still the Government's view that the overground parts of these sewers should continue to be rated, and I am considering how best that result might be served."
  Then, later, the Minister said, at the top of column 980:
  "We have taken the best possible advice, but we are not satisfied that, without stretching the constitution, it would be possible to deal with the matter other than by means of a hybrid Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1955; Vol. 544, c. 979–80.]
  Therefore, I find it hard, and to my limited capacity it is impossible, to distinguish that case from that which we have to consider in relation to the West Kent Sewerage Board. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the best possible advice, and all I would say is that though that led to no ruling, it led to a distinct change of front by the Government and to a step which had a very marked effect, and it must surely be sufficient to raise doubt, which is all that I require to have this Bill sent to the Special Examiners.
  I wish to mention two other points, and I apologise for taking the time of the House, but this is a matter of importance, and the Bill itself is important. First, there is the question of land occupied by local authorities for housing purposes. Under Clause 23, there is provision for a transfer of land held for housing purposes, and, where land is so held, it is to vest in the councils of the newly constituted London boroughs. These difficulties inevitably occur, as in the case of the West Kent Sewerage Board, on the boundaries of the area concerned.
  In this case, the difficulty occurs in connection with land held by the Councils of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell and
  44
  the Chigwell Urban District. These two local authorities are partly within the new Greater London Council area and partly outside it, and the result is that they get special treatment. Some land held for housing purposes is to pass to the newly constituted London boroughs, being land within the area of the Greater London Council, and some will not. The result will be to have an effect on those councils, on their rates and on their ratepayers, which is quite exceptional and derives from the fact that they are cut in two by the Bill. If being cut in two does not affect one's private interest, I do not know what does, and that is what is happening in this case.
  Again, we cannot say what the effect will be. The authorities may be better off or worse off. One cannot say, in this case, as in the sewerage case, exactly how it would work out, so there is room for doubt whether this comes within a hybrid Bill, so far as it relates to private interests.
  There is one other instance which I shall mention shortly. This is a very complicated and long Bill. Nobody will deny that. I have said nothing, in speaking to this point of order, about its merits, but it is very odd indeed that when one looks at the City of London and the Middle Temple, one finds that throughout the Bill they are having treatment which appears at first sight to be very special. Some of it may depend on their existing statutory position, and I would not deny that, though I am not sure that all of it does. Perhaps the simplest way of looking at it is to look at Clause 69 (1), where there is a provision about the equalisation of rates, under which the Minister may make a scheme for the purpose of reducing the disparity in the rates levy in certain areas other than the Temple.
  It means something. It could mean much, it may mean little; but this question of the position of the Temples, and, for that matter, the City of London, raises doubt whether private interests are affected. When I refer to private interests, I am not talking about the interests of private individuals, but the interests of the public or local authorities. In the case of the two sewers and the Minister, if I may so refer to it, the parties concerned were, on the one hand, the London County Council, and on the

  45
  other, a number of London boroughs. In one sense of the word, there is no life in any of them; in another, they have a full and vigorous Parliamentary life, until somebody abolishes them one day.
  This is the kind of thing which it is intended to protect by this provision relating to Hybrid Bills, and I respectfully submit that this is a case where there is, at least, some doubt, and that the matter should be referred to the examiners.
  Mr. Speaker: I should like to begin by thanking the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), not only for the careful and pleasant way in which he has made his objection now but for coming quite a long time ago, with the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), to warn me of the substance of this argument, and my advisers, so that we might have time to consider it as best as we could.
  I do not think that I need quarrel at all about definitions with the hon. and learned Member. I accept the true position to be this, that if it be possible for the view to be taken that this Bill is a Hybrid Bill it ought to go to the examiners. There must not be a doubt about it.
  I will try to follow his order as much as I can. I do not think, frankly, that the relevant Standing Order applies to this Bill as prima facie hybrid. On the wide ground that the hon. and learned Member was urging, in the light of precedent by which I am guided, I think that a Hybrid Bill can be defined as a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category Or class. But I am afraid that the precedents relating to Bills affecting local government of the whole of London and those which relate to Bills on the metropolitan sewers would prevent me from ruling that this Bill is prima facie hybrid by reason of the presence of Part V in it.
  Indeed, it is plain that our practice has admitted sewerage as having the very metropolitan character that the Police have so as to make it properly the subject of a Public Bill. An instance of it being so regarded is the Metropolitan Local Management Act, 1855, part
  46
  of which dealt with that very topic. Further, sewerage necessarily falls within the scope of public policy dealt with by this Bill. Indeed, by the Bill the authorities at present charged with the functions relating to sewerage would largely disappear. It is, in the words of the hon. and learned Member, essentially part of local government.
  What this Bill is doing is dealing with the whole structure of local government and the exercise of all local authority functions in Greater London. Sewerage is by statute a local authority function imposed here, either by the Public Health Act, 1936, or by Part II of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, on the local authorities. The fact is that on this principle London sewerage has previously been treated as a matter which can be dealt with by a purely Public Bill without any sort or kind of complaint or hint of hybridity.
  I think that the first stab into that principle which the hon. and learned Member attempted was the footnote on page 1 of the evidence given before the Select Committee. Were this a matter of water it may well be that we should regard it the same way as another place regarded the matter then, namely, that when the Bill, by amendment, was confined to London that Bill, relating to water supply, became a Hybrid Bill. It might be so, but whatever the reason may be, it is quite clear that our practice in this field distinguishes between public utilities, like water, gas, transport, electricity, and local government and local government functions.
  I can only guess at what the reason is. It may be that by and large you need not have gas if you do not want it, or electricity if you do not want it, but you must use the sewerage. To make good my point at a glance, if hon. Members look at Erskine May they will find the two notes on page 870. One is under (d) and another under (e). The (d) Bills are the ones which managed their life happily as Public Bills without hint of hybridity, and the (e) Bills are the ones dealing with water and gas.
  I am not unduly frightened off my line of thinking by the footnote on page 1 of the evidence before the Select Committee. It is true that I did privately

  47
  rule this Bill in its previous form as hybrid. I did it in relation to the provisions relating to the Metropolitan Water Board on grounds which in no way deal with the matter I am now ruling about, or my views about that.
  The next narrower objection of the hon. and learned Member's is based on Clause 35, the argument being that that Clause treats the West Kent Main Sewerage Board differently from the three sewerage boards which are dissolved by subsection (1), but in my view there is no question here of singling out a sewerage board for special treatment within a category of sewerage board to which it belongs. This is the problem—I forget the exact words the hon. and learned Member used just now—it is the in and out problem. What happens on the boundaries of an area one is legislating about? All the boards serving areas wholly or mainly within and having their disposal works or out-falls within Greater London are dealt with in exactly the same way by this Bill.
  The East Kent Board is quite different. Half of its area will remain in Kent if the Bill becomes law and the sewerage of the area is purified at works which will lie outside Greater London under the Bill and fall into the Thames at a point which will be outside Greater London under the Bill. For this reason I cannot regard the exclusion of the West Kent Main Sewerage Board by subsection (8) of that Clause as making the Bill prima facie hybrid.
  I turn to the hon. and learned Member's two sewers case, in which I suspect he participated. I should have shared the fears of the Government of the day that, had they imported into the Bill the amendments they were contemplating, the Bill would have been ruled by my predecessor, if necessary, hybrid, because what the Bill would have done—not, indeed, with the two great outfall sewers but with parts of those sewers—would have been to except as against the category of all the sewers in England parts of two sewers from the exemption from rating. I cannot help feeling that that would be a way of singling them out in a wholly different way from the treatment of the West Kent Main Sewerage Board, which has its works and out-falls outside Greater London. In that
  48
  case, I cannot regard the 1935 Act as a precedent helping me in what I have to decide here.
  The remaining matters that the hon. and learned Member mentioned were the provisions of Clause 23, but those are a different problem. In connection with this Clause, he used the expression that it looks as though the Council of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell, on the one hand, or Chigwell Urban District Council, on the other, were being singled out of the whole category of local authorities for some kind of benevolent and special treatment, but this is not so. I think that if hon. Members look at the facts they will see that those two local authorities are the only two of which a part will lie within Greater London under the Bill. So they are not treated specially within a category, but in the same way inside their own special category.
  I think that the only other matter the hon. and learned Member mentioned was the Inner and Middle Temples, but I do not think that this vitiates my Ruling. They are, inside the Bill, treated as though they were local authorities, as, indeed, for some purposes they are. I do not think their treatment makes the Bill prima facie hybrid.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you have given the most careful consideration to the possible hybridity of the Bill in all its aspects. May I very respectfully submit for your consideration Clause 81 of the Bill, which provides that any local Act for the time being in force in any part of London may be modified.
  I am wondering whether, in the course of your consideration of the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend, you have also satisfied yourself that no action taken by the Minister under this Clause could possibly affect or deal with any private interest in such a manner as to make the Bill a Hybrid Bill.
  It is unfortunate that no hon. Member has available to him all the local Acts for the time being in force in any part of Greater London. They are not even available to hon. Members in the Library of the House. No doubt it will be possible for this information to be made

  49
  available to hon. Members, but in the meantime. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to indicate whether your investigations have included this point and whether you are satisfied that Clause 81 does not, in fact, make it a Hybrid Bill in that connection.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will understand that I cannot for this purpose examine things which the Minister might do at some future time. I have to take the Bill as it is, and on that basis Clause 81 does not involve any evident hybridity. May I suggest to the House, in no sense of vanity, that I have of necessity had to give rather a long Ruling and that it might be profitable if we read it before we argued about it. We have a lot to do.
  4.31 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government, and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is the first Bill to deal with the structure of London local government in any major way since 1899. The Bill has two main features—the creation of an overall authority to meet needs which by their nature are needs of Greater London as a whole, and the setting up of a substantially uniform system of borough administration for all other purposes.
  The Bill gives effect to the general policy for London local government set out in the 1961 White Paper, as amplified by later statements by my predecessor on the borough groupings and on the educational arrangements for the central area. It is, of course, part of the general scheme of local government review which is now in hand over the whole of England and Wales, the only difference being that instead of a review by a Local Government Commission under the 1958 Act, followed where necessary by a ministerial Order, there has been the even fuller treatment of a Royal Commission, followed by a White Paper, followed by parliamentary debates on the White Paper, and now a Bill.
  All organisations, public and private, need reviewing from time to time so that they may be adapted to changing conditions. That, I think, is agreed
  50
  on all sides. In England and Wales generally, the structure of local government has been practically unchanged since the last century. Meanwhile, the population has grown from 31 million to over 50 million. Villages have become towns, small towns have become big towns, and in the great centres of industry and commerce, whole communities which used to be distinct have merged together. Meanwhile, more and more has come to be expected of local government with the emergence of social services and with the widening of ideas and practice in the scope and purpose of local government. Local government today, in fact, traces paths undreamed of when the present structure was established.
  It is also agreed that London has not escaped these trends. The population of Greater London in 1881 was nearly 5 million, of which just under 4 million lived in what was, in 1888, to become the administrative county of London, the L.C.C. area. By 1961, the Greater London population had grown to over 8 million, while the population of the L.C.C. area had declined to just over 3 million. In other words, authorities established at the end of the nineteenth century have had to assume much wider responsibilities over an area which has greatly developed and which has become steadily more congested.
  As a result of this and other factors, London government at present has structural complexities which, to put it at the very least, do not help effective administration. It has a number of distinct systems of local government. In the centre, the L.C.C., with many of the powers of a county borough, shares the duty of providing local services with 28 metropolitan borough councils and the Common Council of the City. The metropolitan borough councils, despite their size, have responsibilities and powers which are considerably less than those of most non-county borough and urban district councils over the rest of the country. In Middlesex, great boroughs have grown up, some of them struggling for county borough status but continually denied it in the interests of some comprehensive reorganisation of the whole metropolitan area.
  Outside London and Middlesex, the metropolitan fringes, also containing

  51
  some great boroughs, are governed by councils of borough and urban districts of widely varying size under county councils with great and important territories stretching far into the countryside. And, of course, embedded in the whole structure but quite independent of it are the three County Boroughs of Croydon, East Ham and West Ham.
  There was, therefore, wide acceptance of the Government's conclusion in 1957 that the task of local government in Greater London merited a full examination by a Royal Commission. The Commission sat for nearly three years and received evidence from a wide range of local government and other bodies and individuals. In a masterly Report of clarity, humanity and vision, the Commission set out its reasons for its unanimous conclusion that the present structure is inadequate to deal with the many major problems of the present day. Its recommendations for reorganisation, also unanimous, form the basis of the present Bill.
  Here, let me make it clear that neither the Commission's Report nor the Government's proposals reflect in any way whatever on the abilities and the enthusiasm of the members and officials of the existing local authorities involved. We propose to give those who serve local government, or who wish to serve local government, a more rational and satisfying set of institutions through which they can all the more effectively operate. Nor should the changes discourage those who want to serve. On the contrary, a better system will attract good and keen people all the more surely.
  Although, inevitably, not all local authorities can see eye to eye the whole time with the central Government of the day, that does not in the least preclude me from paying a sincere tribute, on behalf of the Government, to the services which, over three generations, have been provided for Londoners by all the councils, including the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, which will be handing over their functions to successor authorities as part of the inevitable process of regeneration and change.
  The Royal Commission's first broad theme, one of the two main themes of the Bill, concerns the rôle of local government in matters of environment. Local
  52
  authorities, especially in the great cities, are increasingly concerned with the physical surroundings in which people live and work. There is planning for land use, with all that that implies, the control and guidance of building and development, densities, the location of industry and commerce, provision for open space and recreation, the road systems and the management of the flood of traffic which uses them, the rebuilding of town centres and the rehabilitation of worn-out areas, and the consequent planning and execution of schemes for rehousing people and industries in other localities.
  These all create for local government tasks not even contemplated when the present structure was established. We must be sure that the structure of local government allows locally elected people to play their part in tackling these great problems, which go to the very root of all that makes for the character of a town and, in large measure, for the quality of living which its people enjoy.
  The obvious basic requirement—this is one of the two main themes of the Bill—is that the organisation should provide the means for the interlocking problems of local government to be comprehensively studied over a sufficiently wide area to make possible both effective planning and the effective execution of the plans. The present structure of local government in London does not measure up to these requirements. Within the area of Greater London as defined in the Bill, the various systems of local government are run by six county councils, three county borough councils, 85 borough, metropolitan borough and urban district councils, and the Common Council of the City.
  But there is no single local authority responsible for the overall planning of the Metropolis. There is no single local authority responsible for the traffic management of the Metropolis or for measuring and coping with the need to build houses and provide work outside for those who for lack of land cannot be decently housed inside. No one existing authority has any responsibility for considering the needs of Greater London as a whole.
  Yet Greater London is, in a very real sense, a single city. Admittedly, it embraces many places of distinctive character which attract strong loyalties.

  53
  Nevertheless, the whole of the great urban area, which spreads out to and is contained by the green belt, is one metropolis. It owes its existence to the unique position of London in the economic, industrial and political life of the country. The great and diverse activities of the capital affect the character of the whole area. Every man, woman and child who lives there is concerned in its prosperity and is affected by the way in which it is governed.
  The Bill adopts the Royal Commission's recommendations that these great strategic tasks of planning, traffic, roads, overspill housing and all other needs affecting the whole of Greater London should be made the responsibility of a directly elected Greater London Council. One would have thought that this proposal that Londoners should have an effective say in the shaping of their own environment would have an obvious appeal. Those who find it unpalatable must face up to the question of what they would have instead.
  In a most cogent chapter of its Report, Chapter 13, the Royal Commission considers and rejects two alternatives. First, that the central Government should fill the gap in the local administrative structure. The Commission says that this would be the death knell of responsible local self-government in Greater London. The Commission is plainly right. The second solution examined was the setting up of ad hoc authorities for various purposes. The Commission points out that many of London's problems are interlocked and need to be considered and dealt with as a whole.
  A third suggestion, the only remotely constructive suggestion that opponents of the proposals have put forward, is that all that is needed in the field of planning, traffic and overspill housing is the creation of some sort of joint board of the existing county and county borough councils. The Government agree with the Royal Commission in rejecting this. No solution can be found by submitting these great tasks to delegates of local authorities responsible for part only of the area and its problems and some of which have responsibilities which are not only different from but often in conflict with the interests of London.
  A variant of this so-called alternative is to say that the Greater London area,
  54
  for purposes of local government, ought to be much bigger. Some people say that there should be an ad hoc authority, an indirectly elected authority, for some functions having jurisdiction over all the Home Counties. But that is not an alternative to the proposals in the Bill. Of course, there must be correlation in planning, transport and overspill housing on a regional basis.
  I very much agree with a passage in the Report of the General Purposes Committee of the L.C.C. dated 3rd December, 1962. Towards the bottom of page 9 there is this statement:
  "No greater London Council can, however, relieve the Government of what must be its responsibility for South-East England as a whole."
  I agree with that. That is why we are conducting at the moment a series of regional surveys. But the establishment of a single system of government for Greater London does not preclude the correlation of London's influence with the South-East generally. Rather, I would say, it is a necessary prelude. Unless we abandon our system of local action through local authorities, any regional organisation, whatever its constitution or its area—and both would raise great difficulties—would have to operate through a sub-structure of effective local government units. One such unit would need to have authority over the built-up area of Greater London. The Bill seeks to get the local government structure right. That is a self-contained and sufficient task for the moment.
  The Bill will ensure that there is a body directly elected by the people of London charged with responsibilities for watching over the whole physical environment in the interests of London as a whole and having powers and resources to match its responsibilities. The Greater London Council will be the local planning authority for the Greater London area. The Council will be the traffic authority for the Greater London area. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has reserve powers, but, like reserve powers in other fields, they are for use only in the last resort.
  The Greater London Council will be the highway authority for what are called in the Bill metropolitan roads—that is, the main road system other than

  55
  trunk roads. The Bill makes no alteration in the present system of trunk roads in Greater London, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be discussing with the Greater London Council what changes should be made later and how traffic control functions should be exercised on trunk roads.
  The Greater London Council will be the authority for organising and carrying through systems for housing Londoners outside Greater London and for reserve housing powers inside Greater London.
  Among the other main functions of the Greater London Council will be the control of the main drainage system, the ambulance and fire services, and refuse disposal. The Greater London Council will inherit the South Bank site and buildings and other buildings such as museums which cater for the Metropolis as a whole.
  The second main theme of the Royal Commission and the Bill has two aspects. The first concerns the health of local government and the need to make local government service attractive to men and women of ability, both as elected members and as officers. This implies that each authority should have an adequate range of functions with real responsibility for carrying them out and resources to enable this to be done to a high standard. The second aspect concerns the need to have an effective administration for administering closely linked personal services.
  The Royal Commission's conclusions were that these aims could best be secured in Greater London by concentrating in the hands of strengthened London boroughs all those services which do not need to be handled over Greater London as a whole. The Royal Commission analysed the dangers of the present situation. It described the friction which exists between some growing boroughs and their counties, particularly Middlesex and to some extent Essex.
  The Royal Commission found that the erosion of the powers of the metropolitan borough councils and county districts, which generally occurred only as a byproduct of national policy decisions, taken regardless of their implications for local government or the service of the citizen, had done much damage. Powers that should ideally be under a single
  56
  authority had become separate or, if not separate, remote. Replacements for the vigorous and competent men and women who had been attracted to local government when its powers were greater were becoming harder and harder to find.
  The complexity of local government had produced in the citizen a sense both of fatalism—that nothing would be done, and of apathy—that there was no point in trying. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I am repeating the conclusions of the Royal Commission. [Hon. Members: "Nonsense."] The Royal Commission concluded as follows in paragraph 747:
  "We believe that there is a serious danger that unless local government can be rehabilitated in the way we suggest there will be a drift towards some form of regional administration, with a good deal of intervention by the central Government."
  The Royal Commission went on to state its belief—
  "that it is best to give as much power and responsibility as possible to those who are in the closest touch with the people for whose benefit local government services are provided."
  The Royal Commission made specific recommendations for the administration of the main services. The Bill follows the Royal Commission's general design, except in the case of the borough groupings, and in the pattern of education inside and outside the central area. In the Bill we set out separately the proposals for all the principal local government functions, in Parts II to VIII. Clause 4 provides, that for minor purposes, which generally do not warrant special mention, the borough councils should be treated as if they were county borough councils.
  We are now dealing with services, apart from education, which meet the personal needs of people who, for one reason or another, require help in their personal affairs from the local community—people who are sick, aged, physically or mentally handicapped, mothers and babies, children who are deprived of the benefits of good homes, and families who are badly housed. There is increasing awareness that the services provided to meet these sorts of needs act and react on each other, or should do so, in a way which calls for the closest co-ordination in their administration.
  There is clearly great need for medical officers of health, children's officers,

  57
  public health inspectors, housing officers, health visitors, home nurses and all those whose skill carries them into the homes of the citizens for personal reasons to work as a team under a local authority which has full responsibility for running and developing these services. Admittedly, the increasing need to employ many and varied professional skills and facilities in carrying out these services calls for an organisation through which the authorities are able to command substantial resources. At the same time, it is essential that these personal matters, which bring the individual into direct touch with his local authority, should be administered by those who are closely in touch with local conditions.
  Mr. George Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman apply that argument to the children's services when homes appear to be in one borough but where the problem involved may be in another? How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to improve the position by breaking it up?
  Sir K. Joseph: If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I assure him that I am coming to that. It is imperative that the administration of these services should not become depersonalized—as may happen, however devoted and dedicated the officers and members are, if the organisation becomes too large or too remote. There is, thus, a reconciliation to be made between effectiveness and convenience. We believe that we have made that roconciliation in the Bill by making the boroughs, of a size and structure as set out in the Bill, the primary local government authorities.
  The borough councils will have full responsibility for the personal health services except ambulances; for the welfare service's for the aged, disabled and handicapped; and for the children's services. They will be the principal housing authorities for house building in their areas, and the authorities for sewerage—but not for main drainage—and, in general, will have the normal powers of sanitary authorities under the Public Health Acts. The Greater London Council will have to submit a scheme for the transference of parks catering for local needs to the boroughs; and the boroughs will be the primary authorities for food and drugs.
  58
  I shall now refer briefly to education. I say "briefly" because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will be speaking in the debate tomorrow. The House will recall that the Royal Commission proposed a sharing of responsibilities between the Greater London Council and the boroughs. This seemed to the Government to be undesirable. Given the borough structure and sizes contained in the Bill, the Government are satisfied that the borough councils will be competent to carry the full responsibility of local education authorities, except for a central area where, as the White Paper explained, special conditions require special treatment.
  The present London County Council service is to be taken over by a special education committee of the Greater London Council which will have full powers to run the service as the Inner London Education Authority. There is need, however, to explore fully the possibilities of direct participation of borough councils in the service in this central area, and that will be the principal objective of the review which the Minister of Education is required to carry out.
  There are several services in which the Greater London Council and the boroughs are to share responsibility. In town planning the Bill adopts the line that the Greater London Council's responsibility should stop at the point where the factors involved are local rather than general to the whole of London. Thus the boroughs will prepare—subject to the usual requirements—the local development plans, and present them, filling in the details in the broad strategic plan prepared by the Greater London Council. The Minister will be able to reserve for the Greater London Council the final decision on any planning application which makes a particularly important impact. Regarding roads, the borough councils will be responsible for road maintenance, improvements and construction, except for trunk roads, which will remain with the Ministry of Transport, and metropolitan roads, which will be with the Greater London Council.
  I now turn to the pattern of the new boroughs. Clause 1 and the First Schedule are concerned with this. This

  59
  pattern comprises 32 boroughs, compared with 52 provisionally proposed by the Royal Commission; fewer because we believe that the boroughs should be of a relatively large size to discharge the heavy responsibilities which we propose for them. The boroughs in the Bill have an average population of a quarter of a million and range from 166,000 to 340,000. This is considerably larger than the corresponding figures of the Royal Commission's proposals, where the average was 165,000 with a range of 94,000 to 249,000. Larger units will mean a larger case load for each authority in the personal services, so making specialisation in staff and facilities more efficient and economic.
  We believe that our proposals will provide 32 effective units which will maintain fully adequate standards in the services entrusted to them and which will be virtually self-sufficient for that purpose. One cannot hope for an authority which avoids the disadvantages of remoteness to be 100 per cent. self-sufficient. Thus supplementary or other special arrangements are plainly needed, and the Bill provides for them. For instance, in housing and redevelopment the Greater London Council will be able to come in, subject to certain safeguards, to supplement the boroughs efforts regarding the stimulating of the more massive redevelopment schemes and to help in the redistribution of population which, over the years, will be necessary. But, in the general run of their services, the boroughs will be big and strong enough to provide the entire specialised staff and facilities and so on that will be needed. The smallest London borough will be larger than the average county borough in England and Wales.
  Mr. Albert Evans: What about the City of London?
  Sir K. Joseph: That is not in the Schedule of London boroughs. The largest will be bigger than Nottingham and the average size will be 250,000.
  Mr. A. Evans: Will the City of London be classified as a Greater London borough?
  Sir K. Joseph: It is provided in the Bill that the City of London will formally exercise London borough
  60
  powers by arrangement with neighbouring London authorities. As I said, the average size will be 250,000 and will be bigger than, say, Portsmouth. The London boroughs cannot be wholly self-sufficient, as I said, but the extent to which they will need to look for co-operation to other agencies or local authorities will be marginal compared with the vast span of services which they will be able to provide from their own resources. It is already commonplace, for example, for local authorities to look to co-operation with other authorities for some of the specialised aspects of further education or for accommodation for remand homes or approved schools or with regard to the health and welfare of the multiply handicapped.
  It is inevitable that in some matters the catchment area should be wider than the local authority area, but it would not be proper to adopt the principle that the primary unit should be so large that it can provide from its own resources for every single variety of social need that may arise. To do so would be to conflict with the more important principle that these services need to be conducted by a local authority in as local a way as can conveniently be arranged.
  One field in which there will clearly be need for a fair amount of sharing of accommodation, particularly at first, is the children's service. This arises in large part because so much of the provision of the L.C.C. for its children's service—up to a third, in fact, of the children's home accommodation—is at present provided in five very large L.C.C. homes. As the new boroughs evolve their own facilities to satisfy the needs of the children's service, these very large institutions—which draw children from a wide area, and which, for some time, have been anachronistic—will disappear, but in planning the interim arrangements, every possible effort will be made to safeguard the interests of the children, and I can assure the House that they will not be moved around to produce administrative tidiness.
  The grouping and form of the new boroughs follow precisely the recommendations of the four town clerks—
  Mr. G. Brown: When I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman just now, I understood that he was to speak at length about the children's service. Will he

  61
  tell us why the Government have decided not to do the same sort of thing for the children's service as they have decided to do for education? What arguments led them to decide that it was right to have an inner education authority but wrong to have an inner children's authority?
  Sir K. Joseph: Because it seemed to the Royal Commission and to the Government that the children's service is essentially that sort of personal service that could best be handled by a convenient and effective local authority which can control all or most of the services that need to be considered together when dealing with families whose problems may arise from bad housing, ill-health and from a number of combinations of different circumstances—
  Mr. G. Brown: Does not education so arise?
  Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman refers to education. In all these matters, the Government have to take the balance of advantage. Certainly, in education, the balance of advantage for the outer London area was to give education also to these strong new boroughs. In the inner London area, there was sufficient argument in favour of preserving the single—
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: Under pressure.
  Sir K. Joseph: Obviously, the Government, in coming to their decisions, take full account of the reasonable arguments introduced from outside, but let me make it plain that the Government have always had in mind that these should be a central area for education. The only thing that they have had to consider has been the precise size it should be—
  Mr. G. Brown: Then why not the children's service?
  Sir K. Joseph: Because the balance of advantage for the children in the central area had to take into account the record of cross-use of the education facilities that existed in the central area far more intensely than in the outer area. However, I hope that the House will be satisfied—I have to cover a wide canvas—if this subject is returned to tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education when he opens the debate.
  62
  The children's service—to which, I think, I have given a fair amount of the time available in this speech—will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health when he winds up that debate—
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: On the subject of education, does the balance of advantage in the outer London area cover the whole range of services, including further education?
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes, subject to the normal practice of education authorities, as I understand, to co-operate with their neighbours in some aspects of further education.
  I was saying that the grouping in the Bill follows precisely the recommendations of the four town clerks, following their conference with the local authorities concerned. It is very much to be hoped that all the groups will get together long before the Bill is passed, as some have already been doing, to prepare for the future.
  As these hon. Members on both sides who sit for constituencies in the Greater London area have a special interest in the new structure, the Government think that it would be generally for the convenience of the House if certain key features in the Bill—Clause 1 and the First Schedule—were remitted to a Committee of the whole House. I have, therefore, given notice of a Motion securing just this.
  Naturally, there is the greatest interest in the financial aspects of what is proposed, and there are here several points to bear in mind. First, there is at present in operation in the County of London a scheme whereby the richer authorities help the ratepayers of the poorer authorities, and there is power in the Bill for such a scheme to be provided, covering all or part of the Greater London area. Secondly, there is provision for the ratepayers of Greater London to contribute, over a declining scale and for five years, towards any extra rate burden in excess of a 6d. rate that is thrown on the counties losing their metropolitan fringes as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill. The London boroughs will receive general grant, and, where eligible, rate deficiency grant.
  I now turn to the constitution and elections of the two new kinds of local

  63
  authorities proposed. The Greater London Council will consist of a chairman, aldermen—one to six councillors—and 100 councilors—
  Mr. Pargiter: Why, having regard to this brand-new structure, should we retain aldermen?
  Sir K. Joseph: These are very important local authorities, and the Government thought it only proper to retain what is a feature of local government up and down the country, but the number of aldermen reflects the practice in London rather than the practice elsewhere in the country—
  Mr. Pargiter: What I meant was that, having regard to the much wider area which each council will have to cover, would it not be wiser to have a larger number of elected representatives rather than a number of unelected representatives?
  Sir K. Joseph: The Government thought it proper to give these major authorities the normal organisation of local authorities throughout the country.
  The first election of councillors will be held in April, 1964, and the council will take over its functions in April, 1965. Councillors will serve for three years and will all retire together, so that there will be triennial elections. The initial representation from each borough area on the Greater London Council is set out in Part I of the First Schedule. This initial allocation was arrived at by dividing the electors in each borough by the Parliamentary allocation or quota and using the nearest whole number. The aim is that when the Parliamentary boundaries have been reviewed, each borough should be divided by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary into Greater London Council electoral divisions corresponding, normally, to Parliamentary constituencies but, until that happens, the borough will be a single electoral area as a whole for the number of seats specified.
  The boroughs will be incorporated by Order. The Orders will deal with the naming and division into wards of the boroughs, and on both these matters we shall, of course, have full consultation with the local authorities. The new borough councils, which are to have not
  64
  more than 60 councillors—and, again, one alderman for six councillors—will be elected in May, 1964, and thereafter elections will be held triennially.
  We have taken up the Royal Commission's valuable proposal that the G.L.C. should establish an Intelligence Department, with wide powers to collect the information needed as a basis for planning the London services.
  I should like now to deal with one or two criticisms of our proposals. It is said, quite wrongly, that what we are doing will damage the fine Architect's Department of the London County Council. Nothing could be further from the truth. The G.L.C. will have extensive building responsibility in providing for overspill, in supplementing the boroughs housing efforts, and in carrying out major schemes of redevelopment. Provision is made for it to take over and complete the present L.C.C. programme. The Greater London Council's Architect's Department will be responsible for serving the Inner London Education Authority, and there is here a fine opportunity for carrying forward the very high standards—
  Mrs. Freda Corbet: As far as one can tell with any certainty, the Architect's Department will serve the Inner London Education Area for not more than five years. That is no good at all for keeping the Architect's Department together.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady must recognise that the architectural responsibilities given to the Greater London Council are already very large on the housing, redevelopment and overspill fronts. These, together, will add up to a very large programme. As for the future of the Inner London Education Authority, there will be substantial work to be done in building, since it is bound to go forward at a massive rate. If this is properly handled, I do not think that the hon. Lady is right in anticipating that there will be any danger to the Architect's Department of the London County Council—[An HON. MEMBER: "It has already happened."] An hon. Member says that it has already happened, and I expect that part of the outflow of architects from the London County Council has been connected with the uncertainty aroused by this Bill; but a large part of

  65
  it has been for other reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] The Government regard the preservation of the fine tradition of the L.C.C. Architect's Department as highly important, and I am taking particular care to refer to that in my speech.
  On top of this, the new boroughs will be very much better founded than many of the existing small authorities about Greater London. They will have considerable building programmes and much greater responsibility for planning. There will be enough work to sustain first-class architects and other appropriate professional departments in all these boroughs. All in all, the Bill provides an opportunity for a big step forward in the quality of architectural work by local authorities throughout Greater London.
  Mrs. Joyce Butler: This is a very important matter. What is the reason why architects are leaving not only the L.C.C. Architect's Department but also the Middlesex County Council's department if it is not because of the uncertainty caused by the Bill?
  Sir K. Joseph: I am glad to tell the hon. Lady. She may have noticed that there is, under the present Government, a massive and simultaneous building programme all over the country on every conceivable front, and there is a great deal of professional movement from jab to job going on. Quite apart from that, there have been individual letters in some newspapers indicating that it would be quite wrong to put all the emphasis on the Bill when assessing the reasons for which professionals in some cases have been leaving these two authorities. I refer the hon. Lady to those letters.
  Mr. Carol Johnson: If the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to retain the public service architects and other professional men of the highest possible calibre, is he prepared to write into the Bill firm guarantees that neither in status nor salary will they be prejudiced as the result of this Measure?
  Sir K. Joseph: I am coming to the question of staff movements in a moment.
  As for the second criticism to which I want to refer, it is said that our proposals are far too drastic and that it cannot be necessary to destroy the organisations
  66
  of London County Council and Middlesex County Council and that to do so would have a harmful effect on services. This criticism belittles the magnitude of the problem which London local government faces. The Government believe, and they have the full authority of the Commission for believing, that London government is at the cross-roads. If we cannot find ways within the local government system of coping with the overall London problems, and if we cannot rehabilitate the boroughs, responsible local self-government in the capital with wither. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
  Of course there will be many transitional problems and teething problems.
  Mr. G. W. Reynolds: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what exactly has changed in this respect since 1956? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was at the same Ministry in another capacity in 1956 when Government policy was announced on this matter, namely, that the existing L.C.C. area should remain unchanged. This was announced in a White Paper issued at that time. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that certain things have happened. What has changed since 1956 to require a complete reversal?
  Sir K. Joseph: I went to my present Department only in 1959. The Government announced their conclusion that a Royal Commission was needed to examine the whole problem of local self-government in the Metropolis in 1957.
  I was saying that there will be many transitional and teething problems. The most careful planning will have to be undertaken in advance of handing over, and there will be roughly a year between the creation and full functioning of the new bodies.
  One matter which very much concerns us is safeguarding the interests of the staff. We have now enough agreement among the bodies concerned to warrant the setting up of a commission to watch over staff interests in the period of transition. There are powers for this purpose in the Bill, but we hope to get the commission going on a provisional basis while consideration of the Bill is proceeding. This should assure staffs that their interests will be looked after.
  Mr. Pargiter Mr. Pargiter rose—
  Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry but I cannot give way now. My right hon. Friends tomorrow will deal in more detail with some aspects of the Bill and this evening my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will give fuller treatment to transport, planning and housing, as well as reply to the questions raised.
  This then is the gist of the Bill. A Metropolitan authority to handle Metropolitan needs and 32 strong London boroughs to handle everything else. The reorganisation involved will be great, but the benefits also will be great in matching the local government structure to the physical realities of London as it is, not as it was. Only thus can local government be stronger in future in every way as a democratic institution and as an administrative machine for providing the increasing social services.
  I have spoken, as befits one describing the contents of a Bill, in a low key and technically, but I should like to make two other short references before I close. A campaign has been mounted to represent the Bill as an unnecessary and deliberate attack on existing local authorities, for political motives, and lacking in any real relevance to the needs and facts of London local government services as they are today. I hope that those who are promoting this campaign will have noted that in their general form, development and present content of what the Government propose in principle have been widely acceptable in a large range of responsible quarters. For the critics to continue their negative attitude may well expose them to ridicule.
  On the other hand, we shall welcome all constructive criticism to improve the Bill, which those who have been conducting that campaign are extremely well qualified to employ. We hope that we shall be able to debate the details of the Bill in a calm atmosphere. Those who have been so strongly attacking the proposals claim to love London and to wish to serve it well. Let them see that it is part of that love and part of that service to save all London from the paralysis that must come from an ossified and anachronistic structure of local government. Let them realise that we are all in pursuit of the same end—a London worthy of Londoners.
  68
  I respect the devotion of all, whatever their politics, who have seen this vision and have with much success over the years toiled towards it. Great as has been, and is, the effort of existing authorities to better the conditions of Londoners, the new councils in their new structure will be able more effectively to improve the life of the citizen, to deploy efficiently and humanely for his benefit the increasing services provided, to reconcile the town and its traffic, and create within the years to come, out of the squalor and shapelessness of so much of the past, a new 20th century urbanity worthy of the best in our history. This is the vision that inspires the Bill. This is why I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: The Minister has told us that this Bill has two main purposes. One is to give us a central authority to deal with what he calls the strategic problems of traffic, roads and planning; and the other main objective is to invigorate the life of the boroughs, which he believes will be done by this division into 32 boroughs with an average of 250,000 each. We shall see as the debate goes on how far the Bill succeeds in either of those purposes.
  It is significant, however, that the Minister's statement of purposes began with this rather pedantic drawing-board approach of structure rather than of services. When it came not to how the councils are constructed but to what they actually do—the provision of education, health, welfare, and all the other services—in the main the Minister was on the defensive. He was concerned to show, in the children's service, for example, that the service would not suffer as a result of the changes. What we are entitled to ask, if there is to be all this change, is that it should be shown that there would be some definite improvement in the services, and it is that that the Minister, particularly in the range of human services, has failed to do.
  But let us take the Bill on the Minister's own valuation, that its first job is to provide a strong London authority elected by Londoners to deal with the strategic problems of traffic, roads and planning. Of that closely-related trinity, let us take traffic first

  69
  and see what the Bill provides. It provides that the Greater London Council is to give directions for the control of traffic. It is even to appoint a director of traffic through whom to give them. But then in addition, while the Greater London Council is giving directions, there is power in the hands of the Minister of Transport, first of all to tell the Council what directions it is to give, secondly to countermand any directions it may have given, and thirdly, at specified times, in specified areas and on specified matters, to tell it that it is not to give any directions at all. The Minister says that these are only reserve powers—
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman will know that in my own Departmental sphere I have fairly massive reserve powers over all sorts of housing and water authorities, but I do not remember any record of them having been used.
  Mr. Stewart: I thought the Minister would say that. It is a repetition of what he said in his speech. Let him look at the facts. It does not rest with him as to what use is made of these powers. They are given to the Minister of Transport. Even the present Minister of Transport, modest violet though we know him to be, will not be able to resist this temptation. Indeed, he cannot because metropolitan traffic is of interest to the people of the whole Kingdom. If the Minister is asked, as he can be, in the House, "Why is not this, that or the other done?" he cannot say, "This is not for me; this is the responsibility of the Greater London Council", because he can always be asked, "Why do you not given directions?" For that reason, since the responsibility will be his, the power will be his. The Greater London Council in this respect will be the Minister's office boy.
  This is what the Minister calls, I suppose, to use his phrase, giving people who engage in local government a more rational and satisfying structure in which to work. There is a case for saying that metropolitan traffic and planning are so complicated and centralised that in the end the central Government have got to take the responsibility and give the directions. To judge from the Clauses in the Bill, that is what the Government really believe. If that is what they believe, why do they not say so quite frankly, instead of making this pretence
  70
  that they are giving the Greater London Council something important to do?
  If we turn to planning, it is very interesting to notice how the machinery for town and country planning provided for Greater London is to differ from that outside Greater London. Outside Greater London the procedure for development plans is this. It is the duty of the county or the county borough, first, to conduct a survey, and, on the strength of that survey, to make a development plan. It must consult the smaller authorities in its area about the plan, but the plan cannot be vetoed by those smaller authorities. Then it goes ahead delegating to the smaller authorities the duties of enforcement and of hearing applications. That is a reasonable, common-sense, workable structure.
  Why is the provision made for Greater London so different and so much more complicated? What we find is to happen under the Bill for planning in Greater London is that there is to be, as outside London, a plan and a survey, but the Greater London Council is to make the plan. The survey on which the plan must be based is, save in exceptional circumstances, to be carried out not by the Greater London Council but by the boroughs. It is true that the boroughs in carrying out that survey will have to do it on lines which are directed to them by the Central London Council, and, so that nothing shall he missing, the Minister is to give—this is not a reserve power—directions to the Greater London Council as to what directions it shall give to the boroughs, as to the lines on which the boroughs shall conduct their survey on which the development plan is to be based. This is a quite unique arrangement. What in the world is the sense of it? The Minister said not a word in explanation or justification of it.
  There is the further difference, that beside the main plan made out by the Greater London Council there are to be the local plans. That, so far as it goes, is reasonable enough. But if the Greater London Council considers that any of the local plans deviate from its central plan, that is a matter which the authorities between them, if they cannot agree, can thrust up to the Minister to arbitrate upon. There is no parallel to that outside Greater London.

  71
  Why is the Minister giving himself this extra bit of work? Is he really telling us that the officials in his Department who deal with planning matters are finding time hanging idly on their hands? Are there no undealt-with applications and unconsidered plans on his desk that he should, for no reason that he has given us, complicate planning in Greater London in this manner?
  But a more serious objection with regard to the planning powers is one which the Minister evidently had begun to realise—this was a sign of grace compared with his predecessor's introduction of the White Paper—namely, that if one is really interested in the planning and traffic problems of the Metropolis, one has only to think in terms of a wider area than this Greater London area. There is a map published in The Times this morning showing where the main increases of population are coming. They are not coming either in the Counties of London and Middlesex or in the whole of this Greater London area with which the Bill deals. They are coming in a thick circle all round it, and it is that growth of population that is creating the planning and traffic problems for the Metropolitan and southeastern region as a whole. It is the growth in the numbers of people who live there, many of them still working in Central London, that constitutes the heart of London's traffic problem.
  If one were serious about trying to deal with that problem one would have thought in terms of a regional authority for south-east England; or, alternatively, one would have faced the other solution that is offered, that decisions binding on the counties in that region have got to be made by the central Government. Either of those are arguable propositions, but to create at the cost of all this upheaval an authority whose area is inadequate to deal with planning matters shows a failure to understand the real nature of the problem.
  If the Minister is looking for alternative solutions—he has had several suggestions made to him, none of which his Department, to judge from his and his predecessor's remarks, has properly understood or studied—one of the first essentials of a right solution is some kind of regional authority for the south-east of
  72
  England, and, I believe, ultimately regional authorities for planning purposes throughout the whole country.
  It is not only that the Greater London area as reviewed by the Royal Commission is inadequate for planning purposes. The Government have whittled bits off it since. Bits of Surrey which were in the Royal Commission's recommendations have been chopped off. The Minister always quoted with triumph the Royal Commission whenever he picked on those fragments which the Government still preserved. But let us see what is said on this matter by a body called the Greater London Group. The Minister ought to treasure this Group because it was one of his few friends throughout the whole proceeding. The Greater London Group is composed of economists and sociologists, some of them of considerable eminence, working at the London School of Economics and studying Greater London problems. The Group gave evidence which, I believe, had great weight with the Royal Commission.
  What does the Group say now about the Bill? On this point about cutting out of the Royal Commission's proposals areas of Surrey, it says that the cutting out will seriously undermine the effectiveness of the Greater London Council.
  Of course, we in the House could tell the scholars of the London School of Economics why those areas of Surrey were cut out. It was done in order to placate a sufficient number of hon. Members opposite in order to get them in the Lobby at the right time. We all know that.
  The Greater London Group says also that the powers given to the Minister of Transport will rob the Greater London Council of independence and responsibility. We could tell the scholars why this is done. We all know the Minister of Transport. These are political, not academic, matters. Finally, the Greater London Group tells us—this is significant in view of what the Minister claims for the Bill—that the arrangements for planning under the Bill will be more cumbersome and will give more ground for friction than the present arrangements.
  Thus, the Greater London Group, which started out with such hopes, is looking in bewildered dismay at its

  73
  offspring, But this is the kind of offspring which is produced when academic knowledge, that simple maiden, sallies forth from the London School of Economics and is seduced by the gigolo from Tory Central Office.
  This is a serious matter because it means that in the very department where most was claimed and hoped for the reformation of London's Government, those who have studied the matter most diligently, who were in favour of the Government's general approach at the start, have now come to the conclusion that the Bill is fatally weak in what should have been its strongest suit. We are asked to accept great risks in the human services on the ground that the Bill would solve the planning and traffic problems. Now we find that it will do no such thing.
  Linked with planning and traffic there is the subject which stands, perhaps, half way between the technical and the human, namely, housing. This is a problem of special interest to that part of the area which is now the County of London because the County of London is unique among counties in possessing housing powers concurrent with those of the smaller authorities. For a time, under the Bill, the Greater Landon Council is to have all the powers in housing which the London County Council now has, but it is important to mote that this is only a temporary provision. The purpose and intent of the Bill is that, subsequently, the powers of the Greater London Council will be less than those of the present London County Council. That will be a loss to Londoners in several ways, of which I shall mention two.
  First, when the Bill fulfils its intent and the Greater London Council ceases to be equal to the London County Council in housing, the properties which it will inherit from the London County Council are to be distributed among the various London boroughs. What will be the effect of this? Some of those boroughs will have, in proportion to their population, six times as much housing accommodation available as other boroughs. How is that to be defended on grounds of either justice or efficiency?
  Second, the Greater London Council is being required, under the powers given to it, to build schools, through its
  74
  inner education committee, to provide ambulance accommodation, to build fire stations and to carry out comprehensive development, provided, of course, that it does not interfere with the Minister of Transport's trunk roads in so doing, which will take some working out.
  The Minister must be aware that, if one has to provide schools and fire stations and if one has to carry out schemes of comprehensive development, one cannot proceed without displacing some people from their homes. One cannot do it properly unless one has a pool of housing accommodation over a wide area from which one can draw here one house, there another, suitable to the various needs of the many different people one will displace in carrying out one's duties as a fire authority, an ambulance authority or an education authority.
  Yet the Greater London Council is told that it must be a schools authority and a fire authority, and carry out schemes of comprehensive development, though the housing pool which it will have inherited from the London County Council is gradually to be stripped from it and divided among the boroughs. It is given the duty but it is denied the means. The Greater London Council is, in fact, put in the unenviable position of Shylock, who was asked to exact the pound of flesh without spilling a drop of blood in the process.
  Not only will the Greater London Council have its stare of houses stripped from it but it will not be in a position to add to it unless what the Minister really intends is very different from what the boroughs have been led to suppose. The position of the Greater London Council in regard to building is quite clear. It may build right outside its area. It may not build inside its area without the consent either of the borough in whose area it wishes to build or of the Minister. It will thus be enormously handicapped in doing its job.
  Some boroughs in London are much more fortunate than others in the density of their population and in the intensity of their slum problem. One cannot deal with the housing problem of London unless it is possible sometimes to rehouse people from the more crowded parts in the less crowded parts. We had a clear indication from what the

  75
  hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) said when we debated this matter in February of what would be his view of any request by the Greater London Council to build in the borough in which he is interested. It is that kind of opposition which will confront the Greater London Council.
  The Minister may reply that it is his intention to use his consent freely. He said on a public occasion that he would give massive housing powers to the Greater London Council. Is it his view that, in general, the Council will be building freely inside its own area, whether the boroughs like it or not? I hope that his answer to that question is "Yes". But there are a good many of his hon. Friends who hope that it will be "No", who would welcome any plan to destroy the power of the central authority to carry out rehousing schemes which might not be agreeable to some of the more fortunate boroughs of London.
  All the way through, the Minister is having to walk the tight-rope, pretending to the boroughs that he will give them massive housing powers and, on the other hand, pretending that he will make the Greater London Council a sufficiently effective authority.
  In passing, with reference to the effectiveness of the Greater London Council, I ask this question. If the Minister intends to make it effective for traffic, roads, planning and housing, why has he not put into the Bill provision for the payment of its members? All his talk about wanting to encourage local people to take part in local government will be so much nonsense if this body is really to have the powers he claims for it and have only 100 members while, at the same time, the choice of members is restricted to those who can give all the necessary time without payment. If he claims that there is anything democratic in the Bill, he must put that right.
  I turn now, briefly, as the Minister did, to the function of education. I shall refer to it briefly because we shall debate it more fully tomorrow. I was glad to find that this Minister paid a tribute to the educational work of the London County Council. This is not what Lord Eccles said as Minister when we debated the matter in February. His words were
  76
  quite clear and quite significant. He said that some of his hon. Friends thought that it would be worth almost any cost to get education out of the hands of the London County Council. That is what we are up against. It is no good the Minister making pious pleas across the Floor of the House to us to drop factious opposition when one of his former colleagues made quite clear what was the real motive of this proposal. Let that be quite clear and without any humbug about it. We shall respect the Minister more if he does not pretend to be well-intentioned when we know what his party's attitude is on this matter.
  I turn from that to the actual proposals made for education, first in inner and then in outer London. This Inner London Education Authority is really a remarkable creation, particularly when one remembers that one of the things that the Minister deplored about the set-up of London in the past was the existence of ad hoc bodies. In the Inner London Education Authority he is creating a new one-purpose ad hoc body of the kind that we have not had in education since 1902. The first objection to that body is that it lives from the start under a threat. There is a Clause providing for a review of its work, with the object of destroying it at least by 1970 and cutting up its work among the boroughs. That provision, if the Minister studies it, is so worded as deliberately to tilt the result of the survey. I shall develop that more fully in Committee, and I advise the Minister to study the wording more carefully. The clear implication of that Clause is that the Minister has not to decide whether the service should be broken up but to what extent it should be broken up.
  The body lives under a threat from the start. The Minister cannot pretend that that is the way to encourage a body to do good work. Is not the real object of this to put the body in a difficult position from the start, so that when it has had difficulty in attracting staff and in making long-term plans because it does not know even the length of its life a Minister of Education will be able to say in the future, "It does not seem to be doing very well: we had better cut it up."
  Why, if we are to have a body of this kind, is there to be a special representative on it from the City of London?

  77
  That means that that area, with its 5,000 population, is to be given as much say in the education of inner London as boroughs with 250,000 population. On what grounds does the Minister justify that arrangement other than to give an extra Tory vote on the body? He really must not complain if that kind of criticism is made; there is no other possible reason for doing it. The five thousand people in the City of London are worth, in the Minister's estimation, 250,000 Londoners in any other part.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of or realised the enormous interest of the Corporation of the City of London in education and the great amount of City money spent in education and in the maintenance of schools by the City of London?
  Mr. Stewart: It will continue to exercise that interest and to deal with schools which it has itself created. I am asking why in the democratic structure of public education, which is supposed to be run by a democratically elected body, the vote of somebody in the City of London should be regarded as fifty times as important as the vote of somebody anywhere else. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that it is because they are richer? If that is so, it is a very interesting doctrine.
  There have also to be considered the defects of an ad hoc body of any kind. The Minister waxed at one time almost lyrical on the importance of having the human services in the hands of one authority, but this Inner London Education Authority controls education and has perhaps one foot in the school health service. But the education service works best if it is linked with the health and welfare services which also bear on the children and their home conditions and everything that determines their progress at school.
  Let me quote one example of a rather special kind which illustrates that strikingly. The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) will be interested since he raised it recently in the London County Council. It is the problem of children known as autistic, a special kind of psychological disorder, the real nature of which is still being discovered and diagnosed. Some
  78
  of those children are considered suitable for education at a special school, but some of them have so far been regarded as ineducable and attend a training centre and are therefore the responsibility of the health department of the L.C.C. rather than of its education department. With the advance of medical science it may well be desirable and even necessary to move some of those children from one category to the other. This is happening with autistic children and could happen perhaps time and time again as medical knowledge advances with many other groups of handicapped children. Such transfers can readily be made when the same council controls both the education and the health services. What we are given here, however, is an Inner London Education Authority to control education and be responsible for the health service cut up among the twelve boroughs of inner London. It cannot be pretended that the problem will be better handled in that set-up than in the existing one.
  The Minister had not a word to stay about the really tragic problem of children so severely handicapped as to be ineducable. Yet they highlight the weakness of this set-up. They are the children for whom we should particularly speak in this House, since some of them, in the most literal sense, cannot speak for themselves.
  As to education in outer London, it is the essence of a good education service that it should be able to provide not only the education that every student and pupil needs but, as the years go by, an increasing variety of education to meet demands for the study of a particular subject or language which some pupils may want very much, but only a few want, for the provision of a particular form of technical or professional education that only a few young people may want but want very badly. It is a first principle of local government that it is easier to do that when there is a large authority, because within the ambit of the larger authorities there are enough people having this specialist demand to make it worth while providing for them. But in outer London the county service of Middlesex will perish with the Middlesex County Council; boroughs in Surrey, Kent and Essex will have no county

  79
  service to unite them. It cannot be pretended that they can give a service of the same range and flexibility. The Royal Commission, which the Minister is so fond of quoting, did not pretend that it could. The Royal Commission knew very well that if we had to create a form of local government on this basis we had to make education the responsibility of the Greater London Council. Then it found, of course, that that was too large and was then near to discovering that its terms of reference were inappropriate to the problem which it was supposed to solve.
  I know what we shall be told. We shall be told that the boroughs can make joint arrangements, but that really means that we can have an education service as good as the one we have now only if the boroughs are prepared to surrender the illusion of sovereignty which the Bill presents to them. That is brought out still more when we consider those intensely human services of which the children's service is perhaps the most striking example.
  It is worth noting what the Royal Commission said on this. I do not share the Minister's respect for the Royal Commission or, at any rate, for those parts of its Report which the Government have retained. Its recommendations on education were rubbish, as everyone now knows. Its remarks on the children's service, particularly in the County of London, were slovenly, inaccurate and untrue. It did not know the size of the service. It was quite wrong about its nature. That has been pointed out to the Royal Commission and to the Government, and not disputed, several times, although no member of the Commission has ever had the grace to express any regret for it. It made the mistake of not grasping how varied—
  Sir K. Joseph: I think that the hon. Gentleman is falling below the usual courtesies here. The Royal Commission made one factual mistake which does not alter in any way the conclusions which it drew from its analysis of the children's service.
  Mr. Stewart: If the Minister believes that, he does not know the subject at all.
  The mistake which the Royal Commission made was to maintain that the great
  80
  majority of the children in the care of the Council were there for only a short time. In fact, this is not so. The figures are almost the other way round. The children are there for long stays, and not for short stays, because the domestic problems which took them there are serious, not easily solvable and vary a great deal from one to another. If the service had been what the Royal Commission thought it was, it would have been pretty well a child-minding service that could be done almost as well on a small as well as on a large scale.
  But the problem is that of the child who would be difficult even with the best of parents, the child who has the misfortune to have cruel or feckless parents, the child on whose parents unexpected misfortune has fallen and the child suffering from various kinds of psychological and emotional maladjustment. For children such as these, a great variety of provision is needed. There will not be in each of the London boroughs enough of each type of child for it to be worthwhile making proper provision for him. That was why thirteen out of the fifteen magistrates of the Metropolitan juvenile court wrote to The Times expressing their overwhelming disapproval of the Government's proposals.
  It is worth noticing that there is not any substantial body of expert opinion which supports the Government. Architects—the Minister has not persuaded them of what he was trying to persuade us a little while ago—doctors, magistrates, teachers and child workers with expert inside knowledge of the services which the councils render have pronounced against the Government's proposals.
  I come to the problem of running the children's service when it is cut up among the boroughs. The new Borough of Finsbury and Islington will have 1,100 children in its care and 75 beds for them. The new Borough of Stepney, Bethnal Green and Popular will have 1,200 children and 60 beds. This is the situation which will come about on 1st April, 1965.
  The stock answer to this is, "They must be modern. They must find foster parents for all the children". That was the answer given in February. But it is not very much in touch with modern thought. We know that foster parents

  81
  are by no means the answer in a great many cases. They are suitable for some children, but they are not suitable for a great many children. Even if they were, would it be possible to find that number of foster parents in the area of the new Borough of Finsbury and Islington, an area with as many children in its care as the City of Liverpool and one-seventh of the area of the City of Liverpool?
  It is that sort of fact which makes nonsense of comparisons between a crowded London borough and a provincial city. The Minister compared a London borough with Portsmouth. That is what comes of bringing up the Town Clerk of Portsmouth to help adjudicate on London's problems. Let the Minister get maps. The old Lord Salisbury used to say, "I wish people would use large maps". If the Minister did that, he would not compare Finsbury and Portsmouth, as though their problems were similar.
  I take another example of a human service—the welfare service. We know the problems of the homeless. The Minister sometimes lectures the L.C.C. on the things that it could do. It could look all round its area for property to buy up. Does he really think that that will be better done if there are twelve local authorities in that area or, over the whole of Greater London, 32 all trying to buy properties in competition with one another? The L.C.C. is considering using disused liners for the homeless. This is a very promising idea, and I hope that the technical problems and difficulties of it can be overcome. Is it imagined that one London borough will take on an undertaking of that magnitude, or are we to be told again that, once we have cut up the L.C.C. and Middlesex County Council welfare services, the boroughs can sit down and negotiate until they have created a joint authority? Can it really be advanced as a justification for breaking something that it is possible to put it together again? That is what a great deal of this argument on health and welfare amounts to.
  Another example in the welfare services concerns a different kind of homeless—not homeless families, but homeless men on their own, such as those who come to the reception centre in Camberwell. In 1961, 7,000 people
  82
  were received there. In 1962, the number is 9,000 to date. Who are the extra 2,000? They are not elderly men battered by an unequal struggle with a life with which they cannot cope. The increase is due to young men coming down from the North, fleeing from unemployment and seeking work in the Metropolis. They are literally tramping down here, because when they get to the reception centre the first place to which they go is the medical quarters for attention to their feet. Overhanging the metropolitan welfare services are the shadows of the policies of the Minister's colleagues. Some of these men perhaps are following the advice of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to people without work in the north-east of England.
  Under this set-up, who will look after that centre? One thing which is certain from the Bill is that the Greater London Council will not. Will the new Borough of Camberwell, Bermondsey, and Southwark have to take the responsibility for that service? Will it have to write to the other boroughs and say, "Please help us"? Will the City of London lend a hand? The Government have not thought of the answer.
  Sir Leslie Plummer: It is extremely unlikely that the City of London would help, because at the moment its welfare officer is part-time unpaid.
  Mr. Stewart: The essence of the matter is that we have here not a Camberwell problem, now hardly even a London County Council problem, although at the moment the London County Council does the job, but a metropolitan problem, because to the capital come so many people in these personal difficulties. The Minister has destroyed whatever there was of central organisation to deal with it.
  What justification are we given for cutting up the health, the welfare and the children's services? We are given the very jejune argument from the Royal Commission that it is a good thing to concentrate the education, the health and the children's services—and, the Minister said, the education service as well, but he had to half-swallow that bit because that is not being done under the Bill in inner London—in one authority, an

  83
  authority described as a strong, vigorous borough, so that there would be what the Royal Commission called a clinical team working together in these problems.
  What the Minister might have told us was that, having developed that argument, the Royal Commission said that to reap the advantage of that arrangement the boroughs should be kept below 200,000 people. The Government, however, then took the decision that nearly all the boroughs should be above 200,000 people; that is to say, they have thrown into the wastepaper basket the Royal Commission's argument in this respect. So we should not hear any more of that.
  Have the Government, on the other hand, made the boroughs big enough? I am, perhaps, a prejudiced judge, but The Times, commenting on the debate in February, said that the case-load in the proposed boroughs in the health and welfare services would be too light. The Government, therefore, have produced something that is too large for the teamwork argument and too small to give the really varied service that is needed in health and welfare.
  I believe that in the health and welfare services the counties and the smaller authorities could play a part. Indeed, had it not been for the action of the Government, an agreed scheme of devolution between the counties and the smaller authorities would have been operating in London seven years ago. The essence of a right solution to the problem is a regional authority for planning related matters, the maintenance of the county structure for education and the human services and a larger degree of devolution, particularly in the health and welfare services, to the smaller authorities. That is the essence of a right solution.
  The Government's solution is weak in the very suit where it should be strong. For the human services, the best they can say is that if there is a desperate effort on the part of the boroughs to try and knit themselves together again, the results will, perhaps, not be as bad as some of us have feared. It is for a shoddy thing like that that financial anxieties are to be placed upon the surrounding severed counties and all the staffs concerned are to be faced with anxiety and there is no guarantee of any-
  84
  thing whatever for them in the Bill. There is only a possibility. In the Bill, they are at the mercy and the discretion of the Minister.
  This thing cannot last, because in the treating of the human services it will either degrade the services to a point which public opinion will not permit or it will escape that by knitting the boroughs so closely together that the whole idea of the independent borough of the proposed size will disappear, or the powers of the Greater London Council will gradually eat up and overshadow those of the boroughs. It cannot last also because it is inadequate in area and in powers and in simplicity for the planning problems, where its chief merit is supposed to lie. Nor can it last because the Government who are bringing it forward not only lack support for these proposals, but, as we saw on 22nd November, the very day the Bill was published, lack the support of people in every part of the country for almost every one of their policies. In view of that, we believe that this job should fall to be recast by a Government which will have in mind the real needs of planning, which the Government have funked, and the real needs of the human services, which they have despised.
  6.5 p.m.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I am grateful that I should have caught your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, not least because this is the first time since leaving the Government that I have spoken from the back benches. I cannot think of a more important topic, in which my own constituency and local authority area are concerned, to have broken that year of silence.
  First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessors on the courage with which they have tackled what everybody knew would be a most controversial topic. Nobody ever introduced legislation to alter boundaries or functions of local authorities without their being rows about it, and I do not think that any Government ever will.
  Nevertheless, the Government are to be congratulated on having tackled this long outstanding and overdue problem of the government fitted to the modern age and the vastly increased population and problems of London. I believe that basically the scheme that is embodied in the Bill

  85
  is the right one, which, after whatever teething troubles there may be, will give London and the outer areas of Greater London sound and responsible local government for many generations to come.
  Basically, I support wholeheartedly the basis of the Greater London Council and also of the enlarged boroughs. I believe that these boroughs will be set up of a size and authority to encourage responsible local government and civic pride and interest in them. I welcome most particularly the new functions which are to be allocated to them.
  I have never seen any logic in the argument of hon. Members opposite, or, indeed, in the argument advanced in many aspects by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), that whereas it is perfectly right and proper for many boroughs, some of them ancient, some not so ancient, and some of them of only 50,000, 60,000. or 100,000 people, to be thought to have citizens and to be able to provide elected members who are capable and responsible to deal with the vital social problems, be they education, welfare or maternity and child welfare, when one comes to the very politically-conscious area of London and the Home Counties, our citizens, our elected representatives and vast boroughs—which, in this case, will range from upwards of 200,000 to about 300,000 people—are considered to be incapable of doing a job which so many other areas elsewhere in the country so satisfactorily carry out.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The argument that the right hon. Lady is criticising is not based on the political competence of the citizens. It is due to the fact that a London borough and a provincial city are not comparable. If the right hon. Lady is interested in the argument, she will find it cogently stated in, I think, paragraph 18 or 19 of the Government's White Paper issued last year.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I still do not believe that the functions which are to be allocated to these boroughs are beyond responsible authorities. Particularly do I believe that there will be an enormous advantage to the ordinary citizen in being far more closely in contact, and able to be in contact, with his local authority than he is at the moment
  86
  when he tries to get in touch with a responsible body at so vast an organisation as the London County Council.
  There is not a Member in this House from London and the out-counties who has not had experience of frustrated constituents who have come to him about, it may be, housing, or, it may be, the care of an old mother, and who have said, "Time and time again we have tried to see somebody about it and we were not very lucky. We did not get past the clerk to the clerk"—who is under the regional officer who is under the director. Our citizens are frustrated because of the difficulty of getting through all the vast omnibus arrangements of the L.C.C., and that is why so many of our local citizens come to their Members of Parliament; they are in desperation because they cannot get near their councillors, their elected representatives.
  My constituents who are residents of an L.C.C. housing estate have the utmost difficulty, but When they want to see the housing manager about a local council house, or if they want to complain about any local services supplied by the Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council, they have no difficulty in seeing the council's officers at all.
  Mr. Pargiter: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we all meet these sort of complaints, that people cannot get past the clerks in, say, the housing officer's department of a local authority? Many people who are frustrated are properly the responsibility of local authorities, not the London County Council.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I cannot accept what the hon. Member has said, because I have had considerable experience of this, both when I was in office and also in my own constituency.
  I believe that, particularly with their new functions, the boroughs will draw on people of responsibility, and people who will feel that they really have an opportunity of acting in the best interests of the people they represent in their local community.
  The hon. Member for Fulham made great play about the Greater London Council's not really having any responsibility for traffic planning because of the reserve powers of the Minister. Really,

  87
  does he suggest that because the Minister of Transport has laid down the overall plan for the M.1 every authority bordering that great new highway has lost all its powers and all its efficiency? Of course there will be the major, overriding schemes which will call for decisions by the Minister, but I believe that it is vitally important that, with this enormous conurbation of people in and around London, we should have one great central traffic authority which can deal with the Home Counties and across London, south and east and west. In the same way, I believe, drainage, refuse disposal, the fire brigade, and matters of that kind are very properly to be the responsibility of the Greater London authority.
  I have one or two issues to raise with the Minister. I hope that I have made it plain that my local council has throughout supported and still supports the overall principle of the Greater London plan I raise, first, a point which is of importance locally and which I do not think is adequately covered by the Bill. We have within my constituency, which is identical with the area of the Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council, Chislehurst Common, which is protected under an Act of Parliament of 1888. It is magnificently looked after and preserved in the best interests of the entire public as a free and open beauty spot. There are no gates, no fences; it is quite free and open for pedestrians to enjoy the quiet and beauty of this beautiful spot.
  The common is looked after by the Chislehurst and St. Paul's Cray conservators, most of whom act under what is known as the Kent Review Order of 1934, and are appointed by the local council. That area not only serves the residents of Chislehurst, but those on its borders, and it serves a very large number of children on the St. Paul's Cray Estate. It is a haven for playing "cops and robbers" and Red Indians, and for climbing trees, catching tiddlers in the ponds, and for sailing boats. We do not see in the Bill any real safeguard of the future of this area. I see that under Clause 81 the Minister has power to revoke any Act. I hope that he would not find it necessary to do so in this
  88
  case, because of the admirable manner in which the common is looked after at present.
  Further to that, at present a precept is provided from the Chislehurst and Sidcup Council's rates to provide the conservators with the money required to preserve this great beauty spot. Whereas the liabilities of an authority can be taken over by the new borough, I am not wholly satisfied—and more astute legal brains than mine have advised me—that the new authority into which we shall be going will be empowered to take over the responsibilities for the common under the 1888 Act and the Kent Review Order, and that it will be able to provide the necessary money. If my hon. Friend would look into that point and give an assurance he would give very great satisfaction to the very many of my constituents who are concerned about the future of the common.
  There is another detail, though it is no detail to my constituency, which I would urge upon my hon. Friend and the Minister in what I believe is the arbitrary splitting up of the local authority area of Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council. All local authorities had to take on very great burdens after the war in rebuilding, and in readjustment of local areas. The Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District Council, I have no hesitation in saying, is an extremely efficient and responsible local authority. Not only did it accept the carrying out of the responsibilities thrust upon it in the post-war years, but it also accepted other great responsibilities when the new London County Council St. Paul's Cray Estate, practically a township, was built, and when there came into the area about 200 persons a week, and for whom my local authority was responsible—apart from the houses. This area has been most successfully integrated into northwest Kent.
  Further to that, my right hon. Friend—his Department, at any rate—will remember the uproar there was at the proposal to house gypsies at Corkes Meadow. In spite of the fact that the land that they occupied had been sealed under a compulsory purchase order by the L.C.C., which wanted to build on it, it was my local authority, recognising with great humanity the gravity of this

  89
  problem, which provided 108 houses there. Despite considerable criticism from local people, the council met the situation.
  Therefore, I feel I have every right to plead for what is a thoroughly responsible local authority which is arbitrarily treated by the boundary arrangements in the Bill. I believe that it has been arbitrarily treated, and as they are now proposed to be carved up between Group 18, which consists of Bexley, Erith and Crayford, and Group 19, which consists of Bromley, Beckenham, Penge and Orpington, I must ask my right hon. Friend to consider what a disastrous effect this will have on an efficient local authority and on my constituency area in general.
  The council had never challenged the principle of the Greater London plan, as a whole. It had never challenged the reasonableness and correctness of larger borough authorities being formed, and had not doubted that that would be in the best interests of Greater London and, in this case, the north-west Kent area. With our proximity to London and having two L.C.C. estates in our midst, with thousands of residents commuting daily to London, my council approached the matter without prejudice despite the passionate pride of its members in being born "Men of Kent".
  The Royal Commission originally suggested that we should be linked with Orpington. I will not digress into that, because I know that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) wishes to put forward his own council's recommendations on that. The Government then decided that we should have units of 200,000 population, and because they thought that the link with Orpington would provide too small a unit, they rearranged matters so that we should be linked with Bexley, Erith and Crayford.
  Protests immediately poured in, the first ones which I received coming from teachers' organisations and chambers of commerce. The reaction was not confined to my own constituency, or to our local authority area. Erith and Crayford made it quite plain that they thought that it was a lunatic arrangement, and they did not want us in their midst.
  The Minister instituted an inquiry to receive recommendations and observations from the various authorities con-
  90
  cerned—the inquiry of the four town clerks—and Bexley, Erith and Crayford agreed that Bexleyheath was the core and centre of their area and that it was right and proper that Bexley, Erith and Crayford should be joined together. In fact, it was something which they had strongly supported for 15 years, and 15 years ago they had tried to get a Parliamentary Bill to form themselves into one borough. But they strenuously opposed the addition of Sidcup and Chislehurst to their area, because that was unnecessary to make up the minimum population required by the White Paper and also they had no compatibility with any area lying south of the A.2 road. I quote the Report of the inquiry because hon. Members opposite always see political motives in everything that we do. But here was a notoriously Left-wing council saying that it did not want to be wedded to an area which had a small Conservative majority.
  There was considerable protest against our being thrown into Group 18 against all historical and administrative links, and it was pointed out that traditional links would be preserved between Chislehurst, Sidoup, Orpington and Bromley by our being linked with Group 19. We have no community of interests or contacts with Erith and Crayford, and we have had very little, except on one northern boundary, with Bexley. Historically and socially, and for every single administrative function where local authorities co-operate, we have been for a century, and are still, linked with Bromley and Orpington—in matters of health, child care, education, ambulance and fire services, petty sessions, the Metropolitan Water Board, town planning and in respect of the joint medical officer of health. For every one of those functions this area has been, and still is, linked with Group 19. I beg my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter before we roach the Committee stage of the Bill.
  The case is overwhelming: I will not now go into the long and very detailed representations which I have had from five residents' associations and from both the northern associations which are geographically nearer Bexley than the southern ones. But all of them are absolutely convinced that this is the wrong decision.
  Sir K. Joseph: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can say whether any of the representations she has received are based on a fear that there may be an interruption to, as it were, free trade in education, because I hope that she knows that the pattern of school use will not, in fact, be altered by these boundaries. Therefore, I shall be grateful to know whether this has been an element in the representations.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: Certainly, education has been one of the elements in the representations because of the division which ultimately came out of the inquiry by the four town clerics, when they sliced my urban district in half and put one half, that south of the A.20, into Group 19, with Bromley, and the half north of the A.20 into the Bexley, Erith and Crayford group. The teaching profession thinks that the area has been split very disastrously. Because of time, I do not want to go into the many details of the representations I have had from the point of view of education, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that he will get them during the Committee stage. But I also assure my right hon. Friend that that is not the whole basis of the protest.
  We were originally carved out of the Bromley area when Foots Cray and Chislehurst were made urban districts. We are associated with them in practically every aspect of our local government life, whether it concerns health, child care, education, or fire brigade and ambulance services. We look south and not north to Thamesside. Our colleagues in Erith and Crayford have been perfectly frank in stating that they have no tradition of contact or association with us. They tend to have contact east and west of their area rather than south below the A.2 road.
  I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise that it is strongly felt in my constituency that this is an arbitrary and grossly unfair carve-up. It is known as "The Great Divide" throughout the constituency. I do not believe that any other authority which is large enough to go into one area as a unit is being divided in two like this. I do not believe that any other education executive is being split like Orpington and Chislehurst; if we went completely
  92
  into Bromley, that would be preserved as a complete entity in the group.
  I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to reconsider the matter, not least because of the argument put forward by Erith and Crayford that, although they may now represent only about 166,000 population when linked with Bexley, they will have an influx of 25,000 people as a result of a new housing estate, the plans for which have already been passed by the London County Council and are now before the Kent County Council for planning permission; and there will thus be 25,000 more people coming on to the Belvedere Marshes in Erith and Crayford.
  While I accept that, on the existing figures, my right hon. Friend may feel that there is an unreasonable disparity and that Bromley would be brought up to 300,000 and the others to 170,000, I hope that he will bear in mind that there will be 25,000 more people on this estate in five or six years. I beg my right hon. Friend to look at this again in order that a good area, admirably served by a very fine local authority, is not split into directions with which it has no affinities. Our affinity is with Bromley.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Having had some long experience of county council and non-county borough government, I shall not be accused, I hope, of having too much hindsight and too little foresight in my criticisms of the Bill in its present form. We are all, I believe, concerned for genuine, good local government, and I think that goes for both sides of the House. I do not believe that we object to modifications which are obviously necessary from time to time in the general overall pattern of local government, but the criticism levelled at some of us is that we are against change. That is not true, and it is certainly not true of my own county council in relation to the county districts.
  Indeed, had it not been for the Government's decision in 1957 to stop the efforts the county council and the county districts were making, we in Middlesex might well have reached an amicable solution of our problems of local government which would have been to the general benefit of the county.

  93
  Instead, we now have a somewhat disgruntled population—a disgruntlement caused by the Government's new proposals.
  A number of boroughs in Middlesex were happy to think, on their first understanding of the proposals of the Royal Commission, that they would be big fish in little seas, but they now find that they are to be rather smaller fish instead. They do not like the proposals as much as they did before. This is the inevitable result of having accepted the idea that the Middlesex County Council should no longer function. Many of the boroughs said that they would prefer it to continue to function, at least for certain services, and they are mainly opposed to the creation of the Greater London Council for services which need to be administered over a wider area. I do not propose to range over those parts of the Greater London area outside Middlesex, and I shall confine my remarks to the area where I know some of the difficulties.
  The right hon. Gentleman used one phrase which puzzled me. He said that the Bill was designed for the rehabilitation of the boroughs. That was a most peculiar phrase. One thinks normally in terms of rehabilitation of a problem family, or something of that kind. Every one of the districts I know in Middlesex, and outside, would resent any suggestion that they are in need of rehabilitation and are not capable of exercising their functions, with neither the members nor the officers able to carry out their duties properly, even under the present structure, although much could be done to improve it.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman at some stage will withdraw that phrase and use a rather happier term in its place which would at least pay some regard to the fact that the boroughs and county districts are, in the main, efficient bodies within the limitations imposed by law. Very often they feel that were it not for limitations also imposed by the Minister they would be able to do much better.
  Sir K. Joseph: I was referring to the limitations imposed by the structure. I was careful to pay tribute to the ability and enthusiasm of members and officers of the local authorities.
  Mr. Pargiter: I am glad to have that confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman,
  94
  because in his speech the emphasis seemed to be rather the other way.
  Reference has been made to the present proliferation of local authorities in the Greater London area and the necessity to tidy them up. But from what I gather, in Middlesex we look like getting rid of a proliferation of local authorities only to have instead a proliferation of joint boards. If I were to have one or the other, I would prefer local authorities to joint boards. If there is one sort of local government which is most invidious from the point of view of democratic control, it is the joint board, which owes its authority to no one when it comes to the administration of a particular job, since once a local authority hands over a function to a joint board all it has to do is provide the money. It has little positive to say or do beyond that, for the joint board takes little notice of it.
  We want to know much more fully what the proposed staff commission is to do. I understand that it will be able to give advice but that it will not interfere with the free choice of a local authority in appointing its officers. It will be interesting to see how the interests of the staff can be properly protected against a background of the commission. Certainly staffs generally will not be satisfied to be left in the air on this matter, and this, of course, will apply particularly to county staffs, who are further from the seats of power, as they will be, in the new boroughs. In fact, it may well be that although better people are available from the old county authority, with a wider knowledge of services, they will be passed over in favour of local appointees because of local influences. We should like more information about this.
  Another factor is that the Royal Commission reported that the joint appointment of officers was a bad thing and would not work. That was not quite a correct interpretation. It had been suggested that the joint appointment of medical officers as between boroughs and counties did not work at all well. Now there are suggestions that the work of two children's officers in Middlesex and London will be done by the twenty-one new authorities—presumably each with its children's officers. When we point out that it is doubtful whether the officers of the calibre required will be

  95
  readily available to begin with, and also that the number of children in care, at least in some of the boroughs, hardly justifies the appointment of a first-class children's officer and the staff required, we are told that there can be joint appointments.
  The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that a joint appointment is good for one purpose and bad for another. The answer is that joint appointments are not good generally. Quite apart from the human point of view, this is an argument for putting the children's service over an area not less than the existing county and not breaking the service up in the way proposed.
  The same might be said about welfare. There are aspects of welfare work which are becoming increasingly important and increasingly difficult to handle efficiently even with the present size of authorities responsible for them. I have in mind the special facilities for certain types of handicapped persons. Special vehicles are provided to take these handicapped persons to centres occasionally—we cannot do it often for many of them—so that they can mix with other people and have opportunities for entertainment and so on. However, those vehicles are expensive in money and staff and I challenge the boroughs to provide that sort of service for a limited number of handicapped persons. That is quite apart from the special problems of the blind and others who are best dealt with over wider areas than now envisaged.
  No doubt we shall be told that these things will be done by joint arrangements. Every difficulty that crops up is to be a matter for joint arrangements, but if joint arrangements are to be substituted for direct control by an elected body, I still prefer the elected body to joint arrangements. We must have some more information about how the Government propose to handle some of these problems.
  There is another aspect of the welfare services which also gives cause for concern. Because of the reluctance of regional hospital boards to accept into hospital people who are not sick all of the time—what might be called the
  96
  semi-chronic sick, to coin a phrase—an increasing number of people—for instance, those who are in bed for a couple of weeks and then able to get up for a short time—are coming into the care of welfare authorities, who are having to make increasing provision for them. These people are almost hospital cases and require nursing services and ground floor accommodation or the installation of lifts and so on, all of which makes this sort of service increasingly expensive.
  I am sure that a similar case can be made about welfare services for the elderly. There is no doubt that the care of old people in their own homes can be well administered at borough level and can be handled with perhaps a greater degree of humanity, which is what we are concerned about; but many of the people to whom we try to give some sort of community life would sink back to where they were if they had to depend on the services which the boroughs could provide, which would probably be only occasional visits when much more is required. Perhaps we can be told something more about how this service is to be operated.
  There is a general lack of faster parents. Foster parents are regarded as the best form of handling many children, orphans and others who are not able to return to their parents. Foster parents are not only a relatively cheap method of dealing with these children, but provide a means for giving children the sort of home life which they ought to have. In Middlesex, we already complain of the competition from London County Council for foster parents in Middlesex. This is competition between two large authorities. What will happen when the boroughs are competing with one another? It may be that in areas where it is more difficult to provide foster parents the boroughs will be scouting around to see what can be found. The rivalry may lead to some ill-feeling between the boroughs, even though it is absolutely necessary that the maximum number of foster parents should be found. I mention that not as a vital issue but as just one more of the things which is likely to happen.
  I hope that we shall be given some sort of statement about the future of water supplies. I appreciate that for various reasons this subject is not

  97
  included in the Bill. If it is proposed to deal with London's water supplies comprehensively, I hope that some hint will be given, for many of us would welcome such a proposal. It is not a matter of dying in the last ditch for the Metropolitan Water Board, but if the Metropolitan Water Board is to be singled out, then many of us will have something to say, whereas some of us would feel that a proposal for dealing with London's water services comprehensively and as a unit would be constructive.
  Those are some of the subjects which are allied to the changes in local government. Another concerns the set-up of the administration of justice. We know that there have been talks, but the House ought to know not only how the main provisions are to be operated, but how the ancillary provisions which make up the whole are to be organised. We would like to be able to consider all the functions, and for that purpose we would welcome some statement on the other services which are not covered by the Bill.
  I should also like to know more about the intentions towards, say, Middlesex County Council as a river board. One does not think of the Greater London area very much in terms of rivers, but there are important waterways which perform important functions of drainage and so on for large areas. We ought to know precisely what future organisations are proposed for rivers and streams in Middlesex and elsewhere in lieu of the county council.
  One of the big problems is that further education, for example, cannot be handled on the basis of small authorities. It cannot be done even with boroughs of 200,000 and 300,000 if the specialist services, especially technical education, are to be provided over a wide range of further education. Over the years it has been necessary for the home counties to have a joint consultative committee for the establishment of technical colleges and to agree on the specialist subjects to be taken at individual colleges.
  What is the point of handing over these functions to even smaller authorities, especially when the present establishment operates without interfering with the overall rights of any particular education authority? At present, there is con-
  98
  sultation about whether a particular college with a bias towards building should be sent up here, one with a bias towards engineering there, another with a bias towards electrical engineering elsewhere, none of them able efficiently to cover all those subjects at once.
  How many colleges will there be in the outer London areas able to provide sufficient services themselves? If they are not to provide them themselves, how are they to run? Is there to be another joint board, or is there to be consultation? Will one college take students from another area and, if that is the case, will students be taken into one college from another area only if there is room for them, or after one borough has taken in as many students from its own area as it wants? How will accommodation be allocated? Those are questions to which we want answers before we can agree to these proposals.
  In the present distribution of the new proposed boroughs in Middlesex I find that in No. 24, which includes part of Surrey, there are one technical college and two special day schools. In Division No. 25—Brentford and Chiswick, Heston and Isleworth and Feltham—there will be two technical colleges and four special day schools. In the whole of Division No. 26 —Uxbridge, Hayes, Ruislip-Northwood, Yiewsley and West Drayton, a huge area—they have neither technical colleges nor special day schools. What will happen here? They have one residential special school in that area. In Acton, Ealing and Southall, they have three technical colleges and three special day schools between them. In Wembley and Willesden, again a very large area, there are only two technical colleges and two day special schools. Harrow has only one technical college and one day special school. It is interesting to note that it is not many years ago that Harrow, which is left intact, fought very hard, through many of its residents, against even having municipal borough status, because they thought that it would put up the rates.
  The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): It is my intention tomorrow, if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, to say something about the Middlesex special schools, both day and boarding schools, because I know that some special problems are involved.
  Mr. Pargiter: I hope that the Minister will also have something to say about technical education in Middlesex, where there is equally a problem.
  I have referred largely to the technical colleges. As for residential special schools, there is only one in the county of Middlesex, and the county administers 10 outside Middlesex. What is to happen to those? Who will have them? We shall certainly require an answer tomorrow, not only about what is happening to technical colleges but also about what is happening to residential special schools.
  So much for education. All that can be said is that there is a fond hope by the Minister that there will be a measure of co-operation between the boroughs for the administration of the services. We shall see what co-operation there is. If there are any school places left after they have dealt with people in their own area, somebody outside may have them—and I hardly see that as the right setting.
  I should like to look at the special provision of welfare, the number of homes in the various areas and what they represent. If we take the Twickenham area for welfare and express the total number of beds as a percentage of the current requirements, we find that it is 127 per cent. In other wards, in the area they have a little vacant space—27 per cent. more than they need. If we look at Division No. 25—Brentford and Chiswick, Heston and Isleworth and Feltham—they have 105 per cent.; they can deal with their problems plus a little more. In Hayes and Harlington, Ruislip-Northwood, Uxbridge, and Yiewsley and West Drayton, in spite of their difficulty about technical education, the number of homes represents 214 per cent.
  In Acton, Ealing and Southall, where there are more people, there are only 42 per cent. of the requirements. In Wembley and Willesden there are only 60 per cent. of the requirements within the area, and Harrow has only 27 per cent. of its requirements in the area. In the Division including Finchley, Hendon and Friern Barnet, it is 138 per cent. In Hornsey, Tottenham and Wood Green there is only 11 per cent. of the current requirement of total bed accommodation in the area. Where will they go for the
  100
  rest? In Edmonton, Enfield and Southgate they have 72 per cent., which may not be regarded as too bad.
  What sort of arrangement can be reached which will be equitable between these boroughs? I am not dealing with fancy figures, but with the facts as they are, and at some stage somebody must deal with this matter not in terms of rhetoric but in terms of facts as they are, and must find a solution to these problems.
  This gives a total of 51 homes, 11 not yet completed. There are also 24 welfare homes outside the county which are administered by the county. Where are they to go, how are they to be allocated and to whom? This includes three in Potters Bar, which are transferred to Hertfordshire, and three in Sunbury-on-Thames, which are transferred to Surrey. I do not know what will happen to those.
  The important point is that when a county is looking at its service it provides the service very often where it best can. It is no accident that in the heavily built-up areas it has not been possible to provide new welfare homes. They are not available. The county has to look for its premises where it can get them. We must bear in mind that for a long time it has been prevented from building any new homes and has had to adapt existing buildings. This can be done only where there are fairly large houses adaptable for the purpose. This does not ease the problem which we face nor does it ease the problem in the built-up areas which must provide services for themselves. Where will they find the buildings or the space to build in their own areas in order to provide a full welfare service?
  The same story can be told about the children's service, but I will not go into the details. One of the vital features of a children's service is that one must have a reception centre to which the children can be taken and where they can be cared for, given medical attention and given the attention necessary to indicate exactly what should be done with them. Many of them are problem children or children who go into the care of the county council from magistrates' courts. There are highly qualified officers available at these centres who are capable of assessing the children and deciding those who might best be sent to foster parents,

  101
  those who might best be put into one of the county council's smaller homes, and those who need to go into one of the larger homes. How on earth shall we overcome the problem of separate boroughs running efficient reception centres for the admission of children? How can they all run efficient baby nurseries—and this is a most important point, because of the need to handle children in such a way, for instance, as to avoid the spread of infection? It is an expensive part of the children's service. In spite of the population figure of 200,000 or 300,000, I venture to suggest that the job cannot be done as well as it is being done in the Middlesex area by the present authority. Moreover, boroughs in the past have recognised this and have been prepared to accept it. They have regarded the children's service as a service which is better handled over the wider area.
  On all these functions it is important that we should have much more detail than a rather general statement, because they must be sorted out in Committee. Another service affected is the Mental Health Service. Looking at the distribution of this service in Middlesex at present—to a large extent it is a developing service as a result of the last Mental Health Act—I cannot conceive that the boroughs themselves, individually, can handle the wide variety of services which will be required in order to deal with the problem of mental health. It is impossible for them to do so, where they may have half-a-dozen people requiring a particular type of treatment and half-a-dozen requiring another type of treatment, and some requiring to be kept in hostels; in many cases it may be desirable for them to be in hostels but the facilities do not exist in the area where they live. It may be desirable for them to be elsewhere. How on earth are we to deal with this sort of thing? I leave it to the Minister to give us a little more guidance as to how these services are to he run, not only efficiently but also with the humanity which will be necessary to give us the service which we require.
  I have dealt with what I think are the necessary parts of the service. I want now to deal with one or two general matters. We have heard much of the general idea of bringing local government nearer to the people. There is one service which it has been decided will
  102
  go to the Greater London Council but which is very much a personal service. I refer to the emergency ambulance service. There are sometimes complaints now that it is remote. How much more remote will it be under the Greater London Council? I personally think that there is a case for dividing the ambulance service. There is a case for the hospital ambulance service being made the function of regional hospital units. There is a case for the emergency ambulance service being the responsibility of boroughs. That is where complaints arise.
  There are complaints—sometimes justified, sometimes not justified—of delay in arriving at accidents. If complaints of delays have to filter through to the Greater London Council before they are dealt with and then come back again, they will be lost sight of in the process. Such a service, which is essentially personal, should be brought nearer to the people rather than taken farther away. I should like some thought to be given to the general question of the whole function of the ambulance service, with a view to finding whether the form of service which exists at present is the most efficient.
  I want to say something about the question of bringing local government to local level. At the Royal Commission we were told that the important thing is to bring all the services together, as far as that is possible, for the benefit of the people. We were told that the town hall is the natural centre. Therefore, we are to take the town hall farther and farther away from an awful lot more people. That is exactly what we shall do, unless we keep the same number of town halls going as we have at present, with the same number of information offices and all the things that go to make the service local. If we are to do that, well and good; I shall not complain. However, if we are going to do it, why the change? What shall we create better as a result of a change? If the Government can say that they will create something better, they should tell us.
  Up to now, I cannot see much that will be better out of all the changes which are to be made. It is true that there could be and could have been a greater devolution of services from

  103
  county councils to boroughs and districts. That is not gainsaid. It cannot be gainsaid that there ought to be a review of the existing areas, with a view to making them perhaps more useful units of local government, both in size and shape. At the best they cannot handle the widest range of service which require handling over a wider area. At the least the new boroughs are rather too big for some of the essential services which they can handle. For example, the personal health services can be handled very well at virtually existing borough levels in Middlesex. They are all capable of handling them and running efficiently. They have sufficient resources to run them. There is no need to create larger units for that purpose.
  We have already established with regard to education that we shall not improve the education structure. After careful consideration the Middlesex Teachers' Association, although it thought at first that this might be a good idea, has come out flatly against the idea of breaking up the education service in Middlesex. Although from time to time the Association has offered criticisms to the education authority, in the last analysis, after careful examination, it has come to the conclusion that the devil it knows will be probably far better than the devil it does not know. I welcome the Association's observations.
  In the absence of far more compelling reasons for these changes, although I accept the need for some change, and some fairly radical change, in the structure of local government in the Greater London area, I cannot see that much will be achieved by the abolition of the Middlesex and London County Councils and the truncation of a number of other county councils where services have been effectively rendered and where there has been a community of interest. We still do not know how the new community of interests will be created. We have hardly reached the stage of absorbing into communities the areas which were changed in the 1930s. Many of them still talk in terms of their old areas and districts and not in terms of their existing boroughs.
  I hope that at the end of the day when all the criticisms have been
  104
  levelled, as I know that they will be from both sides of the House, the Government will think seriously about this, will take the Bill back and will recast it in a way which will give us the opportunity of having real local efficient government.
  7.5 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter). He is a very distinguished member of the Middlesex County Council. No one knows more about local government in Middlesex, or indeed local government generally, than he. He made a case which is reasonable. He made a number of suggestions, all of which can be considered in Committee, assuming that the Bill receives a Second Reading. I was particularly glad to hear him condemn joint boards. I heartily agree with him. However, what has become of the Opposition's proposals which were put forward when this subject was debated last February? We were then discussing a Motion. The Opposition had to produce alternative proposals. Those alternative proposals were entirely founded on the conception of joint boards.
  The Bill is concerned with the business of government, with politics in the raw. It is, therefore, inconceivable that it should not be controversial. No change could be made in the structure of local government in an area such as Greater London which could help affecting adversely a number of particular interests, and, indeed, party interests, in certain places. It is the duty of the Opposition to pick up those particular parts of the scheme which are likely adversely to affect what they regard as their particular interests, and make all the hullaballoo that they can about them. No doubt we shall hear a great deal of noise during the passage of the Bill.
  I do not believe that cur constituents will be very much concerned with that aspect of the matter. I think that they will mostly be wanting to hear how far we are prepared to try to make this a better Bill so as to improve the local government of London, which is certainly not in a very good state. The right questions that we should be considering on Second Reading are, first, whether a fundamental reorganisation of the whole of local government in the Greater

  105
  London area is necessary, and, secondly, if it is necessary, whether the broad lines of the Bill are right, or whether it should be changed to something else.
  The first thing I noticed on looking at the Order Paper this morning was the peculiar fact that no Amendment has been tabled by the Opposition. Assuming, as I do assume from the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), that it is the intention of the Opposition to vote against the Bill, it is a necessary conclusion that they will vote against it because they are opposed to any reorganisation of local government in London. If they had any suggestion to put forward, it would be their duty to table a reasoned Amendment to show what alternative they have to the Government's proposals as set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Reynolds: May I ask the hon. Baronet to cast his mind back? He referred to what the Opposition had said and done in a previous debate, when we had put forward alternative proposals. He was then "ad libbing", of course. He is now on his prepared speech.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is exactly the point I noticed. The proposals put forward when we debated this last February were concerned with joint boards. We heard not a word about joint boards from the hon. Member for Fulham, and the hon. Member for Southall began by condemning them roundly.
  On the first point—is a fundamental reorganisation really necessary?—most of us look to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. No complaint was made about the manning of the Commission. It was an independent body which recommended unanimously, in paragraph 1001, that
  "For local government purposes in this area there should be constituted a number of Greater London Boroughs and a Council for Greater London."
  Nothing could be clearer than that, and I want to know whether the Opposition agree, or do not agree, with that proposition? After all, we have had no answer to that question today and until we receive an answer we shall not know what the Opposition intend to do, or even why they are considering voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Mellish: To put the hon. Member out of his misery, and prevent him continuing in this vein for too long. I can answer his question now. We oppose the institution of Greater London boroughs and the institution of a Greater London Council.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am glad to hear the hon. Member say that, because now we can begin to know where we stand. I am, then, right in thinking that, in the view of the Opposition, local government in this respect does not need any reorganising.
  Mr. Mellish: Tinkering.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: All hon. Members who represent constituencies in the area about which I am speaking have been aware of an increasing sense of frustration on the part of their constituents. Politically, that sense has been expressed by the demand for county borough status. It has come up a great many times and it would have come up more frequently had it not been for the appointment of the Commission. We have seen the worsening of traffic conditions and there are many other respects in which people feel that they are not getting what they want and cannot see why they should not be getting it.
  The most obvious example of this is the fact that many thousands of new houses are being built—yet the housing lists in London are either remaining static or, in some cases, are getting longer.
  Mr. Michael Cliffe: Does the hon. Member seriously believe that the Bill is likely to eliminate the housing problem in London?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am saying that unless we undertake a fundamental overhaul of our local government machinery in London we shall never be able to solve that problem.
  The hon. Member for Fulham referred to a memorandum prepared by the London School of Economics and Political Science, Greater London Group, and to those parts of it which suited his argument. He did not, however, read the following paragraph, with which the memorandum began:
  "We strongly support the general case for the reorganisation of the boroughs and the

  107
  need for a body covering the whole of greater London to be responsible for certain important functions."
  It is true that the memorandum went on to say:
  "We consider however that the Government's proposals are insufficient…"
  There may be a case for same of the arguments adduced by members of that London School of Economics Group, but it is fair to remember that those people are experts, are not politicians and that any scheme for the reorganisation of Landon must work politically as well as theoretically. Any scheme for local government in London is necessarily a compromise. It cannot be anything else. Some aspects of local government policy must be dealt with over a wide area—indeed, over the area as a whole—and there is general agreement that planning, traffic and other problems cannot be dealt with for parts of the area alone, but must be looked at over the whole area.
  Some aspects of local government functions, such as education, require an area of considerable size—certainly not less than a population of 100,000 and, in the view of the Government, 200,000. I agree with the Government's view on this and consider that figure to be about the minimum which will operate properly for this purpose. But a great many—indeed, most—of the functions of local government can and should be dealt with if possible on an even smaller basis. The seat of local government should be known and easily accessible to every person in the area in question. Those three propositions are incompatible with one another and, therefore, one must have some sort of compromise to make the thing work.
  For my part, I believe that it will be more and more difficult for education to be carried as a local government function; but that is another question affecting the country as a whole and not one which we should discuss today. Had it not been the case that education was a local government function, I believe that the scheme could have been one for much smaller boroughs, and I would have liked to have seen that. However, education is a local government function and the scheme must take account of it. I consider that it has done that to about the right extent.
  108
  The Government have got the necessary compromise broadly right. That is the basis of the scheme contained in the Bill. In Committee, we shall undoubtedly discuss its details, the points put forward by the hon. Member for Southall and all the other matters raised in the debate, and I have no doubt that the Bill will be amended in due course. However, the Measure is on the right lines and should receive the general support of hon. Members.
  The greatest difficulty in framing a scheme for so great an area as London seems to be not so much the reconciling of the different functions of local government as reconciling the different aspects of the same functions. While planning, traffic and housing problems must be considered as a whole, they have intensely local implications. We cannot simply look at this as a large problem for London and disregard the personal impact it has on those living in particular areas.
  Mr. Mellish: Well said.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If we tried to dead with a traffic problem simply as a traffic problem we should find a very great deal of traffic being driven through a particular thoroughfare, upsetting our schools policy, the shopkeepers, and often preventing old people from getting to their friends and to the places where they must go to buy their food. Therefore, we cannot deal with these difficulties simply on a local basis or even as broad problems. We must have same kind of compromise arrangement such as is incorporated in the Bill. Naturally, this compromise arrangement has received some criticism. The hon. Member for Fulham made a good deal of play about it, but he did not suggest how he would deal with the matter. I do not believe that it is possible for him to suggest a better solution than that set out in the Bill.
  Housing is not just a question of building houses and flats. The Borough of Hendon has built many thousands of council houses, but, as I have already said, our housing list is just about the same as it has always been—
  Mr. Pargiter: Is it not a fact that the Hendon Council no longer accepts any new applicants to its list?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: No, that is not the case, but it is quite true that, simply because of this difficulty, there is a long waiting period.
  The reasons for this are quite clear. First, there has been a very heavy influx of people into Hendon all the time. Secondly, rather more than half the council houses in Hendon belong to the London County Council, which has refused to take Hendon people when houses have become vacant. We therefore have a constant inflow of people from central London who are sent out, willy nilly, to become citizens of Hand on.
  I welcome the provisions of the Bill—
  Mrs. Corbet: But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Greater London Council will be in the position of the London County Council, of supplying the houses, and that that policy will proceed as long as that is the case?
  Sir H Lucas-Tooth: Yes, and the Bill deliberately allows that to proceed. There are special provisions in it that recognise that hard fact and permit that policy to proceed. But the Bill lays down a new structure for housing policy in London as a whole by which, for the first time, we shall have common standards of need. Those common standards of need will not be laid down compulsorily, but will be required so that the Greater London Council will be able to form a composite housing list for London—
  Mrs. CorbetBut does not the hon. Gentleman realise now that instead of having numbers of people coming in from the inner London area, it is quite possible for his borough to get people from crowded outside areas, such as Willesden, and that not only will people from central London be going into Hendon, but people from other areas, too? It will not be easy.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I could not agree mare strongly with the hon. Lady—she is making my case. I say that this problem is not being tackled at present—the situation is getting worse—but that the Bill provides machinery which will enable us at least to make a start on tackling it. I welcome the provisions of Clause 22, and other Clauses in the Bill.
  110
  It has always seemed to me, and I think that most hon. Members will agree, that it would be best if the electors were to choose their local government representatives on the personal merits of those representatives, and on account of local issues, but we all know quite well that that is not so. It is not so generally, and is certainly not so in the London area. Local government elections are decided on national issues. When the Conservative Party is doing well, it gains seats. When the Labour Party is doing well, it gains seats. When, in the view of the country, neither of those parties does well, the Liberal Party gains seats—
  Mr. Mellish: Is it not the fact that that has not been the case in the London County Council elections? History has shown that even when the Labour Party has done very badly in a General Election—as it did in 1950, for example—the London County Council results were extremely good for Labour. And the last London County Council election was fought entirely on the principles of the citizens of London.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: What the hon. Gentleman calls "very good" is a relative term, if I may say so. There are other reasons. A million citizens have moved out of London and—I do not know—it may be that rather more of those were Conservative than Labour voters. Be that as it may, the fact remains that local government elections are decided on national issues. It is no use our lamenting the fact; it is much better to accept it, and to make the best of the situation.
  In a Parliamentary election, a relatively small swing of public opinion can make a quite large change in representation in this House, but in a Parliamentary election there are always some substantial areas of the country that do not change their allegiance very readily. I think that I am right in saying that, with the possible exception of one General Election this century, the Opposition have always maintained at least 25 per cent. of the seats, and there has always been at least 50 per cent. of those who sit on the Government side who are old Members. I am somewhat understating the figure, but that, broadly speaking, is the case in Parliamentary elections.
  In a smaller electoral area, the proportionate change of elected members is very

  111
  much greater in relation to the swing of public opinion. It is quite possible that if all the seats in a London borough were vacated at one election, we could get a clean-sweep change. If I may say so, that would have occurred in my own borough at the last local government elections; we would have had 100 per cent. new members on the council, and no opposition at all. That could happen. Conversely, the opposition could return on the next occasion with a clean sweep the other way—and, if I may say so, so as not to encourage the Liberals too much, I think that it will. Those sort of swings are not conducive to good administration. Too big a change means that too few people are elected who know how things should be done and what has been going on. One hands over too much power to the officials of the council—who are excellent and worthy people, but are not there to control policy—and one gets bad administration.
  The Bill proposes that both the Greater London councillors and the London borough councillors should all retire together every three years. That means that in the borough councils we shall get very big changes indeed. I see the force of the arguments in favour of the proposal, and I think that if the elections were fought on local issues those arguments would be overwhelming. If I thought that the change proposed would do something to give greater responsibility to the electors, I would be inclined to favour the change, but I do not favour it. London is a very special area. In my own constituency, which is quite typical of many constituencies in the area, 7,000 electors move every year, and in many cases we would have a completely different constituency at the end of three years—
  Mr. A. Evans: Has it not occurred to the hon. Member that in the London County Council area—and, of course, in the metropolitan boroughs—the elections already take place every three years? The whole council then, as it were, goes to the country. That happens now. Has it not also occurred to him that although that is what is happening, not over the last 25 years—certainly not on the London County Council—has there been this radical change of which he talks?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That may well be explained by the fact that, on the whole, the central area of London is much more stable than the area round the outside, and in this connection it is the area around the outside of London that contains the majority of voters. For that reason, I hope that the Government will look again at this matter. I do not think that it has much party controversy in it. Either party could stand to win or lose, but, on the whole, I think that in this instance it would be better to retain the present broad set-up.
  I believe, for the reasons I have given, the Bill to be thoroughly good. It will certainly be capable of being improved in Committee. No Bill is not. I believe from what I have heard from the Opposition that they have no case at all to put against it. They have a number of suggestions which could easily and properly be debated in Committee, and I hope that they will match their actions to their implied words and let the Bill have a Second Reading.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Robinson: Unlike the hon. Baronet, the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), I believe that this is a thoroughly bad Bill. It is a Bill which may perhaps meet the political needs of the party opposite, but it goes nowhere near to meeting the needs of a vast conurbation and a capital city. I am not one who believes that everything is perfect in the existing structure of London government. I certainly would not oppose change in principle. It is just that I believe that these changes are irrelevant, ill-considered and half-baked, and that is why I shall vote against the Bill.
  To introduce a Bill which destroys a system which is functioning, however irrational it may be, and in my view functioning well as a whole, and to substitute for it a scheme which, in the short term, will cause chaos, and, in the long term, create as many problems as it solves and leave a less efficient local government, is an irresponsible act of government. The grounds for rejecting the Measure are so numerous that I think none of us can spend time in dealing with more than one or two.
  First, I should like to say a few words about the L.C.C. architects' department.

  113
  I was not in any way reassured by what the Minister said today. In introducing the Bill he made an adroit speech, but I do not think that he allayed the anxieties of a single hon. Member. London can probably show as much bad post-war modern achitecture as any city in the world, but the fact that it is not worse is almost entirely due to the L.C.C. architects' department. It has really saved London's bacon in this matter. It has done it by the great range of work it has built in London—schools, housing schemes, comprehensive development, and special buildings like the Royal Festival Hall, all of a very high order indeed. In doing so, that department has gained an international reputation.
  How has it done it? It has done it partly because of the leadership and inspiration given by two successive chief architects, Sir Robert Matthew and Sir Leslie Martin. These were men who were not only able to attract a brilliant team of young and progressive-minded architects among them, but who were able to organise that team in such a way as to get the very best out of them by giving them much more responsibility than young architects are normally given.
  The architects were organised in groups whereby a group was to get full responsibility for a scheme from the preliminary drawings to the final construction. This was done only because of the scale and variety of work undertaken by the department. In other words, its structure was a function of the operations carried out by the department.
  I do not believe that this can happen under the Greater London Council. Its architectural work is bound to be very much less in both variety and volume, even including the school building which it will do, to which the Minister referred. After all, this is only a temporary arrangement. Still less will it be true of the Greater London boroughs whose architectural operations will be on an altogether reduced scale compared with the L.C.C.
  I regard it as one of the unhappier results of the Bill, and a tragedy, that that brilliant team—I was about to say, will disintegrate—is disintegrating. Many of them have already left County Hall simply because of the introduction of the Bill. The Minister, unlike many of his predecessors, is a man of some
  114
  knowledge and discernment in these matters. Unlike them, he knows what he is doing and that makes it all the more unforgiveable. After this Bill, Londoners present and future will find it hard to forgive him.
  We have been told that one of the main functions of the Greater London Council will be large-scale planning. The term, I think, is "strategic planning". In that case, why does not the Bill provide in terms for the appointment of a chief planner? In paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule the Greater London Council is required to appoint a clerk, a treasurer and a surveyor and in, I think, Clause 9, it is required to appoint a traffic director. No word about a planner. I should have thought that the current concept of strategic planning was a kind of inter-professional team led by the chief planner. One of the team would be the traffic director. If the Government are serious about the strategic planning function of the Greater London Council, will they please say why there is no mention in the Bill of the appointment of a chief planner?
  Before I leave the question of architects, I should like to ask whether the London boroughs are intended to have architects' departments. After all, there are only 13 architects' departments in the whole of the Greater London area, and nearly all of these are in metropolitan boroughs. Surely it must be a requirement that all boroughs must at any rate try to set up architects' departments, even if they have great difficulty in obtaining staff of anything like the calibre that County Hall has.
  To return to another group function, the Government have given way twice on the subject of education. They now produce arrangements which, in effect, preserve the L.C.C. structure for five years. They have given in to pressure from teachers and parents and, who knows, perhaps from the Minister of Education. I believe that they could hardly do less but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and others have said in the debate, precisely the same arguments apply to the children's services as to education. Very similar considerations apply to a range of the health and welfare services.
  I want to speak about the local health services. I understand that the Minister

  115
  of Health will be winding up the debate tomorrow evening and, therefore, perhaps I can address the rest of my remarks to him. The present London County Council and Middlesex County Council are responsible for a whole range of services—child welfare, day nurseries, home nursing, midwifery, the prevention and aftercare of tuberculosis, and mental health services. It is true that some of these services could well be delegated to smaller authorities. Indeed, it is a fact, which has already been mentioned in the debate, that London County Council wanted to delegate some of these functions to the metropolitan boroughs some years ago and was only prevented from doing so by Ministers at that time.
  But there are other of these health and welfare services which cannot possibly be carried out efficiently over areas about one-tenth the size of the London county area. After all, one is constantly dealing in health and welfare with comparatively small groups of people who have highly specialised needs which can only be adequately met by a large-scale authority. In the smaller local health authorities in the country many of these needs are hardly met at all. The L.C.C. has met them admirably, and so has the Middlesex County Council. But if this problem is split over 32 constituent authorities I cannot see that these needs will be met at all efficiently.
  When one comes to the question of mental health, here one gets the problem at its most dramatic and most serious. What are the needs for the community mental health service? They include training centres for the subnormal, both children and adults, and special centres for particularly difficult and aggressive children. There are day rehabilitation centres. There is a whole range of residential hostels needed for ex-mental patients, for the subnormal, for the confused ages who do not, in fact, need special hospital care, but who need some kind of supportive environment, and hospitals for maladjusted and subnormal children.
  Then there is the psychiatric after-care service, and the whole question of guardianship responsibilities, all of which are placed on the local health authority by the Mental Health Act, 1959. I do not want to go over again all the arguments
  116
  that we have heard about the community mental health services during the passage of that Bill, but the fact is that they will be difficult to establish. The needs are twofold. One is money and the other is skilled manpower.
  On the question of money, the situation is made extremely difficult by the block grant. It was a very unhappy coincidence that at the time that this largely new demand was made on local health authorities, the block grant came in almost simultaneously. But it does mean, on the money side, that the larger authority can do more than the smaller one. The larger authority can always find a bit more if there is the will. At County Hall and at the Middlesex Guildhall there was a will, and a very good start indeed was made in both those authorities—very much better than one can find almost anywhere else in Great Britain.
  The problem of manpower is even more tricky, because there is an acute shortage of skilled trained manpower for dealing with mentally disordered persons in the country as a whole. The London County Council had managed to get a good deal more than its share of what was available. In addition, it had embarked on very considerable training responsibilities. It has an excellent record for training people in health and welfare generally.
  This simply will not be done by the boroughs. It cannot be done. There will not be, as far ahead as one can see, enough skilled people to man this service divided into 32 component parts. It will be quite ludicrous to see these authorities bidding against one another for staff in such short supply as psychiatric social workers and mental welfare officers who will be necessary to run these services. In my view, this job will not get done by the London boroughs.
  I notice that in the Bill specific mention is made in Clause 46 of Section 19 (2) and (3) of the National Health Service Act. These are the provisions which give powers to set up joint health authorities. I share many of the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) about joint authorities and the difficulty of democratically controlling them. At the same time, there might be something to be said in this instance for setting up joint authorities for health

  117
  and welfare, and I want to know whether this is the intention—whether this power was repeated in Clause 46 purely as a matter of form, or whether it conceals a definite intention on the part of the Government that there should be joint authorities within the London boroughs for health and welfare services, and, if so, whether they are to be followed in the whole of the health and welfare services. We all agree that some of these services would be carried out better by the smaller authorities than by the London boroughs, whereas other functions can only be done by the much larger ones.
  I wish to ask the Minister a separate question about the executive councils. Normally, an executive council covers the same area as a local health authority. But in the same way the Minister has power to agree or to approve joint executive councils. I should like to know whether it is intended that joint executive councils shall be set up in the Greater London area. Indeed, I should like to see them, even if joint health authorities are not set up, because general practitioners in the London area, the administrative county of London, are at present covered by one single executive council, the London Executive Council. Unless some arrangement like this is made, they will be split up amongst 13 executive councils.
  Those who are outside the County of London area are, I suppose, covered by about half a dozen executive councils at the moment. They will in future be split up amongst another 20. This will produce an utterly impossible situation, with doctors' practices overlapping three or four executive councils and being responsible to those councils. I understand that representations have been made to the Minister about this, and I hope that he will be able to say something to set our anxiety at rest when he winds up the debate tomorrow.
  I find it very difficult to take seriously a Bill which purports to modernise London government and yet preserves intact that ludicrous anachronism the City of London. On the whole, there is something to be said for preserving traditions so long as they are harmless, but when they are traditions which are so bound up with an organisation so unrepresentative and so undemocratic
  118
  as the City of London, I think that they should be quietly dropped, with no tears shed. I believe that the City and its Court of Common Council is an affront to democracy and that it is high time it disappeared.
  7.47 p.m.
  Sir Cyril Black: Hon. Members who heard or read my speech in the White Paper debate will not expect me to give an enthusiastic welcome to the Bill. The Bill merely carries into effect in all essential particulars the White Paper proposals, and hon. Members will remember that I offered some fairly strong criticisms of those proposals when we debated them in the House.
  The arguments about the detailed merits and demerits of the Bill have already covered a wide range. These matters have been debated in the House on a number of occasions, and there is probably not a great deal more to be said on the detailed proposals; but I want in a brief speech to urge the Government, even at what is admittedly this late stage, to withdraw the Bill for three good and sufficient reasons, as it seems to me, which I want to bring to the notice of the House.
  The first reason is that not by the widest stretch of imagination can the Government possibly claim to have a mandate for this legislation. I have examined with the greatest care the manifesto on which my colleagues and I on this side of the House fought the last General Election, in 1959. I can find only two references to local government and education matters which can have any bearing whatever on this Bill and, so far as those references give any mandate at all, they give a mandate not to promote legislation to this effect and could not possibly support a Bill of this kind.
  The Conservative Party election manifesto, in 1959, said, with reference to local government:
  "We look forward to reforming and strengthening the structure of local democracy in the light of reports from the Local Government Commissions for England and Wales."
  Those commissions were set up under the Local Government Act, 1958, and their duties applied to all parts of England and Wales, with the exception

  119
  of the Greater London area. It cannot be claimed that those words give a mandate for this Bill.
  This is what is said in the manifesto about education:
  "We shall bring the modern schools up to the same high standard. Then the choice of schooling for children can be more flexible and less worrying for parents."
  It is quite obvious that the only result of the proposals of the Bill in regard to education can be to make the choice of schooling for children less flexible and more worrying for parents.
  My first point, therefore, is that the Bill ought not to be proceeded with because the Government have no mandate whatever for legislation in this sense.
  I realise that all hon. Members may not agree about the theory of mandate. It can be carried to an extreme in either direction. If anyone feels that I am going too far in arguing that the Bill is covered by the absence of mandate and ought, therefore, not to be proceeded with, I rest my case on the definition of the matter, which I find entirely satisfactory, given by Lord Salisbury, in 1948, in criticising the then Socialist Government for bringing in a Bill for which, he alleged, there was no mandate. Speaking on behalf of the party to which I belong, he said:
  "Every now and then a Measure comes before Parliament for which the Government have no mandate. On the great majority of these Measures, the view of the public is well known. In that event no difficulty arises. There are, however, certain rare cases where extremely controversial Measures are introduced on which the view of the electorate is not known or where there is good reason to suppose that it is hostile to the proposed legislation".
  Lord Salisbury went on to argue that, in those circumstances, so clearly and cogently defined, it was wrong for a Government to go on with the legislation.
  What are the three tests to be applied, according to that definition? First, is the Bill one for which the Government have no mandate? I think that I have shown that no mandate exists in this case. Secondly, is the proposed Measure extremely controversial? One has only to listen to the various debates which have taken place on the matter to realise how controversial the Bill is. Thirdly,
  120
  is there good reason to suppose that the electorate is hostile to the proposed legislation? My submission is that all three conditions are fulfilled and that the Government ought not to proceed further with the Bill.
  I come now to the second of my reasons for saying that the Bill should be dropped. I touched on it in speaking of the third of those tests. There are the strongest reasons for saying that a majority of the electorate, regardless of party affiliations, is opposed to the proposals in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that hon. Members were frequently coming in touch with constituents who complained about the structure of local government, and from this he attempted to deduce that there is an overwhelming demand by the public for a change in the structure of local government in London. In my view, there is a demand for a change, but not for the kind of change which is set out in the Bill. I will mention three or four facts which seem to me to establish overwhelmingly that the electorate in all parts of the area is quite heavily against these proposals.
  Let us consider, first, the last county council elections. In the London County Council area, all Socialist candidates, I believe, made clear in their election addresses and their speeches that they were opposed to the proposals of the Royal Commission.
  Mr. Mellish: Every one.
  Sir C. Black: They did well in the election. They did better than was expected by most of the forecasters, and they gained a substantial majority in London.
  In the reverse context, the same thing happened in the County of Surrey, with a Conservative-controlled county council instead of a Socialist-controlled county council. Almost without exception, the Conservative candidates in Surrey took exactly the same stand in regard to the Royal Commission's proposals as was taken by the Socialist candidates in London.
  In Surrey, the Conservative candidates did very well indeed, better, I think, than most of us expected, and

  121
  they obtained an overwhelming mandate for their position as county councillors in opposing these proposals. In loyalty to the pledge which they then gave, they have consistently, from the beginning until now, opposed, and continued to oppose, these proposals.
  This is not by any means the end of the matter. In Surrey, where opposition to these proposals is very strong, many public meetings have been held in all parts of the county, addressed by speakers of all political complexions and of none, open meetings, widely advertised, to which the public was invited and to which anyone could come. Whenever, at any one of these meetings, after a full discussion, a vote has been taken, the vote has been overwhelmingly against the proposals in the Bill. There has not been one public meeting held in all Conservative Surrey at which the great majority of those present has not been strong in condemnation of these proposals.
  Mr. Richard Thompson: Has my hon. Friend forgotten the two public meetings in Croydon, where no one except the organisers turned up and both of which were abandoned, no such conclusion being reached—perhaps because they were both organised by the Labour Party?
  Sir C. Black: That seems to be scarcely relevant to the argument which I am developing. I am speaking of the administrative County of Surrey. I do not claim to have information about Croydon.
  What I can say is that a meeting was held in Epsom—to mention only one in the County of Surrey—which was addressed by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and others. I was not able to be present, but I was assured that at that meeting there were probably about 1,000 people present, two or three times the number of people that most Front Bench speakers can secure as an audience during a by-election campaign, and at that meeting the vote was at least ten to one against these proposals.
  In large numbers of affected areas, house-to-house canvassing has been conducted by people in the districts gathering signatures to petitions, and there have been whole wards in which 80 per cent.
  122
  to 90 per cent. of the electorate have attached their signature to petitions protesting against these proposals as they affect the district in which they live.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: Is my hon. Friend aware that this afternoon I presented a petition to the House, signed by over 22,000 of the electors in the urban district of Coulsdon and Purley?
  Sir C. Black: I am very pleased to be fortified by that additional information, because it adds strength to the argument that I am putting forward.
  It cannot be denied that informed and interested bodies of public opinion, of teachers, social workers and professional people who are concerned with local government in various aspects, practically without exception, irrespective of the part of the area in which those bodies of people live and work and of their political affiliations, have shown themselves to be overwhelmingly against these proposals.
  My first point is that the Government have not a vestige of a mandate for the Bill. My second point is that by all the tests which one can apply, the electorates in the districts are strongly against the proposals of the Bill. The third point which I want to mention—and this is a most remarkable commentary on the handling of this matter—is that throughout the Government have not made a single effort to get together around the conference table representatives of the various local authority organisations in the districts to try to hammer out a plan that would command general agreement and support—not one.
  The Government have proceeded throughout on the principle that big brother knows best. I should like to make it quite clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, who unfortunately has left the Chamber, that is it quite wrong, quite unfair, to suggest that those of us who oppose the Bill are merely supporters of the status quo. I do not know of anybody in the local government world, or anyone who knows or has thought about these matters, who argues that everything is well with local government as it is.
  There is, as I understand the position, a broad agreement among local authorities that certain changes are urgently necessary which would command

  123
  general support. All accept the view, as I understand it, that there is need for provision for town planning and for road matters over a wide area, not the area dealt with in the Bill but a very much wider area, an area not less at any rate than the Abercrombie area.
  If the Abercrombie area was right at the time of the Abercrombie Report, then a much smaller area cannot be right now. On that question there is, I think, general agreement among all the authorities. There is also, I think, general agreement that an overwhelming case exists for increased delegation or conferment of administration of local services to the district authorities.
  As has been pointed out, if the whole matter had not been,as it were, frozen in the present position by the Government's proposals in the Bill this could have been effected by agreement between the major authorities and the district authorities some considerable time ago. There is wide and general agreement about that. I do not think that anyone quarrels with the view that, so far as some of the smaller district councils are concerned, efforts should be made to effect amalgamation in the interests of efficiency and getting really effective units.
  To suggest that those of us who do not agree with the proposals of the Bill are merely reactionary defenders of the status quo is something that has no correspondence with the facts of the case, and it is an argument which, speaking personally, I want to take the opportunity of indignantly repudiating.
  It is astonishing that the Government have never called a conference and tried to get agreement among the parties in this matter. If London had been an island in the Mediterranean, or a country in Africa, or the West Indies, how different would its treatment by the Government have been. The Government would have leaned over backwards to avoid imposing a dictated solution. Senior members of the Government would have visited the territory and have devoted long periods to discussion with the diverse interests. Leaders of the different sections would have spent long weekends at Chequers with a view to being "softened up" in the hope that it might be possible to get same general measure
  124
  of agreement among the diverse points of view.
  But because we are dealing with an area with a population of 8 million people, in some cases twenty times greater than the population of some of those far-flung territories to which I have referred, not one conference has been called by the Government. There has never been any effort to get an agreed scheme which could have been got if the parties had been called together with a willingness to listen to what people had to say, to reconcile points of view that conflicted and to reach a scheme which would have achieved wide and probably general agreement among local authorities.
  Even at this late hour, I appeal to the Government to do the big thing, to withdraw the Bill and to give further consideration to the whole problem. My conviction is that the Government have reached a point at which they are not proceeding in this matter because of conviction of the rightness of what they propose to do, but in the belief that they have gone too far to withdraw without the loss of prestige. I believe that this is a mistaken view. History contains many examples of unwise courses of action proceeded with for prestige reasons, and of the great harm resulting from such policies. There never need be any loss of face in recognising that a mistake has been made and that the right thing to do is to endeavour to find a correct solution for the problem that is being dealt with.
  Those of us who feel unable to support the Bill in our constituencies and in the Lobby are not basing our objection on party considerations. Our opposition is not undertaken vexatiously and it is not undertaken in defence of the status quo. Let the Government enhance their stature by withdrawing the Bill, by calling together the various local government bodies in conference, and by seeking to do in the heart of the Commonwealth what they have done in so many other places—to reach an agreed scheme to which all of us can give support.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: We have listened to a remarkably clear, courageous and witty speech from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black).

  125
  If he will allow me to say so without offence, I did not know that he had it in him. I only hope, although I am afraid that my hope is a slender one, that the Government will take serious notice of his solemn remonstrance.
  There seems to be a fundamental contradiction in the Bill and in the Minister's speech commending it to us: it is a halfhearted move in the direction of regionalisation—althaugh quite inadequate in that sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) showed—and yet the Minister and other speakers, such as the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), have recited the usual truism, which we all accept, that local government should not be too remote from the people whom it serves. Surely this Bill, if it is carried out, is bound to make many of the human functions of local government in London more remote.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South, said that the seat of local government, the town hall, should be easily accessible to all. It stands to reason that if we merge various boroughs into these much larger London boroughs we make it less accessible to all. That is only one simple illustration of what I mean. We al I know about the electoral apathy at municipal elections: I fear that polls will be even lower in future if this scheme goes through.
  I want to make a general criticism of the background—not at this point the political background, but the administrative background—of this Measure. The Minister said that the Greater London scheme was part of the general revision of local government that is going on. The hon. Member for Wimbledon referred to the various local government commissions. The Minister spoke of a "series of regional surveys" now being carried out. Is it not rather unfair to prejudice, as it were, the findings of these other surveys—the scope, function, geographical boundaries, and so on, of various regions adjacent to the Metropolitan area—by legislating for Greater London in isolation from its neighbouring regions? Surely this is an example of the piecemeal planning so characteristic of this Government.
  I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham mentioned the
  126
  Camberwell shelter for homeless men. This problem, although it has attracted rather less publicity than the terrible tragedy of homeless families, is, none the less, a very acute and difficult one. It is estimated by competent people who have made surveys that, on average, there are between 1,000 and 2,000 homeless men still sleeping out every night in London—perhaps not in the coldest weather of all, but then, of course, all the available doss-houses are over-crowded. This frightful problem is aggravated by the drift southward of unemployed men from the North. Surely it follows that the centre at Camberwell where they are put up will have to be enlarged, or supplemented by other similar places, in future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham pertinently asked, who will provide them? Who will be responsible, under the new scheme, for the centre at Camberwell or for similar places that may become necessary?
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) and other hon. Members have referred to specific points from their own constituencies as well as to the general principles of the Bill. We welcomed the concession on Clause 1 and the First Schedule announced by the Leader of the House on Thursday, but I suppose that it is still just possible that one might be prevented by some sort of Parliamentary force majeure from raising on the Committee stage the constituency points that one wants to raise, or at any rate from deploying in full the various strong local arguments that some of us may want to put to the Minister. Naturally, I shall not at this stage presume to make the case for my own constituency, Barking, in such detail as I shall hope to be able to in Committee, but I may refer to it briefly as an illustration of the Government's slapdash, superficial and inequitable approach to the problems of that part of metropolitan Essex.
  At this stage I have only two broad points of a local nature to make. The first concerns the proposal that Barking should be merged with Dagenham. We like and respect our good neighbours in Dagenham, but Barking is an ancient and historic community which does not choose or wish to be merged with them. It is not a dormitory suburb: most of the

  127
  people who live in it also work in it. It has an extremely vigorous and competent local authority, serving those people well. Incidentally, there is a possibly needless waste of money that may be duplicated all over London; I have not been able to check. It is this: between them Barking and Dagenham, which are to be merged in one London borough, have in modern times spent about £1 million in building new, worthy, and impressive municipal headquarters. It so happens that each of these civic centres or town halls is convenient for its own borough as things are, but that neither of them will be in the least convenient for the larger London borough: they will be at opposite ends of it. What is to happen in cases like that, which I imagine may occur elsewhere also?
  My second broad, but local, point is this. I rather complain of the manner in which the Town Clerks' Report has been presented. The town clerk with whom I am concerned is the Town Clerk of Plymouth, who is, I am sure, an extremely estimable official, who did the job as competently and ably as it could be done in the no doubt necessarily very brief time that he was able to give to it.
  What I specially complain about is the wording of some of the paragraphs on page 20 of this Report. For instance, in paragraph 79 the Town Clerk of Plymouth says:
  "The Borough of Barking wished to form part of a new borough with Dagenham and East Ham …"
  I need not read further. This is quite untrue. The Borough of Barking "wished" no such thing—neither its council nor its people. It is perfectly true that two pages earlier, in paragraph 70, the Town Clerk says:
  "Several authorities made it clear that they considered amalgamation in any form was unnecessary in order that the boroughs could carry out the functions proposed for them and their expression of support for a particular form of amalgamation must be accepted subject to this qualification".
  Surely that is a very roundabout way of putting it—to put the proviso first and then say that such-and-such a borough "wished" to do something, when that happens to be exactly the opposite of what they wished?
  Both the Town Clerk and the Minister have fallen into the elementary geo-
  128
  graphical error that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham accused the Minister of, when he observed that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that Finsbury was like Portsmouth. They have fallen into a similar error in regard to the proposals affecting my constituency. It is ridiculous to compare—as the Town Clerk does in paragraph 91 of his Report —the great River Thames with that much more modest trickle known as the River Roding or Barking Creek.
  The Thames is a real geographical and social barrier. To cross it. some way downstream one has to go by ferry or under the river by a long tunnel. By contrast, the Roding has a number of bridges. Neither socially nor economically is it a real barrier, nor is it thought of locally as such. The Barking Council easily provides completely adequate public services—sewerage, refuse collection and disposal,public lighting, playing-fields, and so on—for the small bit of land that it administers on the west side of the River Roding. Yet this is the land which it is proposed by the Town Clerks and by the Minister to transfer from Barking to East and West Ham. Only 100 or so people live there, but that bit of land is of great importance to Barking, for it contains the greater part of the Beckton gas-works and one of the largest sewage-disposal works in the country.
  There are, of course, financial gains to be derived from such a territory, but The Minister should, in fairness, recognise that there are also physical disadvantages in having a sewage-disposal works and a gas-works on one's doorstep, so to speak —only just across the Creek—with the prevailing winds as they are.
  These works provide about 9 per cent. of the borough rate. The rateable value which the Minister proposes to take away from Barking is of the order of £167,000, which means that if the scheme is accepted, the local rate for the new London Borough will have to be raised by about Is. in the £. East and West Ham are already being given £232,000 of rateable value from North Woolwich. Since the Minister is treating them so generously, it seems grossly unfair to penalise Barking so heavily, in view of what I have said about the physical disadvantages as well as the financial advantages.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member's words will carry such weight in his own area that I should like to point out that it is impossible to predict what will happen to rates. We have to take into account revaluation, general grant, rate deficiency grant and the new rate equalisation scheme under the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member's voice will not go out predicting firmly what is at this stage totally unpredictable about future rates of the area.
  Mr. Driberg: This is the best estimate that can be made by highly competent local officials who certainly know far more about rates than I do, although not, perhaps, quite so much as the Minister and his advisers. Surely the Minister will not deny that it will be financially harmful to Barking to lose that chunk of rateable value?
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but what I am trying to point out is that there are uncertainties like revaluation which, perhaps, will affect the rate deficiency grant in a way which we cannot predict. The general grant has to be taken into account. Even with the best will in the world, these things make it difficult to judge firmly for the future.
  Mr. Driberg: I hope that, in those rather obscure words, the Minister is trying to tell me that it will be an actual asset to Barking to lose this chunk of rateable value! I do not know anything like as much about local government and rates as the Minister does, but I find that extremely difficult to swallow, and so will the people on the Barking Council and their competent official advisers. However, we will bear the Minister's words in mind and I will remind him of them year after year. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I have gone on a few minutes longer than I meant to, but that little exchange has used up a bit of time.
  I hope, finally, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South will read in HANSARD tomorrow both the speech of my hon. Friend the Member far Fulham and the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. If he had heard the latter speech, it might have shaken him a little in his, I thought, rather fatuously obsequious acquiescence in this project. I think that the hon. Baronet did half-hear, but if he had listened to, and understood, the
  130
  speech of my hon. Friend he would have been able to shorten his own speech by about half. The hon. Baronet did, however, put his finger on the spot: he said that the Bill was "politics in the raw". That is the whole truth about it. The party opposite feels genuinely and deeply affronted when its natural right to rule is obstinately contradicted or challenged by the voters. The real and only major motive behind the Bill is provided by the continuing, undefeated Labour majority at County Hall. In my opinion, the scheme is technically and socially unsound; it will be undemocratic in operation; and it is, in essence, just a rather dirty piece of Tam m any gerrymandering.
  8.27 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: I was interested in a remark made by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) at the beginning of his speech about the London County Council hostel for unmarried men in Camberwell, which linked up with some references made earlier in the debate to the four large homes for homeless children which the London County Council has. On reflection, one can see in those two examples something which could be greatly improved in the set-up which is proposed in the Bill, namely, a breaking down of welfare hostels and homes of that nature to very much smaller sizes. There would be more of them, so that the people concerned would not have to go, as they do at present, considerable distances to find that service.
  I also echo a plea which was made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) about the necessity for retaining the London Executive Council area under the National Health Service. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will appreciate the advantages of this and will see that the area remains and the Council is not broken up into borough executive councils.
  I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), but I have been too long in politics to be entirely surprised, as, apparently, he was, by the results of the London County Council elections and by the outcome of meetings held in the County of Surrey. It must be remembered that at the last London County

  131
  Council elections there was a strong campaign, a quite natural one, about which politically one can make no complaints, among the London County Council tenants in all the London County Council housing areas. One does not know what was said in the course of that campaign, but it was not surprising if it had certain results.
  When one remembers the fear of the inhabitants of Surrey of an overspill from London coming into that county, again one is hardly suprised if the result of meetings of people who live in the County of Surrey was as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon described.
  Mr. Mellish: So that we can get this on the record, I would point out to the hon. Member that his own constituency fell to Labour in the L.C.C. elections. He can take it from me, as I was involved in that campaign; the feature of that campaign was our opposition to the present Bill as it now stands.
  Sir H. Linstead: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "fell to Labour", but at the last London County Council elections two Conservative candidates were returned and one Socialist candidate.
  Mr. R. Thompson: And the Bill was not touched.
  Sir H. Linstead: I wish to say this with regard to the Surrey point. I think somebody should say it. I believe it should be said to people in Surrey that whatever fears they have they are likely in practice to find those fears much less than they imagine them to be; but it may be necessary to ask people living in Surrey to make certain sacrifices for the larger community of which they are a part.
  Mr. Doughty: My hon. Friend may say whatever he likes, but he certainly cannot expect them to accept it, except very roughly. There is a flat contradiction of what he said.
  Sir H. Linstead: I am only making the comment that it may very well be that, in the interests of Greater London of which they form part, some very small sacrifices may be called for from the people living beyond the boundary.
  132
  What I want to do in particular, however, is to thank my right hon. Friend and to congratulate the Government far having had the courage to tackle this enormous task which would daunt any Administration. It is inevitable that if we tackle a task of this kind we know that we are going to be met with objections and difficulties from every side. It is inevitable that we shall affect the L.C.C. It is inevitable that there will be some objection from the borough's. No mayor and corporation can be expected willingly to accept the proposition that they have come to the end of their useful life. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has had the courage to do this, and I congratulate him on it. The legislation, however framed, will in fact satisfy no one. We cannot get a coherent blueprint for the government of London because London itself is not a coherent unit.
  Mrs. Corbet: How very true.
  Sir H. Linstead: That is the basic problem with which we are struggling in the House today. All we can try to do is to get as good a compromise as possible, taking into account history and the facts.
  We cannot say that the attitude of the London County Council, in the evidence it gave to the Royal Commission, which can be summarised as, "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" makes any contribution to that.
  Mrs. Corbet: The attitude of the London County Council at the Royal Commission was this. We were asked to give evidence as to the state of the services and to say what suggestions we might have for the improvement of London government, and we knew perfectly well what the hon. Member has just said, that one cannot get a firm blueprint for the government of the Metropolis, and that being so, and knowing that there were really good local government services going on in London at the moment, we had not got any way of suggesting anything very much better than what was existing. I defy anybody else to find it either.
  Sir H. Linstead: I entirely accept what the hon. Lady has said, and I recognise the feeling there is behind it. I was only recalling the fact that the evidence of the London County Council amounted to

  133
  "Leave things alone because you are not likely to do anything better." But that was no contribution to the solution of the problem. We say, too, that the proposal to create a regional council was nothing except a very useful temporary slogan for the purpose of this debate.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that this proposal, which was thought out in great detail by the London County Council and considered and discussed by the other four counties concerned some months ago, was merely thought of because of this debate? How could that be true?
  Sir H. Linstead: If one looks at the timing of the situation, one must see that that was a proposal Which was brought forward in the light of—
  Mr. Arthur Sketfington: What about Abercrombie?
  Sir H. Linstead: —forthcoming legislation on the future government of London.
  I think one point should be made a little more clearly, and it has not emerged as I think it should have done in this debate, and that is that in fact London County Council is not going to be brought to an end. What is happening is that the L.C.C. is being given responsibility for a very much larger area. It is being given more limited powers than it has now to the extent that some of these powers are being passed down to the boroughs, but essentially the Greater London Council is going to be the London County Council functioning with different powers over a larger area. One of the consequent advantages which I do not think has been sufficiently emphasised in the debate so far about the proposed legislation is that it is going to bring local government closer to the men, women and children who live in London. I am personally prepared to tolerate some superficial inefficiency if it does mean that for a large number of the services people are going to be governed by councillors they know personally because they are neighbours and live with them.
  I would agree with the hon. Member for Fulham that the set-up in the Bill cannot last. I can see myself modifications—I hope particularly in the education service—taking place over the next
  134
  few years, but what I want to see is all those modifications leading in every case where it is possible to do so in the direction of giving the boroughs more authority at the expense of the centre.
  I do want to make one comment on the detailed proposals for the composition of the borough councils. I saw that The Times, in a very well informed article the other day, talked about the provision for aldermen as being otiose. There was some criticism of it earlier in the debate. I think one must remember, however, as one does when talking about national affairs, the old saying, "The King's Government must be carried on." It can very often happen in a tightly contested election that we get the majority party with an extremely small majority. I do not think that, in those circumstances, it is unreasonable, for the sake of good government, that they should be able to co-opt a certain number of outside people, whether we call them aldermen or what you will, to enable them to carry out their business with reasonable efficiency for the next three years.
  I want to refer now to two local matters which I think are of some importance. My own borough, Wandsworth, is, of course, affected substantially by the Bill, and is the only borough which is going to be divided into half, and against that I want to protest extremely strongly.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Bringing local government nearer to the people!
  Sir H. Linstead: I will not develop my arguments in this Second Reading debate, but in Committee I shall expect to be able to explain why, in my view, this proposal has far less to commend it than the proposition to leave the borough alone.
  I should, however, like to explain a little about it to the House. Wandsworth is a borough of 338,000 inhabitants and it has the size, the finance, the officers and the experience to act precisely as the new boroughs are expected to in the new scheme. In those circumstances, I cannot see anything except most strong necessity requiring that borough to be divided into two and the two halves amalgamated with two other boroughs which themselves are already contiguous and could be amalgamated. This is not

  135
  a party political point. The Borough Council of Wandsworth, a Socialist Council, has said that it is opposed to the division of the borough.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Would my hon. Friend agree that if the proposal for the amalgamation of Lambeth and Battersea were to go through, leaving Wandsworth alone, it would not affect any other borough in the scheme?
  Sir H. Linstead: I agree. Only three boroughs are concerned here, and I can see no advantage in carving Wandsworth into two when the remaining two boroughs could be amalgamated because they already have a common boundary.
  Mr. A. Evans: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that possibly Wandsworth, like Surrey, should make some sacrifice for the good of the people as a whole?
  Sir H. Linstead: If that point could be shown to apply, I would be entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. All that I can say at the moment is that the Report of the Town Clerk makes no reference to sacrifice or to finance. All he deals with is communications and material of that kind. I do not think that the fate of 338,000 people should turn on the opinion of one man. Howeven, we shall come back to that in Committee.
  I feel sure that my right hon. Friend is keeping an open mind on this point. This is the first occasion that we have had to deal publicly with it. The hon. Member for Fulham has said that Lord Salisbury urged everybody to use a large map. But when one is dealing with human beings one needs more than a large map. One must remember that this is a living authority which has grown up over a long period. It represents something real in the lives of the men and women who live in it.
  The other local point with which I want to deal is similar to that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith). If I read Clause 81 correctly, the Minister has power to make an order that any local Act passed before 1st April, 1965, shall cease to have effect. Under that provision it would be possible to make an order repealing the local
  136
  Act governing Wimbledon Common, Putney Heath and Putney Lower Common, and it would then be possible, if I read Clause 58 correctly, for him to apply the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, in such a way as to pass the control of those open spaces into the hands of the Greater London Council.
  Many hon. Members will know those commons and will realise that they are admirably kept, without cost to the public generally, by the ratepayers who live around them, and they have a natural beauty which all London enjoys. I do not think that by a side-wind, and by a chance provision in the Bill which could easily escape attention, we should so readily provide the means to dispossess these open spaces of their present administration. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would tell us, among the many things he has to say, whether he has such powers to municipalise Wimbledon Common and Putney Heath and, if so, what his intentions are about using them. If he has these powers, then in Committee we shall have to consider those two Clauses very carefully. I do not ask my right hon. Friend to reply now, but I should be grateful for an answer later.
  I intended to speak about housing and education, but I have already taken up a good deal of the time of the House. I conclude simply by saying that in my view, with all its defects and with all the inevitable compromises contained in it, the Bill represents a reasonable solution for the time being of this intractable problem. It keeps the strategic pattern under central control and brings local government nearer to the home and the man, the woman and the child. We cannot have 100 per cent. efficiency, but there is a great deal to be said for bringing as much local government as possible as near as possible to the people.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Skeffington: At a later stage I shall take up one point mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), but let it suffice at the moment if I say that I have a very different opinion of the Bill.
  I am very sorry that the Government are pushing ahead with the scheme, so

  137
  that we in this House have to do our best to repulse it, despite the representations that have been made to the Government by all the local authorities—over 90 of them—which are to disappear in one way or another and by people with professional and technical knowledge and others interested in social welfare. It is all the more difficult and unfortunate when one realises that the scheme proposed by the Government in relation to the Greater London Council in particular will certainly fail to meet one or two of the only valid criticisms which came out of the Royal Commission.
  Many people other than the local authorities are frankly deeply concerned about the Government's destructive proposals. Many of them have been associated with a body outside the House which is still campaigning to defeat the Bill. I refer, of course, to the Longford Committee. Some are members of political parties, some are not. The Earl of Longford is a member of my party, but all who know him, on both sides of the House, realise that he would espouse a cause only if he honestly believed in it.
  There are many others associated with him who feel equally strongly. Among them is Lord Beveridge, a Liberal, who is the treasurer, and Sir John Wenham, who has stated that though he has been a life-long Conservative he is so opposed to the scheme that he has said:
  "… I have severed my connection with local party associations. This is a non-party matter. The Government have no mandate for these proposals."
  I believe, also, that of the 110 members of the Surrey County Council only two support the Government's plan. Thus, there is in opposition in Surrey a substantial body of opinion representing all sorts of individuals with all sorts of views.
  Among others opposing the Bill on the Longford Committee are Sir Stanley Rous, of football fame, Viscount Esher, Sir William Holford, who probably knows more about town planning than anyone else. Mr. Jack Crump, of the Amateur Athletic Association, deplores the scheme and so does Professor Sir Robert Matthew. I mention him because of what the Minister said about the architects' department. Of course,
  138
  some people may think that Sir Robert's opposition is prejudiced because he was at one time the architect to the London County Council. But at least he has a unique knowledge of how that department works. During his period of office the Royal Festival Hall was built and completed. He is a man who is certainly well equipped to deal with that aspect of the Government's scheme.
  The Minister seems to think that the architects' department of the L.C.C. will be able to function somehow or other under the new Council, but, in fact, it is already being dissipated. Sir Robert Matthew, referring to the organisation, said that it
  "… has been built up gradually and with many difficulties; but the crucial point for us is surely that it now exists as a functioning unit, a unique professional organisation geared to the metropolitan scale …"
  All that is being broken up.
  The Observer, a few months ago, published an article by a correspondent who said, about the department:
  "Of those I know aged up to forty-five … about 50 per cent. are trying to do something about other jobs."
  Many of the young graduates who have entered public service through the County Council wish that they had not done so now. Something which has made a unique contribution to London is already suffering and will suffer very much more if the Government's plan goes through.
  Why is it that all the professional and technical people whom I have mentioned, quite apart from those with expert knowledge of local government gained from experience, are opposed to the scheme? It is partly because of their special knowledge of some of the special services, but, in addition, it is because most people who have studied local government problems in the Greater London area realise that the Government's proposal for a Greater London Council does not meet the defects which have been revealed by the Royal Commission.
  The Royal Commission pointed to two defects in the existing structure, defects which could be the subject of valid criticism—planning and road communications. It pointed out that in the Greater London area there are nine planning authorities which do not overlap and which do not have responsibility for

  139
  planning outside their own areas, and that to some degree planning in the area is somewhat defective. A similar criticism can be made about communications.
  However, it would be utterly wrong, while accepting a degree of criticism about the set-up in the Greater London area, to allow the Government to escape from their full blame. For a decade the positive planning principles of the Silkin Act have been largely abandoned. Under that Act the intention was to deal with large planning units regionally. That is why the Minister had responsibility to review the plans and suggest modifications every five years, or more often if he wanted to, and to propose changes when he thought that the planing interest of the area as a whole justified doing so. But that has not been done and we have had a series of Ministers who, on the whole, have used their powers extremely negatively.
  Admittedly, they have been circumscribed by the compensation provisions of the Town sand Country Planning Act, 1954. Now, if outline planning permissions previously given are altered, the full assumed capital cost of the whole development has to be paid in compensation. That is a fantastic burden which makes nonsense of a good deal of the 1947 Act, and it is one reason why the Government must take the greater part of the guilt of this situation.
  But there is a more fundamental weakness in the Government's case. It is their own lack of planning. We need a Royal Commission on how the Government do their planning, and I would like to be a member of it. The Board of Trade deals with the location of industry, but everyone knows that, except in one or two very special areas, one can get a certificate of industrial development almost as a formality. If that is not so, how do the Government explain that 25 per cent. of all factories built during the last ten years have been in the Greater London area, or in the South-East Region, and that 40 per cent. of all new jobs have been in the London conurbation? It has been possible only because planning permission has been given for that type of development.
  Separately from the Board of Trade, the Minister of Transport has been build-
  140
  ing roads with only formal consultation with other Ministries and a Select Committee critically drew attention to that not long ago. Finally, there is the Ministry of Housing and Local Government exercising general supervision, largely in isolation, of the location of houses. This is crazy. The first thing to do, especially in areas of greater unemployment, is to put in new industrial units and then fit in communication and housing. That has not been done. Therefore, it is quite wrong to blame the mere structure of the local authorities of the Greater London area exclusively for the difficulties which undoubtedly face us in connection with planning and communication.
  I remember that when I was a member of the London County Council the then chief engineer was always complaining that it was almost impossible to carry on an adequate road programme when the capital grants were being varied from year to year. This idea of starting a plan and then not knowing for certain whether the capital would be forthcoming the following year made it extremely difficult in this sort of work where contracting arrangements have to be made so far ahead.
  Having admitted that there is a degree of validity in the Royal Commission's criticisms about the structure in London —although I believe that the major responsibility rests on the Government—I would say that the tragedy is that the Greater London Council will not go very far to remedy these defects. In planning alone, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) said, we must have an area which is very much larger than the Greater London conurbation.
  To give a simple example, if we are serious about overspill planning for a region we must have an area wide enough to cover the distance which people can reasonably travel each day. Without that our planning arrangements are bound to be askew. That leads to an area which takes in Brighton, on the one hand, and Southend, on the other, with Reading towards the west—the sort of area which Abercrombie had in mind, thought up, if I may say this for the benefit of the hon. Member for Putney, long before this Bill was ever considered.
  The Greater London Council, while it is too large for many functions, will for

  141
  this purpose be much too small, and a similar criticism can be made about communications. Roads certainly do not start just at the end of a built-up area. As far as the Bill tackles communications, one can say that it makes another loop in the series of motions which road planning will have to go through, and in the end the Minister of Transport seems to be able to do what he wants to do, anyway.
  If one looks purely on the professional and technical advantages and disadvantages of the Government's proposals, it is very difficult to find a valid reason for this scheme. The nearest I can get to it is in paragraph 518 of the Royal Commission Report, which reads,
  "Among those who are interested in local government at all there is in general very strong interest in education. It is clear to us that a large number of councillors would like to serve on education committees and would like to regard the schools and the educational service generally as one of their chief interests."
  In the summary of the recommendations, the first factor to which the Commission has regard is that a borough must be large enough to attract first-rate people to the service of the borough. These things are important, but I do not think that it is a justification for administratively pushing around 40,000 teachers and a million children so that councillors who like to deal with education can do so. And this is the nearest that I have come to a basic reason for very much that appears in the Royal Commission's Report.
  I wanted to deal with the question of children and education, but there is not time. In conclusion, I should like to think that there were good local government reasons for the proposed changes but I find it very difficult to think that there are. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that this is the raw meat of politics. I think that he is right. We remember that in the last debate the Minister of Education said that some of his hon. Friends would like to get rid of the London County Council, at any rate for purposes of education. We remember that a previous Solicitor-General said about this matter:
  "There are two questions to be asked. First, is London well-governed at the moment, and, secondly, are we going to allow it to be continually dominated by the Socialists?"
  142
  That seems to be getting near the real reason for the introduction of the Bill.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Putney takes some exception in respect of Wandsworth. So, curiously enough, does the Streatham Conservative Association, which sent out a letter drawing attention to the fact that the new boundaries of the Borough of Wandsworth would probably cost the party two or three Parliamentary seats. It continued:
  "The borough in its present form has always had a Conservative majority, but if the proposed division takes place both the new boroughs will have a permanent Socialist majority. With all due respect to the Minister, we cannot regard that as in the interests of local government."
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith rose—
  Mr. Skeffington: I have only a minute or two left for my speech and I hope that the right hon. Lady will not ask me to give way on this issue.
  This is a perfectly natural reaction, but if this is the basic reasoning for local government change it is a very bad thing for local government.
  I hold in my hand what I regard as a somewhat historic document dated 31st July, 1945. Some of my hon. Friends will be prejudiced against it, because it is headed, "With the compliments of the Conservative Central Office Press Department". In the sixth paragraph the then newly elected leader of the Conservative Party on the L.C.C.—the present Home Secretary—said:
  "I mean to end the period of Labour control of the London County Council".
  It seems that after six elections, on which on every occasion the Conservatives have been defeated in London, this is the method which has been devised to get rid of those who cannot be defeated at the polls. If this is so—there is strong evidence for it—it is a very sordid and discreditable scheme and I hope that when the electors have an opportunity to change the national Government this will be one of the factors which will sway them in voting.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am sorry that a number of hon. Members have been cut out from the debate. I hope that they will catch the eye of the Clair tomorrow. I am sure the Minister will agree that the speeches he has

  143
  heard today—to be fair to him, he has heard nearly all of them—have mostly bean critical. Even those of his hon. Friends who have given qualified support to the Bill have also expressed their deep concern about their own individual constituencies.
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) spent a great deal of time criticising what is going to happen to her own area, which is fair enough. The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), after a long speech in which he told us that this was a fine Bill, ended by saying that it was not any good for Putney. This will evidently make our Committee proceedings very lively.
  I want to get this on record at once. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made a masterly speech. He gave us a massive survey of this problem, and he did it in a way which brought credit to our party because it was no party political prejudice. He expressed firmly and strongly his concern for the services which are now being rendered. This is the fundamental difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. The Labour Party is gravely concerned about the effect of these structural changes on the services. In spite of all the arguments and cases which can be made out for structural changes—I do not deny that there are arguments; I realise the arguments which can be made—the real test, and the only test, is whether the new structure will mean services as good as we are getting now or better than we are getting now.
  This can be the only test. If the Bill fails on this test, there is no case which can be sustained for saying that these London boroughs and the outer areas all have to be changed because somehow down the years they have grown up in a rather odd way. Reading the Royal Commission's Report, the White Paper, and so on, gives one the feeling all the time that the whole impact of the services has been missed, because the terms of reference, particularly those of the Royal Commission, were only concerned to see how the local government boundaries could be redefined.
  The Minister charged us with being negative. In effect, he conveyed to the
  144
  House that all we wanted was the status quo. I deny that. I say to him sincerely that we believe that there are some functions which could be, and ought now to be, transferred to the local authorities. We accept that. We would like even further consultation with the local authorities concerned to see what functions they can best carry out, the test being at all times that no function is transferred to any body which cannot guarantee to do the service as well as it is being done now.
  On traffic and planning—here I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black)—we support in principle the five counties proposal for the much wider area. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) rightly said that we believe that on this matter of traffic and planning the Abercrombie area is just about the right size and that it would be right for ultimate executive authority to be given to such a body. I know that at the end of the day the Minister must say "Yes" or "No", because he has the purse strings, but we agree that it would be right to give this body genuine, executive powers over the whole of the area on matters of traffic and planning. So I trust that the Minister will not talk about our being negative. These are positive proposals.
  The Minister rightly paid tribute to the present staffs of local authorities. When the Bill was first published it was with a feeling of anger that I read it because one would have expected something different in view of the enormous pressure brought on the Government, not by the political party machine but by impartial bodies comprised of doctors, teachers and magistrates—people who were worried and unhappy about the proposed changes in the structure and the effects they might have.
  As I say, it was with a feeling of anger that I read the Bill. It has got to the position, however, when I feel a little frightened about its effects, particularly on the staffs. I am not a member of a county council or a local authority. I am an average sort of hon. Member of Parliament who tries to perform a local service by attending his constituency quite regularly. I attend mine about once a week. All hon. Members in this position must get to know a good deal about their local authorities and county councils.

  145
  It is for these reasons that I would like this on the record. Irrespective of party political feelings, nothing but praise can be given to the local authority staffs who have been doing a magnificent job for many years. We must praise them for their courtesy, sincerity and honesty, because this is the great pride of local government and the Civil Service. If there is the odd case of dishonesty it hits the headlines in the Press, and so it should. However, these people are terribly frightened, and I share their fears.
  It is no good the Minister saying that a particular architects' department is not suffering or will not suffer because of the Bill. I am in a position to quote figures which I received only the other day from County Hall on the staff position. The architects' department alone last year had a 19 per cent. turnover in staff. This year the figure has been 191 per cent., and at present there are 130 vacancies in a department which everyone admits has been doing a first-class job. Another important department at County Hall is that of the chief engineer. In that department there has been an 18 per cent. turnover in staff and there are now more than 111 vacancies.
  The Government's proposals earlier in the year meant that some of these first-class services would be run down and despite the Clause in the Bill which talks about a staff commission, these people have no assurances for tomorrow. How can anyone urge people to go into local government with one voice and, with another, produce structural changes of this kind? Apart from redundancies, many who are hoping for promotion will see those prospects taken away. In a service like this one cannot ask for the best of people under these circumstances, and it is for these reasons that I feel not only worried but also frightened.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham referred to one of our great activities, the children's services, and dealt with the topic at some length. This is the sort of service which brings out clearly the sort of fears which exist and I can prove this with figures. When one considers this service in London and the figures affecting it one is filled with emotion. We see that more than 9,000 children are in the care of the London
  146
  County Council. The Royal Commission stated that about 80 per cent. of these children were only short-stay cases, but that is not true. I do not know where the Commission got its figures, but it was a disgraceful piece of research because having looked into the matter I have discovered that, instead of it being 80 per cent., only 9 per cent. are short-stay cases. The Government must know this, and when the Parliamentary Secretary replies perhaps he will confirm that this was a gross error on the part of the Royal Commission and that, in fact, only 9 per cent. of the children are now short-stay cases.
  What happens to these vast numbers of children? How long are they in care? They are in care from as little as six months to as much as 18 years—and in care, at the moment, of the London County Council. How are they to be dealt with? My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham gave examples, but let me add to them. Stepney is a very good example. In Stepney, there are 651 children in care of the London County Council, some of them in 50 different establishments, and others in 22 private establishments and 23 voluntary homes. Lambeth has 770 children in care of the London County Council. They are in 60 different establishments, 40 private establishments and 30 voluntary homes. I challenge any hon. Member opposite to say that, during the time he has been a member of this House—and we all know the criticisms that have been made—he has ever heard of any criticism of the way in which the children are being looked after.
  What are we proposing to do? This is a matter, not only for the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but for the Minister of Health and others. We propose to farm them out to the Greater London authorities. Do the Government really believe that Lambeth, will all the good will in the world, and governed, as we know they are by first-class people, and officered by men and women of integrity, can deal, for instance, with those 770 children? Will all the skilled L.C.C. staff come over?
  Islington has over 1,000 children in L.C.C. care; I do not see how that borough can look after such a number. All these children present different problems —that is why they are in different establishments. Some children are in care only

  147
  because they have lost their parents and have no homes—they must not be mixed with children committed by the courts. Is not that obvious? Where are we to put them? Is it now to be said that Islington, willing though it may be to try, can provide the necessary homes for 1,000 children—
  Mr. A. Evans: As one of the members of the Islington Borough Council, perhaps I may remind my hon. Friend that Islington will do its duty and will, to the best of its ability, carry out any responsibilities laid upon it, but to have suddenly thrust upon it the added responsibilities of child care will be too much for that authority.
  Mr. Mellish: I quite agree. I have said that Islington will do its very best, and so will any other Greater London borough set up under the Bill and working in a democratic way, but they will not have either the staff or the establishments necessary.
  I want the Parliamentary Secretary to be specific. We want assurances that none of these children will be hurt in this process. Is not that fair? The children cannot speak for themselves, so we have to speak for them. Nobody challenges the quality of the service today. Therefore, with any change in the structure and, therefore, the means by which the children will be dealt with, we want to be assured that those children will not be hurt.
  The aged, too, present a problem. At the present time, 8,000 old people are in care of the London County Council, and, as the Minister of Health will know, many are in what is called Part III accommodation—it what might almost be called hospital accommodation. They are senile, and need medical care and attention. Let us suppose that this Bill goes through as it stands, and we set up the Greater London boroughs. Lewisham will have a very large establishment catering for old people, and I have no doubt that it will be able to do a first-class job looking after them, but we do not have any home at all in Bermondsey, and we certainly do not have any land on which to establish one. What happens? Do we come to an arrangement with Lewisham? Will that work out? The present arrangement
  148
  does work, and those old people are being cared for and, if there are criticisms, the criticisms are looked into and ventilated. My own experience makes me proud of the way in which those people are being cared for today.
  The care of the children and the aged is a 24-hour service. We have heard much today about education, but at 4 p.m. or 4.30 p.m. the whole thing closes down. Schools are closed at the weekends, and there are long holidays. That does not apply to the care of the handicapped, the children and the aged—that is a 24-hour job. My fear is that in so much of the area of the Greater London boroughs there will be neither the staff nor the establishments to enable the authorities to do the job.
  What about the handicapped, and the special training facilities, the special welfare homes and the rehabilitation centres which are being run at central level? Who will deal with these? The deaf and dumb children are a good example. How will they be dealt with? What special arrangements are to be made for them? This is why so many of us feel sick at the thought of what is going to happen. This has nothing to do with party political prejudice. Let the Tories win the L.C.C. so long as they maintain and run the services.
  They have had one great chance of dealing with this central authority, but the Government have missed and muffed it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) gets up in his pontifical way to try to smooth the Government and say how well they have done. Does he believe that traffic will be dealt with properly under the Bill? Let me quote The Times—that is a bright paper for top people, that is. The Times agrees. This is quite scandalous, says grandmother Times. London has grown and grown, and the time is long overdue when it really must be dealt with, but now The Times has had a look at the Bill and, on 6th December, it is absolutely shocked and says:
  "The least satisfactory part of the Bill concerns traffic and roads. The Minister remains the highway authority for some 200 miles of trunk road, the G.L.C. becomes the authority for about 550 miles of 'metropolitan roads', and the rest (about 7,000 miles) goes to the boroughs. The G.L.C. is given many of the powers now possessed by the Minister to

  149
  control traffic in London, which is as it should be; but the Minister surrenders nothing in the process. To leave the Minister in sole charge of the main traffic arteries and with his present directorial powers over traffic generally makes nonsense of the G.L.C's responsibilities."
  That is The Times.
  What about that other great character who has been supporting the Government all through, that arch-demon of the Tory Party on every structural reform, Professor Robson, that great character who has been writing articles as much as he can and making speeches on why London should be massacred in this way? He, too, has had a look at the Bill, and he is a bit shattered.
  In New Society on 29th November, he writes:
  "There is an absurd amount of duplication of authority between the Ministry of Transport and the Greater London Council regarding traffic regulations. The Bill declares that the Greater London Council is to expedite and render safe the flow of traffic, but almost all the powers which it confers on the Council for this purpose are either also exercisable by the Ministry of Transport or made subject to his approval, veto or modification. This is utterly wrong in principle and will result in confusion of responsibility. The Ministry of Transport is a weak department with a poor record on highway matters and the right course is to concentrate power clearly in the hands of the new Council."
  These proposals are disappointing. The Government have lost a great chance of giving the new Council real authority.
  Street lighting is not a very typical subject when we talk of services, but it is among the things we believe should be seen to. Is it not time that street lighting should be under one control, so that even the poor motorist going from one place to another should find the same lighting everywhere? We thought that that was the whole idea of this part of the reform, but the Government have missed even that. So much for traffic and highways. In Committee we shall do our best to strengthen the powers of the Greater London Council.
  Another great service in which I am interested is the mental health service. I am glad to see the Minister of Health here. It to his credit that he has been here all day, because so much of the Bill concerns him. I have the privilege of being a chairman of a management committee and a member of a regional hospital board. I do not raise matters in the House concerning them, as the
  150
  Minister knows, but I try on local and regional level to do a fair job.
  One of the great things that has come out of the National Health Service in the last few years has been the cooperation between the hospitals and mental health service bodies at county level. At my hospital we treat psychiatric patients by arrangement with the county council. In that hospital are the case workers and psychiatric workers of the county council. Who is going to do that job in the future—the Greater London Borough? It is the Greater London boroughs who will be asked to do that work. That is our complaint. The Greater London boroughs are to be asked to do the work that has been done at a central level.
  Consider the thousands of people who have suffered from these complaints. At County Hall level an all-night service has been run, and over 2,000 cases were received last year by that all-night service. How will those cases be dealt with under the Greater London boroughs plan? How can they establish a 24-hour service? Where can they get the staff? Where will the establishments be? There are hostels for the mentally disabled and different types of training centres for those people, because there are different degrees of mental disturbance. As I say, I am unhappy at the thought that the personnel of these services, with all the good will in the world, will not be able to deal with this work. The problem will be too big for them and will be outside their boundaries.
  Much has been said about the Bill being undemocratic. The hon. Member for Wimbledon was quite right to point out to the Government that they have no mandate for bringing in this Bill. This is a pretty poor Government. They have not got the courage to go to the country at the moment. They know what would happen if they did. Yet at this moment they bring in a Bill which most people do not want. They have completely ignored the procedure of the 1958 Act which deals with local government reform in the provinces and so on. There, at any rate, people were given a chance to make representations. But these boundaries have been drawn up by the Minister. True, he has had the advice of four town clerks, but he has drawn them up and has acted as judge and jury.

  151
  I do not know of anything more undemocratic. He has done this in an area where local government has been thriving and where I do not know of anyone who has been showered with complaints. No representations have been made to me. In fact, I understood that this was the best part of the democracy in which we live. Yet we are to have a Bill which the people do not want, for which the Government have no mandate and on which they are not prepared to go to the country.
  We are told that this is going to be local government. One member of the Council will represent 80,000 electors. Is that local? The right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst complained about County Hall being "very remote". Those were her words. I hope she will agree that the Greater London Council will be even more remote. There will be one representative for 80,000 elector, and I would point out that at borough council level one borough councillor will represent about 10,000 electors. I am sure, of course, that everyone will know who "Joe Snooks" is!
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: My complaint about the remoteness of County Hall related to the level of personal services which will now be dealt with by the boroughs. I do not think the personal services have the same impact on an authority that will be dealing with roads and drainage.
  Mr. Mellish: I think the argument about these Greater London boroughs is that they will have these rigid joint boards to render these services, which is the one thing that I object to and which will make it not local at all. It is not going to be local as we understand it. There is a great danger here for our children, our handicapped and old people. It is against this background that we have tried to argue our case.
  I say to the Ministers concerned that we are so frightened of the future that we must put on record that whatever way this Bill goes—and I suppose it must become law in view of the Government's large majority—for many like me this is going to be the issue at the next General Election.
  The Leader of the House is, I understand, also the political king of the Tory Party. I do not know how popular he is
  152
  with the Conservative Central Office. He cannot be very popular, because he has been doing very badly, but I assume that he is allowed in, at least, to speak to Central Office people sometimes. I tell the right hon. Gentleman now, so that he may pass the word on—I speak here in a humble capacity as chairman of the London Labour Party, which will have something to do with the reorganisation of London government—that, whatever issues there may be at the next General Election, we shall put this one before the people of London. I am certain that when the time comes it will be my party in power on the Government benches which will have to deal with this wretched Bill, not the Tory Party.
  9.25 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, the fundamental principle of the Bill is the treatment of the continuous built-up areas of Greater London as an entity to be administered by a substantially uniform system of multi-purpose borough government, with a single overall Greater London Council to deal with those needs which, in the Government's view, require consideration on the basis of the area as a whole.
  The speeches and comments of hon. Members during the debate have been devoted, on the one hand, to the division of functions and to such comparatively detailed matters as housing, planning, traffic, and so on, and, on the other,—principally among hon. Members opposite—to the principles themselves. In speaking of the principles, hon. Members have, quite rightly, referred to the other more detailed matters, and I shall try to deal with those in the first part of my speech.
  As my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Education and of Health will be intervening in the debate tomorrow, I shall not deal with matters within their province, and I shall leave, in particular, the children's services to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who will deal with those in addition to the matters for which he is himself responsible.
  I say at the outset that I do not accept the somewhat extraordinary constitutional doctrine on the subject of the mandate advanced by my hon. Friend the

  153
  Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). Even if I did accept it, I should have to remind him that the Local Government Act, 1958, specifically excluded London because of the appointment of the Royal Commission at that time. As it happens, the Royal Commission was set up exactly five years ago, in December, 1957. It is not irrelevant that the Commission heard evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon himself.
  I remind the House and my hon. Friend that the procedure of Royal Commission is a special and somewhat elaborate procedure. The investigations of the Royal Commission in this case lasted for three years. It invited evidence from more than 400 bodies and received evidence from most of them. It sat and heard evidence in public. Members of the public were able to put forward their views, as many did. In addition, it paid visits to many parts of the area. In November, 1960, the Minister invited the comments of the local authorities concerned on the Royal Commission's proposals. Then we had the Government proposals in a White Paper and a debate on the White Paper earlier this year.
  Before I come to the questions which have been raised about matters in the Bill, I 3hould say something about what is not in the Bill. No provision is made, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) pointed out, for the administration of justice or for the lieutenancies consequential upon the changes in local government administrative areas. These matters will be dealt with by separate legislation dealing with those wider issues, as was announced in an Answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  The Bill makes no provision with regard to the undertakings of the Metropolitan Water Board. It is the Government's view that, when we have for the first time a directly elected council dealing with matters affecting Greater London as a whole, it is only sensible that that council, the Greater London Council, should take over from the existing indirectly elected Board, appointed by local authorities, the job of running the water undertaking which serves the greater part of the London area.
  Mr. Pargiter: What about the others?
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) raised the question of other water undertakings. He will observe that under the Bill the two local authority undertakings of Croydon and Richmond go to the boroughs of which those authorities will form part. Concerning the water undertakings for the rest of the area, it is not our intention to depart from the general principles under which we are arranging amalgamations under the Water Act, that is to say, where the water authority is a strong and viable unit it will remain so notwithstanding that part of it supplies the Greater London area.
  Mr. Pargiter: Are we to take it from this that the principles of water conservation as they apply to an area such as the London basin, which ought to be treated as a whole for water conservation purposes, will have no effect at all because private interests will become involved?
  Mr. Corfield: These are matters which are operated under the Water Act and which have nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
  Criticism during the debate has been levelled against the position of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in connection with traffic control and it has been suggested—I think that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) quoted from The Times—that the Minister is keeping all his powers and surrendering nothing. That is really not the fact. The Greater London Council will be given a full range of traffic regulation powers. It will have powers to arrange one-way schemes, peak-hour clearways, controlled parking, and so forth. It will also have power to make parking meter orders which other local authorities do not have. These are powers Which the Minister of Transport is, in fact, surrendering. What he retains under the Bill is direct powers on such matters as speed limits, which are exactly the same as he has for the rest of the country.
  My right hon. Friend has also reserve powers to direct the Greater London Council, and, if the Council fails to comply, to take action himself, but they are not powers for action in parallel with the London County Council and they will not give rise to what The Times

  155
  has described as pointless duplication. I can give the House an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend that they are only regarded as being for use in the last resort. They are very similar to the many powers, to which my right hon. Friend drew attention, which he has and which, in fact, are very seldom exercised.
  Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase in "the last resort". That is a very glib phrase. Does that mean that if the Greater London Council differs from the Minister of Transport it is a case of "in the last resort" the Minister uses his powers?
  Mr. Corfield: I think that a fairer definition is, if the Minister of Transport feels that the Greater London Council is not carrying out its duties, but it does not follow that disagreement would amount to a dereliction of duty.
  The Minister of Transport has overriding responsibility for road safety for the country as a whole, and in the Government's view it would be wrong for him to renounce completely any possibility of contributing to the solution of London traffic problems. This whole duty will face the Greater London Council with one of its biggest challenges, and that is why it has been given these powers and why, in the last resort, it should be subject to the control of a Minister answerable to Parliament. I do not believe that that is a constitutional position which will be attacked in the House.
  The Minister of Transport's responsibilities for highways have also been criticised, again in the same article that the hon. Gentleman read out, but it must be pointed out that the Bill makes no change at all in the 130 or so miles of trunk roads in the outer part of London. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is none in the administrative County of London. But there has been no final decision on this, and my right hon. Friend proposes to discuss with the Greater London Council what the long-term pattern of trunk roads for Greater London should be. I am advised that any changes can be made by order under the Highways Act. There is no necessity to include powers in the Bill.
  Mr. Mellish: On traffic and planning, is it a fact that the Greater London Council, if it wants to bring about a major urban improvement, will have to get the agreement, or virtually the permission, of the Greater London borough if it wants to do any rehousing in that borough?
  Mr. Corfield: Under planning powers, the Greater London Connell has the ordinary powers of a local authority under the Act for redevelopment, and there is no question of permission for further development being required in an area for comprehensive redevelopment. If it requires housing in a London borough for other purposes, it will have to get the consent of the borough. But there is an appeal to the Minister, the object of which is that my right hon. Friend can hold the balance between the borough and the Greater London Council.
  The reason for that is not, as one hon. Member suggested, that some of the boroughs will not want housing, but that in many cases the fact that limited supplies of land have been taken up by an outside authority—in this case, the Greater London Council—can be embarrassing to the borough in carrying out its housing programme; there can be a perfectly genuine clash of interest, and it is useful and appropriate that the Minister should make the decision.
  Rerunning to the question of housing and the provisions in the Bill, some of which I have described, apart from the fact that the Greater London Council will be the sole overspill authority, the new London boroughs will have all the housing powers of county boroughs. As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, these London boroughs are very substantial units. Of course, conditions are not precisely the same in a London borough as they are in Portsmouth or in Nottingham, but, nevertheless, they are not so different as to make the analogy invalid. They are equally powerful and equally resourceful bodies.
  The London boroughs will, therefore, be solely responsible for slum clearance. They will operate the statutory and discretionary improvement grants and will be responsible for operating the powers against multi-occupation under the Housing Act, 1961. They will have

  157
  power by arrangement to build houses in other boroughs and will have power, with the Minister's consent, to build outside the Greater London Area.
  The Government, of course, appreciate —I think that this was the point made by the hon. Member for Fulham—that many London boroughs cannot solve their housing problem within their own areas. Many people concerned with their jobs will have to move to new and expanded towns outside the area and beyond the green belt, but this is the function of overspill. It is very largely because we recognise that the size and resources of the L.C.C. have enabled it to make such an outstandingly successful contribution that these functions are reserved;o the Greater London Council.
  There is no possible reason why they should not be every bit as successful as the L.C.C. functions have been. They will certainly be able to exercise their powers much more comprehensively because they will be able to take into account the needs of London boroughs outside the L.C.C. area. Some of those boroughs, such as Willesden, face just as difficult problems as those within the L.C.C. area.
  When people are displaced by slum clearance or by demolition for other purposes, such as road widening, or as a result of the exercise of the multi-occupation powers, many of them are tied to Greater London by their jobs. That is why the Greater London Council has powers to build within the London boroughs. I will not go over that again, but consent is required to hold the balance. I do not think it at all unreasonable that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should be the arbiter in case of disagreement.
  In practice, the amount of building that the Greater London Council will do will depend largely upon the success of the London boroughs in solving their own housing problems. There can, however, be no doubt that the Greater London Council will have considerable building responsibilities. We certainly see no reason why the architect's department, for which, naturally and rightly, a great deal of concern has been displayed, should not continue to have every bit as much work as it has had in the past.
  158
  It is true that the architect's department will lose some types of work, but it could well have more in other directions. It will lose some housing and some health, and welfare building, but it will handle the fire and ambulance services and be responsible for the planning, overspill and major redevelopment for 8 million people instead of 3 million people.
  Mrs. Corbet: I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that in most of the expanded town schemes the London County Council does not itself build.
  Mr. Corfield: That, no doubt, is true, but there is no reason why the council should not build and should not supervise, and the Greater London Council is given specific powers to do that and to supervise the building out of London.
  Mrs. Corbet: There is a quite big reason against it. London County Council building depends entirely upon the willingness of the local authorities who receive the population into their areas. It is they who normally wish to build.
  Mr. Corfield: That is true, but there is no reason why the services of the L.C.C. architect's department should not be called upon. In view of the general shortage of architects, particularly in local authority offices, I should have thought that the Council would be pleased to call upon the services of this central organisation.
  Mr. M. Stewart: Surely, the shortage of architects, of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, will not be alleviated by requiring each of the boroughs to have a separate architect's department with enlarged responsibilities. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that of the 20 boroughs of outer London, only four at present have an architect's department? They will all have to get staff from somewhere. That will make the position more difficult.
  Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that there is a shortage in certain skills, and architects are one of them. The hon. Member's argument does not, however, tie in with his fear of redundancy.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me like that. I made no suggestion of a danger of

  159
  redundancy. I said that there was a danger that the London County Council architect's department would be torn to pieces. It is no answer to that to say that the architects might get employment in much smaller and less adequate services elsewhere. Why fragment the service when there is need to be economical with the existing architect labour?
  Mr. Corfield: The reason is that we hope to do a great deal more building and, therefore, there will be a demand on all fronts. I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member, but his hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey raised the question of turnover in staff.
  Mr. G. Brown: That is totally different.
  Mr. Corfield: The hon. Member said that there had been a 19 per cent. turnover in architectural staff during the last year. He also quoted a figure of 18 per cent. for engineers. But that is a profession which is in no way threatened by the Bill. So I think that we must conclude that this turnover is not necessarily affected by the Bill since it also affects engineers who are not affected by the Bill. This is much more likely to be a general problem, and, indeed, we do know that there is a general shortage of architects for local authority work throughout the whole country. I therefore think that hon. Gentlemen opposite are being a little unwise to jump to the conclusion that a shortage of turnover in the L.C.C. architect's staff is necessarily due to any confusion arising from the changes made by the Bill.
  Mr. Brown: Will the Bill help it?
  Mr. Corfield: Probably it will not help it.
  Mr. Brown: Probably it will not help it!
  Mr. Corfield: With regard to housing responsibilities, there is the question of the transfer of the present London County Council's housing assets to the London boroughs. It is not proposed that this should be done either immediately or simultaneously. It would be wrong to transfer these properties all at the same time, but, when all is said and done, people's affinities—and we have
  160
  heard in the debate something about local affinities—do depend on where they live and not on who happens to be their landlord; and it is surely sensible to transfer these estates to the London boroughs as and when conditions permit.
  If we did so immediately the effect would be uneven. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some boroughs would gain a very large housing estate, others would gain nothing at all. But we do accept that the Greater London Council wild continue with the duties of helping in the redistribution and rehousing of the people of London, and we accept that, for that purpose, a pool of varied accommodation, fairly widely distributed over the area, is essential; but as progress is made the Greater London Council, which itself will go on building within the Greater London area, will add to this pool, and we think that it will then be appropriate gradually to transfer some of these houses, selected very largely on a geographical basis, to the London boroughs. If necessary, it will be possible for the Greater London Council to retain the right to nominate a proportion of tenancies for a further transitional period.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) drew particular attention to the problem of the homeless, but this seems to me to be a problem where the housing authorities—and it is basically a housing problem—will be in no possible sense worse off, in coping with this problem, than they are under the present system. There is still a pool of houses and there are still the powers of the Greater London Council to build in the Greater London area and the powers of the Greater London Council to undertake overspill.
  Mr. M. Stewart: The scheme for using disused liners for the homeless—which London boroughs will take that one on?
  Mr. Corfield: Is there any reason why the Greater London Council should not? It is a housing authority for all these purposes. [An HON. MEMBER: "For welfare?"] Some of the boroughs—'in particular, one of the biggest which is in the inner area has no fewer than 341,000 people. Surely that sort of borough will have the resources for that sort of operation. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Why not?

  161
  A further point to be borne in mind is that the Greater London Council will have the obligation to maintain a central register of housing applications for the whole area, and this will enable us to have a really accurate assessment of the housing need throughout the whole area, which is something we have never had before.
  Mr. G. Brown: What will the Council do with it?
  Mr. Corfield: It will also enable the Council to arrange its own priorities in the overall allocation of vacancies. [Interruption.] But it will not interfere with the basic responsibilities of the London boroughs with regard to their own housing accommodation. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to conduct a permanent running commentary on a speech while seated. I think that the House will be well advised to remember that.
  Mr. M. Stewart: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Minister has been defying the rules of order throughout by reading a speech which is supposed to be a reply to a debate, and a running commentary at least adds some interest which would otherwise be lacking in our procedure.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to urge that it is in order to conduct a running commentary when seated, I will hear him. With regard to the other matter, I will rule on that when I am requested to do so.
  Mr. Corfield: I now pass to one or two questions with regard to the boroughs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) raised particularly the question of the severance of the Chislehurst urban district. The principle that we have applied throughout is to endeavour to arrange the grouping in London without splitting existing local authorities, but there have been occasions when it really has been impossible to compile a suitable set of groupings without transgressing that basic principle, and that is the case, regrettably, in her area.
  We studied this before the Report of the four Town Clerks was presented, and they themselves came to the conclusion that a is was the only way in which a
  162
  suitable grouping in the area could be obtained. In looking at these groupings, we have to bear in mind that any attempt to change them, even marginally, is rather apt to have the effect of throwing a stone into a pool; the ripples go out a very long way indeed. One cannot consider even minor alterations to single boroughs unless one is satisfied that the ramifications throughout the neighbouring boroughs and beyond will not produce an impossible pattern elsewhere.
  Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: Is my hon. Friend virtually saying that his mind is closed already to any alterations whatsoever to the First Schedule?
  Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is quite determined that in Committee he will consider any case which is put forward on its merits.
  Mr. Driberg: Between now and the Committee stage, will the Minister seriously consider the proposition that if a borough has to suffer a certain amount of polluted air, it is only equitable that that borough should supervise the source of the pollution?
  Mr. Corfield: Certainly, that is something that we can consider in Committee, but I am not sure that it attaches directly to the matter on which I was trying to address the House.
  The other matter which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst raised concerned some common land which, I gather, is managed by conservators. I am advised that the Bill does not affect common land so managed, but we will certainly consult the local authority concerned and ensure that the status of the land is not altered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) criticised the provision that complete councils should retire every three years. He made a good case. I hope that he will raise this matter in Committee, for that seems the most suitable occasion on which to discuss it.
  I turn now to the more general principles. Much criticism has been directed at the basic delimitation of the Greater London area. On the one hand, it has been said that it is too small as an effective planning unit, and, on the other, that it is too large as an organ of local government. These propositions appear

  163
  to be based on the undeniable fact that the ramifications of any form of planning in London will spread out not only beyond the green belt, but in many cases very considerable distances beyond the green belt. Of course, the solution to many of the problems in London will involve development at very considerable distances.
  This is all perfectly true; it is the stock argument for regional planning, and a very powerful one. But it must be remembered that, although these factors are perhaps more obvious around London, they are not in any way peculiar to London. They apply to every other conurbation and every other large city in the country.
  If the hon. Member for Fulham argues that regional planning makes sense only if it is a substitute for local authority planning, then that is an argument for removing planning powers from all the existing local planning authorities. While we on this side of the House, and the Government in particular, fully accept that local planning needs to be done within a regional framework and against the background of the information supplied by the regional surveys which my Ministry is carrying out, we do not accept that either regional planning or national planning can be or should be a substitute for local planning.
  We believe that the right way to tackle the problem is for the regional surveys and priority is being given to the South-East in this respect—to make available to local authorities the basic information about regional development and its trends in order to form a framework on which they can build their own local development plans.
  On this basis, the area of Greater London in our view forms a suitable unit, whether we have regional planning or not. Above all, we are convinced that, because land use goes to the root of practically every local authority function, and certainly to the most important ones, unless local authorities have a major say in the determination of that use we shall be removing from local government something which is vital to it if it is to survive as a potent force.
  164
  That is the main reason why we have departed from one of the main recommendations of the Royal Commission, which suggested that planning should be entitrely in the hands of the Greater London Council. We feel that these very substantial authorities should have a major say in the planning of their own areas.
  Mr. Mellish: How does that statement match the White Paper's view that planning, traffic control and matters of that kind, should be in the hands of the central authority?
  Mr. Corfield: The authority for overall planning will be the Greater London Council. Within the Greater London plan, when that has been approved, it will be the duty of the boroughs to fill in the details and prepare their local plans, which will have to be consistent with the Greater London plan.
  I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Fulham, who said that all this would lead to tremendous confusion. The hon. Member said that the Minister would be directing the Greater London Council, which would be directing the London boroughs about the carrying out of the development plan. But I think that the only powers which he can be referring to in this context are those which enable the Minister to prescribe a time limit within which the various stages of the development plan shall be carried out. But these powers, as far as I know, will be in the standard form, very similar to those in the Town and Country Planning Acts.
  In applying this general principle to London, we must face the fact that London is unique. It has peculiarities of its own. We cannot possibly have a satisfactory planning system for London unless we regard the built up area as an entity. The type of planning required in this conurbation is very different from the sort of problems met in the Green Belt and the surrounding country, and although London is part of this region—
  It being Ten oclock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

INTERNATIONAL COFFEE ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES)
10.1 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Coffee Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th November.
This Order is required to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the International Coffee Agreement which was signed in New York on 28th September. The new Agreement takes account of the interests of both producers and consumers of this important commodity and, it is hoped, will be a means of helping us to solve the particularly intractable problems in world trade which coffee has hitherto presented.
The executive organ of the Agreement, the International Coffee Organisation, is to have its seat in London. The Agreement will enter into force when a sufficient number of producing and consuming countries have declared their intention to ratify it. This is likely to be early in the new year. By that time, Her Majesty's Government wish to be in a position to confer legal capacity and certain fiscal privileges on the Organisation. These will be exactly the same as those already accorded, with the approval of Parliament, to the Tin, Sugar and Wheat Councils.
The legal capacities of the Organisation, which will be the capacities of a body corporate, will enable it, for instance, to sue and be sued, to buy or lease premises in its own name, and to engage staff. Neither the officers of the Organisation nor the Organisation itself will enjoy jurisdictional immunity. The Organisation, which holds no buffer stock of coffee and is not a commercial concern, will be entitled under the Order to exemption from the taxation of its assets and income which it would otherwise have to meet.
But, as against this loss to the Exchequer, it will be appreciated that the subscriptions of member Governments will be paid into an account in the United Kingdom, the Organisation's foreign employees will spend their salaries here, and its locally engaged
166
employees will owe their jobs to its presence in this country. Moreover, the Organisation will still be subjected to the usual Customs duties on imported goods.
It will have to pay the proportion of the local rates on its official premises covering services from which it derives or may derive benefit, such as street lighting and the fire brigade. On the other hand, it will not pay towards services, such as local education, from which it does not benefit directly. This partial exemption is confined to the Organisation itself and does not affect its officers. Their only privilege will be exemption from Income Tax on salaries, and this will be restricted to those of them who are not nationals of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the House will agree that the extent to which we are being asked to benefit the International Coffee Organisation is reasonable. I am sure, too, that we all welcome the choice of London as the Organisation's headquarters, where the presence of three other commodity councils makes it easier for participating countries to provide representatives and for facilities to be shared. It is gratifying that, although Her Majesty's Government did not seek to have the Organisatian here, the great majority of delegations at the negotiating conference voted in favour of London as the seat of the Organisation. This underlines London's reputation as an international training and conference centre. I therefore invite the House to approve the Order, and hope that it will do so.
10.5 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: On all sides of the House we recognise that in the complicated interchange of services between countries—a tendency excellent in itself and to be encouraged—some measure of immunity is necessary for the citizens coming to this country and belonging to these various organisations. That, I believe, we concede in principle.
On the other hand, I begin to think that there is no Act of Parliament more hardly worked upon our Statute Book than the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, under which this Order is made. When one looks at such Orders as these, one becomes conscious of a long vista of such

167
Orders stretching back over the years. I have been concerned in a number of them, and I have had a feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the number is almost legion. I wonder how many people in this country can walk along the pavements of London and say that they are enjoying immunities and privileges which the ordinary citizens do not enjoy? By now there must be an enormous number. At some time, I think, we shall have to have a full debate on the numbers to which these people run.
While saying in advance that, as at present advised I do not wish to advise the House to oppose the Order, I ask the Minister, as a matter of common sense and political philosophy, why it is necessary that the officers of this Organisation should have the privileges which the Order confers upon them. Such Orders —at any rate most of them—confer upon the officers of the organisations to which they relate a protection from actions of libel or slander in respect of words written or uttered by them in the discharge of their duties. One can understand that it is necessary to invest the various officers engaged in the running of these organisations with a certain measure of protection in case they unwittingly render themselves liable to proceedings in the courts of this country, possibly not being as familiar with the law of this country as we are. That one can understand in principle. But this Order offers no such immunity. All the officers are just as open to proceedings and complaints in the courts of this country as is an ordinary citizen of this country.
But what the Order does, for some reason, is to exempt them from Income Tax. Why should that be so? I ask the Minister, is there any reciprocal immunity conferred upon citizens of this country in other countries in relation to this Organisation? The Minister referred to the Tin and Sugar Councils. We have not those Orders in front of us now, but I think that the Orders relating to them were framed to confer immunity in respect not only of tax obligations but of others. I do not know whether the Minister, without advising himself upon the matter, can say whether that is the case.
I ask him, as a matter of principle, why take this Organisation and its
168
officers, not being officers of British nationality, and say to them, "You need not pay tax on the incomes which you draw for work which you do in this country from this Organisation, although your British counterparts in the Organisation have to pay taxes"? What is the point of it? If we start with that and go beyond the necessary immunity which they must have in the conduct of their duty, where shall we end? How many people now do not pay Income Tax in respect of incomes drawn for services rendered on the soil of this country? What is the loss to the Revenue? I do not know whether the Minister can give a global figure representing the loss, but I dare say that accumulatively it must amount to a sizeable figure. Whilst always conceding that in general there must be a case for this sort of thing, I should like to ask the Minister, before this matter is finally committed to the judgment of the House, to say what is the case for granting this immunity. Why do they get this tax relief? The Minister simply said of the Order that it is an Order which confers this privilege upon them. Before the judgment of the House is passed upon the Measure he should tell us what is the case for it.
What is the international political case for saying that these officers do not need any other privileges in the discharge of their duty; that they do not do work which exposes them to special risks or which makes it obligatory that they should be protected in some way in which other persons are not protected in this country; that they are under no risk to which ordinary people are not subject; but that as a kind of douceur to these people, as a kind of sweet which we offer to them, they need not be taxed on income which they draw in pounds, shillings and pence, which is paid to them here and which, as the Minister says, is probably spent by them here and which is just like the income of any ordinary citizen here?
I should like the Minister to expand what he said in opening. What is the case for it? There probably is a case for it. In principle I do not oppose the making of these Orders, but I do not think that the Minister has satisfactorily made out a case for adding this new Order to the long list streaming back

169
into the past of these various immunities which are conferred on a growing number of persons in this country
10.12 p.m.
Mr. P. Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said that he offers no real objection to the Orders but would like one or two points to be answered. The only privilege accorded to the officers of the Organisation is the privilege of exemption from Income Tax if they are foreign nationals. In other words, British nationals do not get that privilege. The reason why they have it is that in all these international organisations people who are serving away from their country get that privilege. Therefore, the delegations, when they entered into the Agreement, agreed that that would be so. British nationals overseas in similar organisations get similar privileges. Therefore, it is reciprocal. If they were to pay tax, it would mean that the contributions from the member Governments would be accordingly higher. Therefore, it is to the benefit of all members of the international organisation that there should be this privilege. This is the one privilege that they have.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned other diplomatic privileges and immunities which are found
170
in other cases, which are mainly of a diplomatic nature, such as the immunity from criminal action and action for libel. That does not apply in this case. In this case the minimum privilege is granted, which is purely for a foreign national to be exempted from taxation. I think that it will be accepted that it is only right that the organisation should have the status of a body corporate and that it is only right that it should pay only that proportion of the rates from which it derives benefit and should not, for instance, have to pay rates for education. As to its exemption from tax, countries do not impose taxation on an international organisation such as this. Again, it is reciprocal. In any event, it is not a commercial organisation and will not be earning money. Therefore, I think that it is wholly reasonable and I ask the House to approve the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the International Coffee Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1962 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 16th November.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

SHORT BROTHERS AND HARLAND
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fraser.]
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Stratton Mills: I would like to commence by congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on his appointment and by welcoming him on this, his first occasion on the Front Bench. We particularly welcomed his visit to Shorts within 100 hours of his appointment and hope that this shows his true sense of priorities in these things.
I would, however, begin with the important point that Short Brothers and Harland is not just another factory. It is something very much more to Northern Ireland. It is our second largest employer, the centre of new techniques and skills and it plays a vital role in apprenticeship training, the effects of which go right through the whole of Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Government have a shareholding of some 69·5 per cent. in the firm and, therefore, we treat this firm above all as a vital barometer of the sincerity of the Government in regard to Northern Ireland's economic development.
Before dealing with the present situation in this firm, I must say that I was a little disturbed by the Answer given to Written Question No. 42 this afternoon. It showed that the total proportion of the Air Corporations and Government orders which Short Bros. and Harland is undertaking, is down to 1·3 per cent. of the total for the first nine months of this year. In 1961 the proportion was 1·7 per cent. In 1960 it was as high as 4·1 per cent., in 1959 it was 3·1 per cent. and in 1958 it was 4·2 per cent. It seems that there has been a drop in the percentage of Government and Air Corporation orders which Short Brothers and Harland are now undertaking.
The present position on the production side—and I put it no higher than this —is reasonably satisfactory for the foreseeable future. But for the design and technical staff, the position—again, to put it no higher—is unhappy and uncertain. If this is to remain a healthy
172
industry in Northern Ireland, it is of vital interest that the firm should be maintained not merely as a production unit but as a balanced design and production unit.
The main purpose of the debate tonight will, I hope, be to cement together certain assurances which have been given by the Government in the last few years. I hope that we cam get a clear reiteration from the Front Bench tonight that those assurances have not been diluted. I will not quote them all, but I think that the basic assurance was given by the then Minister of Supply, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) in reply to a Written Question in December, 1957, when he stated:
"It is the Government's wish that Short and Harland's shall continue as a fully balanced aircraft production unit and everything practicable is being done both by the firm and the Government to this end."
My right hon. Friend went on to qualify it a little by saying:
"Success, however, must depend primarily on the quality and cost of the company's work relative to that of other companies; and the Government cannot be expected to place contracts even with their own firm regardless of this consideration."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 2nd December. 1957; Vol. 579. c. 3.]
That has been the basic pledge to the firm by Her Majesty's Government. On the same day art agreed Press statement was issued, following a meeting by the then Minister of Supply with Lord Glentoran who was then Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce and certain of my hon. Friends, when the Minister emphasised 'that
"all practical steps were being taken by the Government and the management in an endeavour to maintain the firm as a balanced aircraft design and production unit."
Some five months later, on 28th April, 1958, there was a similar meeting between Lord Glentoran and the then Minister of Supply, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green, and an agreed Press statement was issued repeating the terms of the previous assurance, and saying that
"all practical steps would be taken in an endeavour to maintain Short Brothers and Harland as a fully balanced design and production unit."

173
There was another assurance in 1958, when the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor), winding up a debate as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, used exactly the same words. On 17th February, 1961, the then Minister of Aviation, now the Minister of Defence, visited Belfast and gave a similar assurance. There is, therefore, a very considerable record of assurances to take all practical steps to maintain the firm as a balanced design and production unit.
My hon. Friend may rightly say that, to some extent, the word "practical" qualifies the phrase "balanced design and production unit". But when, on the one hand, Her Majesty's Government appoint the majority of the directors and control 69·5 per cent. of the shares and, on the other hand, place the bulk of the orders that Shorts are likely to receive, one feels that the practical opportunities for assistance are very great. I believe this to be the basic point that we must realise; that Her Majesty's Government have, above all, a dominant position in regard to the maintenance of Short Brothers and Harland as a balanced design and production unit.
I should like my hon. Friend to reaffirm that the 1957 pledge still stands, and that all practical steps will be taken to maintain the firm as a balanced design and production unit. In a debate at the end of July, the then Parliamentary Secretary, replying to a query from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) avoided answering that point. At the end of the debate all the Northern Ireland Members abstained from voting. I hope this will give some measure of the importance we attach to the assurance which I seek to have re-affirmed.
Most important of all in the new orders for which the firm is anxiously looking is the replacement of the "Hastings" and the "Beverley" aircraft. I understand that a decision on this matter will be announced perhaps early in the new year, as my right hon. Friend said several weeks ago in this House. I want to emphasise the urgency which all people in the aircraft industry feel about this decision. Some of us, of course, though not all, will be happy with the decision when it is announced
174
—we cannot all be pleased with the actual result, but none the less we feel that, whoever is to get the order, a decision is of vital importance to the whole industry.
I believe that the adaptation of the "Belfast" freighter is the ideal plane to fill this role. I shall not spend time in arguing that case now, but if we do not get this contract in Belfast I hope that if the contract goes to a firm in an area of high employment it will be made a condition of the contract that part of the design and production work should be sub-contracted to Short Brothers and Harland. This was recently done when the order for the VC 10 was placed. The work which has been given to Belfast is much appreciated, having, I believe, been written into that contract by my hon. Friend's Department. If we do not receive the order, I hope that something like this can be done.
We recognise that this is a very big order indeed. It is estimated that something like £200 million is involved, which is about six times the cost of the order in which Short Brothers and Harland are currently engaged on the Belfast air freighter. It is a giant order. I can say that Ulster Members would be most disappointed if Short Brothers and Harland did not have at least a finger in this pie.
The other day in the House the Minister of Aviation announced details of the supersonic plane. Bristol Aircraft Limited is involved in this work, and it is, of course, a minority shareholder of Short Brothers and Harland. I realise that the production of this plane is a long way off and that it is quite unrealistic to think too closely in terms of actual production, but a tremendous amount of continuing research will go on for the next few years. If it could be part of the contract that Bristols might sub-contract part of the research to Short Brothers and Harland I am certain that this would be widely welcomed.
I had intended to say a few words about Skyvan and the SC.1 vertical take-off plane, but time is running against me. I understand that Skyvan is to fly later this month and that application has been made to the Technical Aircraft Requirements Committee for funds for continuing research. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to encourage speed of decision on this matter. As for

175
the vertical take-off plane, I cannot help thinking that the position is at present a little unsatisfactory. It seems to have got into a cul-de-sac where work is not really proceeding nor entirely stationary. Can anything be done by my hon. Friend's Department to help? I hope that he will be able to say something about it tonight.
After the recent debate on the Hall Report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that an air-freight inquiry between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be undertaken by the Air Licensing Board. When he made that announcement I suggested that, as Short Brothers and Harland was one of the leaders in air freight, it might well be practicable to consider some method of associating the firm with that inquiry. The Home Secretary said that he would pass that suggestion on to my hon. Friend's Department. I hope that my hon. Friend may have something to say about it tonight as I feel that it would be most useful if the firm could be associated with that inquiry.
Another suggestion which I made at Question Time several weeks ago was that some sort of White Paper should be issued annually on Short Brothers and Harland. It was suggested then by my right hon. Friend that this would be inappropriate in view of the private shareholding involved. That may be so, but will my hon. Friend look at the idea behind this suggestion? Short Brothers and Harland tends to get the worst of both worlds. If it were a fully nationalised firm we should have a White Paper or an annual report to Parliament. If it were a private firm it would be a statement to the shareholders in the form of a chairman's report. But in falling in between the two, it seems to be getting the worst of both worlds. I wonder if each year we could have some kind of public report which would review the work in hand, would comment on the progress in the course of the year, would give some indication of the prospects of the firm, I feel this would give a greater sense of direction to the firm, and would perhaps help to improve the morale in the company which is not as high as it should be, largely because of its lack of direction and drift which has been evident in recent years.
176
These are a few of the ideas which I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to answer. I hope that in so doing he will give particular attention to my point about the maintenance of the firm as a balanced design and production unit.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Before my hon. Friend concludes, I wonder whether he would make a point about the hopeless inadequacy of an order for 10 Belfast aircraft, in view of the type of emergency that has arisen recently in Borneo and India, and the necessity to have a developed version of the Belfast in order that the British Army can meet its requirements?
Mr. Stratton Mills: My hon. Friend has made the point much more adequately than I could.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. John Diamond: I intervene only for a minute to say that there is interest on both sides of the House in this matter and to ask the Government if they will bear fully in mind that, having regard to the situation of this firm, one expects it to receive the most-favoured-nation treatment and not the least-favoured-nation treatment.
Will they also bear in mind that, having regard to the unemployment figures in the past ten years, it must be clear that the Government have not done sufficient to help the economy of Northern Ireland?
10.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): I should like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) for his kind remarks on my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary. It is obviously going to be a very interesting job, and I much look forward to having the help, advice and co-operation, not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, but also of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and those hon. Members who interest themselves in aviation, and particularly in connection with the problems facing Short Brothers and Harland.
As my hon. Friend said, I started my job on Tuesday of last week, and I hope he will take it as an earnest of my interest

177
in this problem that I went to Belfast two days later to see Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland. On the Thursday I met the management and discussed problems with them, and on the Friday I looked over the works. I also had the great pleasure of meeting the Minister of Commerce for Northern Ireland for half an hour's discussion.
My visit left with me three main impressions. First, it reinforced my awareness of the great importance of this company to the economy of Northern Ireland, Secondly, it strengthened everything I had previously been told about the quality and importance of the work that the company is engaged upon at present. Thirdly, I appreciated the importance of early decisions being made by the Government on certain new projects which will have such a considerable bearing on the company's future.
Before dealing with the need for future decisions, however, I must say a few words about two very important decisions reached by the Government in recent months, which have been greatly to the benefit of Short Brothers and Harland. The first is the decision made jointly by the Government and the Government of Northern Ireland to provide the necessary finance to help Shorts to complete their existing orders for 10 Belfast aircraft. The Belfast project has not so far attracted any of those orders in the civil field which wore predicted at the outset of the project. The majority of expert opinion in aviation circles at the time predicted that the world demand for air freight would grow at a very much faster rate than has, in fact, proved to be the case. There is little doubt that, in time, freight traffic will expand greatly, but it is now open to doubt whether this will occur soon enough to alter materially the civil prospects for the Belfast.
In the circumstances, the two Governments have undertaken to provide the company with additional finance to enable it to complete its existing orders for ten aircraft. This will ensure the maintenance of a substantial volume of work extending to 1965 and 1966. The actual amount of money provided will depend upon a variety of factors such as the volume and profitability of other business obtained by the company, but on present estimates a sum of up to £10
178
million may be needed. The precise arrangements under which this money will be provided are being urgently worked out, and the House will be given further information in due course.
The other important decision affecting Shorts is, of course, to order a further six VC 10 aircraft for the Royal Air Force. Some of this work will be subcontracted to Belfast. The House will understand that, as there are contracts under negotiation, it would be premature to go into the details at this stage. I can say, however, that the work will be substantial.
As regards future Government orders, it is well understood, and, I trust, accepted by the House, that we cannot place orders for aircraft where no genuine requirement exists. As the House has been told on several earlier occasions, it is doubtful that there will be any further requirement by the Royal Air Force for additional Belfast aircraft of the current type, which, I think, answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East. The Short company has submitted a number of designs far derivatives of the Belfast to meet the military requirement for a Beverley-Hastings replacement—the OR 351—and these proposals, along with submissions from other firms in the industry, are being considered by the Government.
It is often asked when a decision on the choice, of aircraft to meet this need will be taken and why a decision has not yet been reached. This decision is primarily one for the Ministry of Defence, not the Ministry of Aviation. The Minister of Defence has been conducting a careful survey of the various possibilities open to the Government, including the harmonisation of the requirements with those of our allies. Whatever solution is adopted, this will be a most expensive project, and it is advisable that, first, it should meet the particular requirements of the Royal Air Force, and also, if possible, an aircraft should be chosen which will have sales appeal outside Britain. We hope to give the House some information on this important matter early in the New Year.
One assurance I can give the House is that, before a decision is reached, the most careful account will be taken of the industrial and social consequences

179
of all the alternatives being considered as well as the operational, financial and technical factors.
Mr. Stratton Mills: My hon. Friend uses the expression "some information" and says that he hopes to be able to tell the House more in the new year. I noticed that his right hon. Friend used the same expression in the House at Question Time, speaking of "more information". Does this mean that there will not, in fact, be an announcement of the order but merely an interim statement? Can my hon. Friend expand on that?
Mr. Marten: I would not like to expand on it at this stage. We shall certainly give more information about it.
My hon. Friend asked about the future of the Skyvan aircraft. I myself saw this when I was in Belfast. I found it very interesting indeed, and I wish it, as a project, the best of luck. The Ministry has carried out a careful technical and commercial evaluation of the aircraft, and my right hon. Friend has also had the advice of the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee, a body which includes experienced airline operators who give him advice on future requirements. Our view of the future of the project cannot reasonably be determined before the first flight of the prototype, which the firm expects to take place before the end of this year. We should then be able to form a clearer judgment of its technical merits and, therefore, its prospects.
I should be glad to pass on to the Board my hon. Friend's suggestion that Short Bros. & Harland should be invited to give evidence to the Air Transport Licensing Board, particularly as its study will probably consider developments in freighter aircraft. As my hon. Friend knows, the scope of the inquiry and the method of work are now being determined by the Board in consultation with the Ministry of Aviation and the Northern Ireland Government.
In considering the industrial aspects of the Hastings/Beverley replacement project, we must look at the British aircraft industry as a whole. The number of major new aircraft projects likely to accrue on Government account and with Government support in the next few
180
years may not be sufficient to maintain the existing major units in the industry, at a level which one would like to see.
I can, however, assure the House that we shall not lose sight of the particular circumstances of Short's. When, in the course of the statement of policy in February, 1960, it was stated that the Government intended to concentrate future orders on the major groups in the industry, a specific reservation was made to cover circumstances in which public policy might make it desirable to do otherwise. In making that reservation, the Government had in mind the special position of Short's. We cannot promise Short's any particular favours in this regard, but the company will certainly be considered when decisions about placing future orders are being made.
My hon. Friend asked whether the Government would consider the publication of an annual policy report outlining the current situation of Short's and its future prospects in order to give what he called a sense of direction to the people in the firm. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we must remember that although the Government have a 70 per cent. shareholding, there are also private shareholders, and hitherto in our relations with the company we have endeavoured to treat it on a commercial footing. In common with other companies, accounts are published annually by Short's.
As to the employees, there are the usual channels of communication through the trade unions. The management is fully alive to the need to keep the workpeople informed to the fullest extent possible of significant developments. In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not consider that any exceptional arrangements for reporting on the affairs of Short's would be justified. I will, however, certainly draw to the attention to the board of Short Brothers the point made by my hon. Friend.
My final point concerns assurances. My hon. Friend has recalled several statements made by Ministers about the future of Short's as a unit. It seemed clear to me, however, that they were expressions of wishes and endeavours rather than of guarantees.
Mr. Diamond: Shame.
Mr. Marten: They do not amount to an assurance that employment would be maintained at any particular level. Having read the whole sequence of those assurances, that is my conclusion. For my part, I cannot give any guarantee at this stage on either design or production. I ask the House to wait until the decision on the Hastings/ Beverley replacement has been taken, which, we hope, will be early next year. The position will then be much clearer. It would be unwise of me to hazard predictions about the level at which work and employment can be maintained. However, there appear to be prospects of a substantial volume of production work accruing to the company in one form or another for several years to come.
182
Here I might mention the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend of the decision to build, together with the French, a supersonic airliner. The decision to embark on this project means a substantial addition to the volume of future work available to the aircraft industry. Production work on the aircraft is several years away and it is too early to say whether Short's will benefit directly. However, the company's general prospects should certainly be indirectly improved by the increase in work which must accrue to the industry as a whole through this very large and advanced project
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ELECTRICITY
  Proposed Pylons, Brislington (Public Inquiry)
  Proposed Pylons, Brislington (Public Inquiry)
COAL
  Smokeless Fuels
  Smokeless Fuels
HOSPITALS
  Horsham Hospital (Eye Clinic)
  Horsham Hospital (Eye Clinic)
  Nine Elms (Helicopter Noise)
  Nine Elms (Helicopter Noise)
  Horton Road and Coney Hill Hospitals, Gloucestershire
  Horton Road and Coney Hill Hospitals, Gloucestershire
  Nurses, Bristol
  Nurses, Bristol
  Smog Casualties, Greater London
  Smog Casualties, Greater London
  Lycett Green Committee
  Lycett Green Committee
  Cancer
  Cancer
  New Hospital, Bradford
  New Hospital, Bradford
  New Hospitals, Northumberland and Durham
  New Hospitals, Northumberland and Durham
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Students (Dental Treatment)
  Students (Dental Treatment)
  General Practitioners (Evening Surgeries)
  General Practitioners (Evening Surgeries)
  Mental Health Research
  Mental Health Research
  Midwives and Births
  Midwives and Births
  Cancer Research
  Cancer Research
  Public Health Inspector
  Public Health Inspector
  Poliomyelitis (Salk Vaccine)
  Poliomyelitis (Salk Vaccine)
  New Drugs
  New Drugs
EMPLOYMENT
  Army Disability Pensioner, Chadderton
  Army Disability Pensioner, Chadderton
  Building Trade Workers, Merseyside
  Building Trade Workers, Merseyside
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  CONGO
  CONGO
  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION
  GERMANY (ARMED FORCES)
  GERMANY (ARMED FORCES)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployed, Northern Region (National Assistance)
  Unemployed, Northern Region (National Assistance)
  Silicosis and Asbestosis (Medical Arrangements) Scheme
  Silicosis and Asbestosis (Medical Arrangements) Scheme
  Contributions and Benefits
  Contributions and Benefits
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Sewer Scheme, Sunderland
  Sewer Scheme, Sunderland
HOUSING
  House Building, Sunderland
  House Building, Sunderland
TRANSPORT
  Power Stations, London (Fuel)
  Power Stations, London (Fuel)
ROADS
  Main Roads (Cat's-Eye Reflectors)
  Main Roads (Cat's-Eye Reflectors)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Western European Union (Minister's Speech)
  Western European Union (Minister's Speech)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast
  Short Brothers and Harland, Belfast
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Supersonic Transport Aircraft
  Supersonic Transport Aircraft
  Hawker P1154 Aircraft
  Hawker P1154 Aircraft
  National Air Traffic Control Services
  National Air Traffic Control Services
EDUCATION
  Older Students (Awards)
  Older Students (Awards)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Deportation)
BRITISH ARMY
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Civil Servants (Employment)
  Retired Officers (Employment)
  Retired Officers (Employment)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  National Assistance Board Office, Willesden
  National Assistance Board Office, Willesden
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Glass and Carpets (Exports to United States)
  Glass and Carpets (Exports to United States)

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

FLUORIDES IN NATIONAL HEALTH PRESCRIPTIONS
2.35 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is permissible under the National Health Service for doctors and dentists who consider that fluorides will reduce the incidence of dental decay to prescribe for children or for expectant mothers pills or other preparations containing fluorides.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (LORD NEWTON): My Lords, prescribing under the National Health Service by dentists is restricted by Statute to a list of substances which does not include any containing fluoride salts. So far as doctors are concerned, the question whether a particular substance may be prescribed under the National Health Service is one which can ultimately toe decided only on individual cases by the Local Medical Committee or, on appeal, by independent referees. Perhaps I might be allowed to add that, with your Lordships' permission, I shall be making a statement later on this afternoon about fluoridation of water supplies.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, in view of that, I will reserve my supplementary questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will be making a statement on Brunei at some suitable moment after 3.30.
I should also like to inform your Lordships that it has been arranged, through the usual channels, that there should be a dinner adjournment this evening from 7.45 to 8.45 and dinners will be available in the Restaurant. I would earnestly ask your Lordships to be good enough to let your Whips know if you wish to have dinner. The reason is that there is a long-standing engagement in the main Dining Room for a large party, and (therefore dinners for Peers, I am afraid, must be limited to-night to Peers, excluding guests. It would facilitate matters considerably if I could know roughly the number we may expect for dinner.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

BETTING DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
2.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I do not think your Lordships will expect me to take up much time in dealing with the contents of this Bill, which I venture to suggest are sufficiently set out in the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the Bill. I would hope, however, that

397
your Lordships would allow me to say just this. I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was going to say a word or two on the Second Reading of this measure. I am sorry to hear, as I am sure all your Lordships will be, that he has been taken ill with a heart attack. I am sure your Lordships join with me in hoping that he makes a speedy and complete recovery.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the Bill passes, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl who has had charge of the Bill for the great trouble he has taken and for smoothing away difficulties which have led to misunderstandings. I am glad to have the opportunity of doing this myself.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
2.42 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
Age of responsibility
"Section 50 of the principal Act shall be amended by substituting therein the word ' twelve ' for the word 'eight'."
The noble Lady said: My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf, but I think I may say that I do so with his wholehearted co-operation and that it is purely for reasons of convenience that he is not moving it himself. I am very conscious that a number of your Lordships have heard me on this topic before. I would only remind you that if you wish, as understandably you may, to spare yourselves this experience in future all you have to do is to support this Amendment: the matter will then be closed and my voice on the matter will be silenced. I suppose that there is a general feeling in the Committee that this is in many ways the most important of all the Amendments that have been put down from this side of the House, for this Amendment, which is simple enough in itself, seeks merely to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 8, at which it now stands, to 12. Your Lordships may have heard me remark before that in fixing the age as we now do at 8, we are very much out of line with most European countries, where ages of 13, 14 and 15 are very much more frequent.
I say that in full knowledge that the age of criminal responsibility is not a precise concept, and that it can have a number of meanings. It can mean the age, as it does with us, at which a child may be held to know or to be capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong. It can mean, as it does with us, the earliest age at which a child can be brought before any kind of criminal court or be the subject of criminal proceedings. It can mean the age at which a child is subject to the penalties which may be imposed on an adult as, for instance, the penalty of imprisonment. Or it can mean the age at which a child is brought, not before a special juvenile court, but before the ordinary courts in which adults also appear. Those are at least four meanings of this term. But whichever of those meanings you take, you will find, I think, that in this country we are, as I said at the beginning, significantly out of step with most of our European neighbours.
It is natural that in those countries in which there are no special juvenile courts the age of responsibility should be higher than it is where children can be brought

399
before juvenile courts. But even where there are juvenile courts, as in Germany, no child can be the subject of criminal proceedings under the age of 14. From the age of 14 to the age of 18 there are special courts of one kind, and from the age of 18 to 21 there are courts—again special courts—for young persons. To take an example from the opposite camp, that of Sweden, where there are no juvenile courts, a child cannot be made the subject of criminal proceedings under the age of 15 and from the age of 15 onwards children are very commonly referred to welfare administration instead of being prosecuted in the ordinary courts. There is a power to waive prosecution which is very commonly used. So whichever way you look on it, whether from the juvenile courts or not, in this day and age it is very unusual that the minimum age at which a child is held to be capable of committing a crime, and the minimum age at which a child can be brought into a criminal court of some kind, should be fixed as low as 8.
The main burden of my argument on this topic is that this is not the right way to treat small children, nor is it an effective way. It is neither right nor effective, for with small children training them in the way that they should go is an educational and not a penal process. I would argue even further that the present arrangements are likely to cause quite as much delinquency as they can hope to cure. May I ask your Lordships to visualise the whole process with a small child between the ages of 8 and 12? Suppose that this child is alleged to have committed an offence, perhaps to have stolen something from a shop—not, unfortunately, a very uncommon experience. The child is taken to the room of the manager of the shop; the police are sent for, very probably; the child is arrested, and then taken to the police station. He may be taken by police car, or he may on occasion even be taken by police van, what was commonly known as the Black Maria. He is alone at this stage. He arrives at the police station, and his parents are sent for. His parents are not always immediately available; they may well be out, and they may be at work. The child may remain alone in the police station for some hours before the parents can be mobilised and a statement taken from the child. Eventually he is pro-
400
ably released on bail when his parents have appeared, and, very distressed, he goes home with a date to appear in a juvenile court. This may well be a child of 8 years old. When he goes to court the process begins in the waiting room, and I am not sure that more harm is not done in the waiting room than anywhere else.
I think it is of some significance that when some children were asked not so long ago to recount their juvenile court experiences, they paid more attention to the waiting room than ever they did to the court itself. They gave more space to it in their essays. In the waiting room he may have to wait again, if it is a busy court in London or another big city, a matter of some hours, and he will remain there in company with young men of rising 17 many of whom may be charged with serious offences and be quite formidable anti-social characters. He then comes into court. His court appearance, according to the nature of the case and his plea, may last anything from a few moments to perhaps an hour and a half. He is probably unrepresented and he will have to decide whether he pleads guilty or not guilty, which may be quite a difficult matter in view of the technicalities of the law. He will have to decide whether to give evidence on his own behalf or make a sworn statement or to say nothing at all. He is only, let us say, something between 8 and 12 years old. Most important of all, he will be in the room being dealt with by strangers, and children do not learn from strangers. Children learn, particularly moral lessons, as much by example as by precept—perhaps more by example than by precept—and they learn from people whom they know well, whom they respect and, usually, whom they love. They are quite mystified by strangers, even by the most sympathetic and understanding magistrates.
The Ingleby Committee referred at one point to the salutary effect of court appearance, though not in connection with these very young children. There is very little evidence that a court appearance of a very young child has a salutary effect. There is a great deal of evidence that it has a mystifying effect. A child does not understand what is going on and, owing to the inevitable delays, the taking to the station and charging, the delay before

401
the court meets, which may be quite a long time in country areas, the whole thing becomes far too far removed from the original offence that gave rise to it. It ceases to have meaning in the child's mind; the proceedings cease to be properly related to the actual offence with which he is charged; and it is no good saying that this difficulty would be overcome if we substituted civil proceedings of the court or control type for criminal proceedings.
A great many adults—indeed, I would have said a great many knowledgeable adults—are quite puzzled as to this distinction. Only the other day I read an interesting and very knowledgeable review of a number of shoplifting cases both by children and by adults, and although the authors of this report were people who have the closest contact with the courts, I found them referring to certain civil proceedings, such as the present proceedings for dealing with children beyond control, as those for non-indictable offences. If that kind of confusion can exist in the minds of adults who are in and out of the courts, there is no hope at all that a child of 8 years will understand the difference between civil and criminal proceedings.
So that the essential thing, I am sure, is to deal with very young children under the age of 12 outside the courts altogether. After all, the numbers involved—those between the age of 8, which is the present age of criminal responsibility, and the age of 12, which this Amendment proposes—are not very large. There are about 1⅓rd million boys in this age group and no more than some 12,500 of them were in 1961 found guilty of any indictable offence. There are also about 1⅓rd million girls, and I need hardly say that the contrast is very flattering to our sex. Of the 1⅓rd million girls, fewer than 1,000 were found guilty of any offence which is dealt with in the courts; and the rate of delinquency between the ages of 8 and 12 by which I mean the number of young people found guilty of offences in proportion to the population, is lower than it is at any other age until we reach the age of 25.
Nor is it true that these children are at present taken out of the community. They are not taken out of the community. Whatever they have done—whether they have stolen; whether they
402
have done damage, as they sometimes unfortunately do—they are not placed, even as things are, in secure institutions. We are, therefore, not proposing in this Amendment to unlock the doors and release upon the community a number of little savages who were previously kept in safe confinement. The great majority of these children are dealt with in very simple ways. They are put under the guidance of a probation officer; they are perhaps discharged conditionally; they are perhaps discharged absolutely. A very small handful are in approved schools. But fewer than 2,000 children under 14 are sent annually to approved schools, indeed fewer than 1,800, and there must be less than half that number winder the age of 12.
I must once again remind the Committee of the vast range of educational provision that we now have for difficult children which we did not have when juvenile courts were first established and the age of criminal responsibility was set, as it first was, at the age of 7 and subsequently at 8. We now have schools for the educationally subnormal; we have schools for the maladjusted, which are appropriate for the numbers of these children; boarding-school accommodation provided by local authorities in suitable cases; and we have occupational centres for those who are seriously mentally backward. We have a vast range of educational provisions. And my plea is that, in the case of the small children, we ought to view any anti-social behaviour as an educational and not a criminal problem. The education of a child needs to be looked at as a whole and not simply to hinge upon some particular instance in which he may or may not have been guilty.
One of the great drawbacks of the present procedure is that if a child is charged in court with an offence and, for whatever reason, perhaps for what to him must appear to be a technical reason, he is found not guilty of that offence, the whole of the welfare provisions of which the court is so proud—its probation service, its approved schools and so on—become inoperative because the child's career is determined by the single instance of whether he did or did not, in the eyes of the law, commit the offence with which he was charged. This constantly happens, if I may quote one

403
example, with children who take other people's bicycles. Children take other people's bicycles rather too frequently.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM):Not only children.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: And not only children; but I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House would be the first to say I was out of order if I were to discuss adults. Children constantly take other people's bicycles and when they do so they are generally very conscious that they have done wrong, but since there is no offence of taking and riding a bicycle comparable with the offence of taking and driving away a car, they cannot be found guilty of stealing a bicycle unless the court is satisfied they did not mean to put it back; and quite a number of children are aware of this. Possibly they did mean to put it back; possibly they are merely aware that this is a good defence; and, an consequence, the court, which would like perhaps to deal with a child for taking a bicycle which was not his, is obliged to give him a discharge.
All this kind of thing is mystifying, illogical and non-understandable to children and is not the right way to deal with them. The education of a child, in effect, is a whole process and, as I said just now, it is not a process to which strangers can effectively contribute. And this is an effect which, after all, in other contexts we do realise. Only a day or two ago I read in The Times of the case of a number of junior boys in Tonbridge School, who, it was said in this report, had been guilty of stealing from local shops. There was no suggestion that these children would be charged in the juvenile court, but the report said that the headmaster took a serious view of this; that the children had been severely dealt with and that they had been sent home for the rest of the term—possibly not the wisest method of dealing with them, to interrupt their education: but let that pass. The point I want to make is that for a number of our young people, for very young children, we do not contemplate criminal proceedings, but so long as other criminal cases
404
are heard in the juvenile courts the children become, I have no doubt at all, contaminated by their experience, contaminated in the first place in the waiting room and subsequently in the court itself. With the vast and varied educational provision we have to-day I hope the Committee will appreciate that a far better way of not starting children on a career of delinquency but of turning them aside from it is to deal with them through their homes and through their schools, because it is there that the children will learn, and not by at a very early age mastering, as they now sometimes do with considerable precocity, the mysterious processes of the law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 15, insert the said new clause".—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
3.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: If I may intervene at this stage I think it would be for the general convenience, because this proposal was one of the more important proposals in the Report of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside. I am very glad to see my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on the Government Front Bench and evidently prepared to participate in OUT discussion on this Amendment this afternoon.
As a preliminary precaution to this debate I took the step of looking up in the Library the course of the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, 1961, when my noble and learned friend occupied the position of Attorney General and was a member of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill in the House of Commons. An Amendment was moved to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It was clearly outside the scope of the Bill, as my noble and learned friend pointed out to the Committee, but he went on to say:
"I agree there are some fairly strong arguments in favour of raising the age limit, but before we do that—and I am not entering into any commitment about it—there should be a careful survey of the whole field."
For nearly four years I and my colleagues on what is known as the Ingleby Committee made a very careful survey of the whole field, so I think we may claim that what the then Attorney General was suggesting was then required had in fact already been done.

405
My noble friend, speaking as Attorney General, went on as follows:
"But on the alteration from the need for care or protection to the need for care or discipline, once we got that we would get into a code which we should have to consider very carefully indeed."
Now we have got into a code where the words "care or control" which to me mean precisely the same thing as the words "care or discipline", have been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. So already the Government have gone quite a long way down the road which the Ingleby Committee, if I may so call it, recommended. I only hope that this afternoon we may be able to persuade them to go just a little further. Agreement to this proposal was almost unanimous in my Committee; there was one dissentient, the chief metropolitan stipendiary; but all the members who signed the Report, including the head of the Children's Division of the Home Office, wore in favour of this recommendation. I do not think, therefore, it can be said at this stage that at would be administratively impracticable or that there can be serious obstacles in the way of its adoption.
This recommendation for raising the age was, in the view of my Committee, only half of a balanced scheme, a threefold scheme designed to secure the more effective treatment of the young offender, or, as I prefer to call him, the naughty child. We, the Committee, were not prepared to recommend simply raising the age of criminal responsibility and leaving everything else as it was before. Nor could we have supported the proposal which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, puts forward of leaving these naughty children entirely to the education authorities. After all, the ultimate sanction for dealing with these children, whether they be called offenders or whether they be described as being in need of care or protection, is to deprive them of their liberty, to send them to an approved school, and nobody on my Committee would have supported the suggestion that that decision should be left in the hands of schoolmasters or schoolmistresses. It is a pretty severe sanction, and a parent is entitled, we thought, to have it decided in a court of law with a right of appeal against the decision of the first court.
What was our scheme? It was first to raise the age from 8 to 12; secondly,
406
to change the definition of a child in need of care or protection to a child in need of protection or discipline; thirdly, to enlarge the powers of the court in dealing with care or protection or care or discipline or care or control cases, call them whichever you will, so that they had a wider range of treatment open to them in the case of children brought before them under this provision. The Government have adopted the change of definition pretty well in the words which we recommended, and that change lays a firm foundation for the other changes which we desire to see, for the other two reforms, the raising of the age and the enlargement of the powers of the court in care or control cases.
The advantages which we thought would follow from the adoption of our plan were these: we thought that by raising the age there would clearly be no criminal charge brought against a child below the age of 12, and the first point I want to emphasise is that there is very great reluctance to prefer a criminal charge against a child under 12 years old. Many of these stores that display their goods on the counters and from whose counters goods are so easily stolen by children are very reluctant indeed to prefer a charge against a child unless it has stolen quite a number of times. The children very often are confirmed criminals before they ever get to the juvenile court because of this reluctance to prefer a charge. "Getting away with it" is, in my view, one of the greatest misfortunes that a child can suffer. Our system of criminal law is designed, of course, to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that no innocent person is found guilty; but the corollary of that is that inevitably quite a large number of guilty people go scot-free. We accept that in cases of adults charged with crime. In the case of children, however, if we can get away from the conception of crime, the primary job of the juvenile court, which, under Section 44 of the Act of 1933, is to consider what is best for the welfare of the child, can be taken in a much more straightforward and clear-cut manner.
To those who object that if a civil form of proceeding is adopted, instead of a criminal form of proceeding, there is a real risk of innocent and virtuous children being committed to approved

407
schools, all I woud say is that I cannot for a moment accept that argument. The approved school is the last resort of juvenile court magistrates. They apply or adopt it with the greatest possible reluctance; indeed, by Section 44 (2) of the principal Act, it is a course virtually forbidden for children under the age of 10. Of course in every case, whether it be one of care or control or of a prosecution, there is a right of appeal to a higher court So I cannot accept that the children will be at any greater risk than they are to-day of being unjustly deprived of their liberty if we were to adopt a civil instead of a criminal form of proceeding. None of your Lordships would wish a child of yours to come before a court at the age of 8 or 9 on a criminal charge, and the public at large to-day think, and rightly, that the law as it stands is wrong.
To reluctance to charge must be added—and the noble Baroness will confirm this—reluctance to convict or to find guilty. Therefore, when the matter reaches the court stage many children get away with it again, either because of the necessity that the charge must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt or because of the presumption of law that a child under the age of 14 is doli incapax—that is, incapable of crime. It is because of this reluctance to charge, and this reluctance to convict or to find guilty, that juvenile liaison schemes, as they are called, were invented by the Chief Constable of Liverpool, Sir Charles Martin, in the year 1949. I shall return to these liaison schemes, and to the relation between them and the age of criminal responsibility, for a few minutes before I sit down. But let it be observed that the probation service cannot come into operation until the case has reached the court stage because, as your Lordships know, the probation officer is an officer of the court.
The Government have already accepted the change of definition which we recommended. Their new definition satisfies me, and it provides means by which naughty children can be brought to court in a civil and not in a criminal proceeding. Our Committee went on to recommend, as part of a balanced whole, that wider powers of disposal or wider powers of treating these naughty children should be given in care or control
408
cases. If your Lordships wish to see the matter set out in detail you can find it in paragraph 273 of our Report. We proposed three additions to the powers of the court in the case of children found to be in need of "protection or discipline", which were the words which we used at that time. We proposed that in the case of a child there should be the power, which the court has in the case of an offender, to commit it to a remand home for a period not exceeding one month. We went on to suggest that the powers of the court to order offenders to attendance centres (which, as your Lordships know, are places where they have to attend, forgoing their Saturday afternoon half-holiday, and go through some useful physical exercises and things of that sought) should be available also in cases of children in need of protection or discipline.
We went on to provide an additional sanction, not existing to-day, against the parents whose children are brought before the court in such a kind of proceeding. That was the power to order the parents to pay compensation for damage done by mischievous children over whom they had failed to exercise a proper control. I have an Amendment, which stands next on the Marshalled List (whether I shall move it of course depends on the answer we get to the present Amendment), in which I have embodied two of the three additional powers. I have omitted the power to order punitive detention in a remand home because over that matter there was a balanced division of opinion both among the witnesses who appeared before my Committee and among the members of the Committee itself. In order not to overload the situation today I thought that the Amendment might be more likely to gain the support of the noble Baroness, and some of her colleagues on the other side of the Committee, if I omitted from it punitive detention in a remand home. But the other two powers I think are necessary and desirable.
The first power, to order attendance at an attendance centre, is a sanction most useful against ill-disciplined children; and, after all, if the court already possesses the power to send such a child to an approved school, it is not asking much more that it should be able

409
to deprive the child of some of its half-holidays. As regards the compensation provision which we should like to sec, every juvenile court magistrate has come across cases of children, even under the age of 8, who have set fire to haystacks, smashed cucumber frames galore, all entirely through the neglect of those children by their parents. It therefore seems to me a most desirable power for the court to have, to order the parents of the children who will be before the court to pay compensation.
One objection that might be raised to this proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility is that there are many cases where joint charges are preferred—cases where children both above and below the age of 12 go out on a joint escapade—and it might be thought that in those cases it would be necessary for some of the children to have criminal charges brought against them because they were over 12, while others would have to be brought before the court in a civil proceeding because they were under 12. But that is by no means necessary. We have just the same dividing line to-day in the case of children of the age of 8. Children under the age of 8 can be dealt with as in need of care or protection. Children over the age of 8 can be charged with criminal offences. We get gangs of little children, some over 8 and some under 8, going out on joint escapades, and often these little urchins know so much about the law that the child under 8 is sent in to do the actual stealing while the others keep watch outside. So this will not be a new difficulty or objection, and it will be equally open to the police to bring children over 12 before the court as being in need of care or control. And children in a gang can, and in my opinion should, be brought before the court in the same type of proceeding.
Finally, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the important bearing on the question of the age of criminal responsibility of what are known as juvenile liaison schemes, to which I have already briefly referred. There is a strong divergence of opinion about these schemes, which were started in Liverpool and later adopted in a great many of our county boroughs, and under which the police, as a rule in collaboration and co-operation with the child's
410
parents, act in a kind of supervisory capacity to a child who has committed a first offence. Sir Charles Martin and those who followed his example are wholeheartedly in favour of the scheme. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, on the other hand, was wholly opposed to it.
Perhaps I may quote just a paragraph or two from our Report. We had examined this matter rather fully, and paragraph 145 says that the Commissioner of Police and his predecessors
"had taken the view that the intention of Parliament…was to provide in the juvenile court system a means of dealing with young offenders in the interests of their own welfare and in a way that would prevent them from taking to a life of crime. The police would be open to serious criticism if they took upon themselves to withdraw some children from the operation of this system to be dealt with in a different way."
That was the view of the Commissioner of Police. The conclusions of my Committee on this question will be found in paragraph 147, which we conclude by saying:
"while, therefore, we have nothing but commendation for the aims and achievements of those who have instituted and worked police juvenile liaison schemes, we are unable to recommend that the Government should encourage their general adoption."
Then in paragraph 148 we say:
"One argument used in favour of juvenile liaison schemes is that they enable the younger child especially to avoid the stigma of appearing in court as offenders and so acquiring 'criminal records'. We think that whatever validity this argument may have had will disappear if the new procedure that we recommend is introduced, so that younger children who have committed acts of delinquency will appear in court as in need of protection or discipline instead of being charged with a criminal offence."
Your Lordships will therefore see that this tremendously important question of the future of juvenile liaison schemes is very closely tied up with the future age of criminal responsibility; and if the proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility were adopted, then the probation service and the other skilled social agencies would come into the picture at a much earlier stage. This is one more powerful argument for adopting this long overdue reform. I hope that this debate will show the Government how earnestly those of us who have studied this matter believe that it cannot now be shelved.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): AS this debate is obviously going on for at least two more speakers, it may be convenient now if I move that the House do resume in order to allow a statement to be made on fluoridation. That will enable my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, in due course, to reply to the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES
3.26 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat the reply which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has just made to a Question in another place. I quote his words:
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are ready to approve, under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act and the corresponding section of the Scottish Act, proposals from local health authorities to make arrangements with water undertakers for the addition of fluoride to water supplies which are deficient in it naturally. Where this is done the incidence of dental decay in young children should be reduced by about half."
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am quite sure, my Lords, that those who have examined this question of fluoridation, those at least with some knowledge who have not regarded it already with a prejudiced mind, will welcome this statement by the Government. However, could I ask the noble Lord whether this is to be permissive or compulsory?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is always my aim to please the noble Baroness—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: You have.
LORD NEWTON:—and I am glad that I have succeeded in doing so this afternoon. Perhaps I could add that Her Majesty's Government have no power to
412
prevent the sale or distribution of fluoride in any form. In answer to her question, this is permissive. It is now up to the local health authorities to submit their proposals to my right honourable friend, and he hopes that they will do so.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether consideration has been given to the problem of whether it is legal to add medicines or drugs to public water supplies? May I also ask why fluoride should be forced down the throats of everybody, whether they have teeth or not?
LORD NEWTON: In answer to the noble Lord's first question, it is true that doubts have been expressed in some quarters about the legal position. The point could be determined only by the courts. But my right honourable friend takes the view that to add fluoride to water is within the powers of water undertakers, and, in the event of court proceedings, (he will indemnify both the local authority concerned and the water undertaker.
In reply to the noble Lord's second question, I can assure him that all relevant matters have been considered and there is no question of the Government's trying to force anything down anyone's throat. It is up to the local health authority to make proposals to my right honourable friend under the Act, if they think fit. Perhaps I should also add that fluoride is present in virtually all the water that one drinks. It varies in amount from place to place. I think that the maximum natural content in this country is 6 parts per million; in some parts of the world the maximum is 14 parts per million.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Is the noble Lord aware that there is a great deal of evidence that with that content irreparable injury is done to a great many people? And, in any event, why should it be said that because fluoride is naturally present to a very small extent in most cases in water supplies it is desirable to increase it? Would not exactly the same argument apply in the case of radioactive materials which are also, unfortunately, naturally present in water supplies and other substances?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, there is absolutely no evidence whatever that the presence of fluoride in water to the extent of one part per million has any deleterious effects at all or is harmful in any way to anybody. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, will come to my support if anywhere in the country mischievous suggestions are made to the effect that this is potentially dangerous.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said the Government do not wish to force this down people's throats, is he suggesting that those who do not think it is a good thing should never drink water again?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think they should decide that for themselves.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that much of what is now being said in regard to the addition of fluoride was said also in regard to the addition of iodine to certain waters which were short of it, particularly in Derbyshire and in the Midlands? Therefore, this is in effect carrying on a procedure which has proved beneficial in regard to the iodising of water.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, my Lords, I think I can agree with the noble Lord about that. Perhaps I may add that cheese, chicken, fish, tea and beer are all particularly rich in fluoride.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, yesterday I received a pamphlet which, among other things, alleged that fluoride was an ingredient of rat poison. Could the noble Lord deny that this is the case?
LORD NEWTON: I do not know whether it is or not, my Lords. But I am quite certain that fluoride in rat poison, if there is any, does not make rat poison poisonous.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact, as we have already heard in this House, that a good deal of ignorance exists about the beneficial effects of fluoridation, would the noble Lord tell me what the Government propose to do in order to publicise this, and to explain to the people of the country the beneficial effects? Otherwise, the ignorance which we have just heard expressed will, of course, be
414
expressed in various parts of the country, and local authorities who wish to be progressive will be unable to act because of obstruction.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have no doubt that a certain amount of publicity will be given thorough the proceedings this afternoon in your Lordships' House. But among those bodies which have made representations in favour of fluoridation to my right honourable friend are the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the County Councils Association and the Executive Councils Association; and the British Medical Association have written expressing favourable views. So all those bodies, some of whom, at any rate, can be expected to take the lead in getting local health authorities to support proposals to my right honourable friend, are clearly interested, and have in fact asked him to get on with what I have announced this afternoon.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would it not be a good idea to get one of the more handsome members of the Government to do a television interview on the subject?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the noble Lady mean me?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I was thinking of a handsome member with perfect teeth, if there is one.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I thought for a moment that the noble Baroness was referring to me. But after what she has just said at this moment, I conclude that she As not referring to me.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government have remembered what has recently happened in one local authority area in Scotland, which had this scheme and has now given it up?
LORD NEWTON: Yes, my Lords; I am aware of that.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is this another endeavour to add to the unpopularity of the Government in view of the imminence of a General Election?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, on this happy note, do you think we might now have the second statement by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne?

RISING IN BRUNEI
3.34 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I were now to make a statement which is being made by my right honourable friend in another place. I will make it in this own words:
"Early on Saturday morning an attempt was made to overthrow the Government of the autonomous State of Brunei. This was organised by an underground body which calls itself the North Kalimantan National Army, and which derives a major part of its support from Brunei Malays.
"Attacks were made on the police station in Brunei Town and on various Government buildings, and the rebels seized control of the oilfield at Seria. Some incidents also occurred areas of North Borneo and Sarawak immediately adjoining Brunei, where the population includes a substantial number of Brunei Malays. Apart from this, North Borneo and Sarawak has not been affected.
"The Sultan asked us for urgent assistance in restoring law and order, which he was entitled to do under his treaty with Britain. On receipt of this request, troops were despatched immediately by air and sea from Singapore.
"The House will not expect me to give details of military dispositions. But I can say that the following Army units, with appropriate naval and air support, are engaged in the area: The Queen's Own Highlanders, the First Battalion of the Second Ghurka Rifles, the 42nd Commando Royal Marines, and a squadron of armoured cars of the Queen's Irish Hussars. Additional forces are either on their way or being held ready for despatch at short notice.
"Police reinforcements have been provided from Sarawak and North Borneo. The Malayan Government has also offered to send some of its forces should this be needed.
"Order has been re-established in Brunei Town. But control of the oil-field at Seria has not yet been regained. Operations there have been greatly
416
hampered by the fact that the rebels hold a number of the European staff of the oil company and at one moment used them as a screen to advance upon the police station.
"The rebels have operated as an organised force equipped with rifles and automatic weapons. Their plans seem to have included a plot to kidnap the Sultan and to assassinate political personalities in North Borneo and Sarawak. Azahari, who is the leader of the Raayat Party in Brunei, and who left the country several weeks ago, claims to have been appointed by the Sultan of Brunei as Prime Minister of all three territories.
"The Sultan has completely denied this, while political leaders in North Borneo and Sarawak have condemned the rising and have disassociated themselves from it.
"It is, I am afraid, inevitable that in certain respects the situation still remains unclear. But honourable Members will understand that in a country like Brunei where roads are few and where many telephone lines have been cut, it is not easy to obtain quick reports.
"Our Commissioner-General in South-East Asia, Lord Selkirk, who has just returned to Singapore from Brunei, is in continuous touch with us."
My right honourable friend goes on to say:
"I will keep the House informed of further developments."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Marquess for giving us the information which has been conveyed to the other House. I feel that so far as the action has been taken at the request of the Sultan, that action has been quite rapid and is something that we fully accept. What sometimes disturbs me over these matters is that they seem to come like a bolt out of the blue. I wonder whether the noble Marquess, who I think has made himself reasonably familiar with that area of the world, is able to tell us whether our intelligence in these matters is sufficiently up to date, so that we may bring influence to bear before this sort of thing occurs. I am not complaining in any way. I am simply saying that I have noticed that, in one

417
or two of these cases, we appear to have been caught on the hop. In this case one could not very well act without the request from the Sultan, and I think the action which has been taken has been quite rapid, so I do not complain about that. But I should like to know that we are really keeping in touch and that we shall not, as one paper said, see a notable official flying off from hospital here to see what it is all about.
LORD REA: My Lords, it is a little difficult to comment without having seen the statement, but I wonder if the noble Marquess could say whether we are in constant touch with the Sultan and in communication with him?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether it would be possible for the Government to issue a report, perhaps daily, so that not only we in this country and in this House, but equally and perhaps more important the people in the immediate locality, would know what is going on? As the noble Marquess will .know, there are out there many cross-winds and cross-currents, both political and racial, and on many occasions incidents occur which are magnified by the Press. I think it would be very helpful to all concerned if we had an authorised statement of what is happening day by day in this area.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, with respect, we have had four questions now. I think we had better have a few answers before we have any more questions.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, with all respect to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I was merely going to elaborate upon the question put by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and ask the noble Marquess whether he could find out the reasons for the lack of information in the Protectorate, which seems to have resulted in everyone being taken .by surprise, in the absence of the High Commissioner, when the rising actually took place.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for having been obliged to circulate this statement at the very last moment. I know that the noble Lard, Lord Rea, has not had a copy, and I apologise to him. It was because of the need to get the latest
418
information. In fact, it was prepared only just in time for half-past-three.
I am much obliged to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, and I should like to answer his question and that put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, together—I think that the questions are basically the same. Your Lordships will appreciate that it is extremely difficult to be in possession of first-class intelligence when you are working in a sovereign autonomous State in which there are vast tracts of jungle. At different times, as I think perhaps some of your Lordships know, we have had warnings of subversive operations of this type, and on previous occasions these did not in fact materialise into anything. Of course, that does not mean that we have been idle or off our guard: but there have been warnings before, and we did have warning on this occasion. We were not completely in the dark, although, as the noble Viscount says, the strike was very sudden and very rapid and appears to have been disturbingly well organised.
So far as communication with the Sultan is concerned—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked me about that—our High Commissioner is back in Brunei, as I think your Lordships will have read, and so, of course, we have easy and constant access, through him, to the Sultan. I think I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but I thought that in the statement which I made on behalf of my right honourable friend it was made clear that intention is to keep the House fully informed, and I am afraid I cannot go further than that.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Marquess permit me to pursue this paint? It is not so much the House being informed: I am thinking of the people in South-East Asia who, by race, will have some connection with what is happening. I think they should know. It is more important that the Malays of Malaya, of Singapore and of Borneo should know what is going on and what action is being taken than, perhaps, your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for explaining ohis point further. Obviously, we will do our utmost to see

419
that no false reports go out, which I think is the danger.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, there has been some mention in the Press that British subjects have been taken as hostages. Could the noble Marquess expand on that to any extent? Secondly, in view of the fact that the First Battalion of the Queen's Own Highlanders were rushed to the spot and that the First Battalion of the Royal Welch Fusiliers are flying out to-night, is this not an indication of the value of the regiments which come from the tribal areas"?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think I made it clear in the statement what the position is. We have not yet obtained control over the Seria oilfield, and it is there where there are a number of Europeans who have been taken and used as hostages.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he could answer my question? Will he inquire into the reasons for the failure of our intelligence arrangements in the Protectorate? Would he ask the Administration to inquire into the reasons for this defect in our intelligence service?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: With great respect, I cannot accept that our intelligence did in fact fail. It may have been imperfect, but it is very difficult, as I tried to explain, to have perfect intelligence in such circumstances.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD STONHAM: I think it was said, and said more than once, at an ealier stage of the discussions on this Bill that the Government had accepted, in this Bill, all the standstill or regressive suggestions made by the Ingleby Committee and had rejected all the progressive ones. Certainly the recommendation by the Ingleby Committee to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 8 years to 12 years was a progressive recommendation and is one which has been endorsed, I think, by everyone who has knowledge, either as magistrates or in other ways,
420
of young children. We have had the speech of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, speaking as a magistrate, with an intimate, wide and very great experience of dealing with children of this age; we have had the detailed speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, who told us to-day that among the large majority of the Committee over which he presided who supported this recommendation was the head of the Children's Department of the Home Office; and, at an earlier stage in our discussions on this Bill, although I think not to-day, he mentioned that the police were also in favour of the increase in the age of responsibility to 12 years. So it is extraordinary that, in the face of that recommendation, in the teeth, as it were, of that very wide and deep experience, the Government should be insisting on the age of criminal responsibility remaining at 8 years.
I cannot speak as a magistrate, and I have not the experience which, again, the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has, but I can speak as one who, over a period of years, has had a great deal of experience of these child delinquents between the ages of 8 and 12 years; and I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone who has had experience of that kind can support the retention of 8 years as the minimum age of criminal responsibility. My business life and most of my political life is spent in the East End of London. Now, we are talking about children of 8 years of age who, in our circles, are just leaving kindergarten and are just going to prep school. Your Lordships are asked, or may be asked, to vote for the suggestion that those little children of 8 years, if they perform delinquent acts, should be regarded as criminally responsible and should go through all the steps which my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger has described.
Over a period of about six years, at my factory in the East End of London we suffered, virtually every week, raids by young children. It was incredible to believe that they were young children. The factory is a strong place. It is true that it is one which they could attack at their leisure over the week-end, because it is behind a school and, therefore, is not visible from the road; but it was protected in every way that we and the police could possibly devise. We were concerned not so much because

421
of the thefts—they were the tiny things which would be of interest to a child, and there are not many of those in a factory. We were concerned for the mayhem they created, the destruction and damage and papers tossed about and that kind of thing. We were also very concerned because of the grave danger, physical danger, to the children. Indeed, I thought there could possibly be a fatality because they would break through iron reinforced glass—it is quite incredible to think that children do this. We would often find traces of blood, traces of damage to them.
This matter was naturally of such concern that, of course, we constantly pressed the police to do something about it and on numerous occasions these children were caught. Well, I was astounded sometimes to see these children because, after many of these incidents, some children were brought to me by the policemen. A policeman in plain clothes came with a child in either hand. "How old are you?"—"I am 8." "How old is he?"—" I am 7 and he is my big brother." I was reminded of that by what the noble Viscount said about the dividing line in answering the argument that possibly raising the age to 12 years would alter that dividing line. It is nonsense. The children under 7 years of ago who cannot be regarded as criminals at present are dealt with as in need of care and attention.
In looking at these children it was quite impossible for any ordinary person to suggest they were or should be regarded or treated as criminals in the way that the law now suggests. They were thieves. They had created a great deal of destruction and had done so continuously. But I can assure the Committee that the detectives who caught them—and it did not happen once, but many times—were never in favour of prosecution. They always said, "Let us go and talk with the parents." And when we are talking about criminal responsibility—that is where the criminal responsibility lies in many cases: in gross neglect and indifference of parents to what their children are doing. Sometimes they even encourage them.
We tried out the course suggested on numerous occasions, but always the police said it was no use. Then, since
422
we knew quite obviously the schools they came from, we tried to get the school teacher to talk to them and for a time there would be some improvement. Eventually the police said, "We have tried everything. It has gone on for a long time and now we must prosecute—if you will prosecute." We decided that we would. I know it was a responsible member of the staff who went to court. It took two or three days of his time and he came back and he said to me, "Please never ask me to do that again, because of the negative results and because of the feelings which are engendered in the mind of any ordinary adult when these children are treated as criminals and through the futility and utter absurdity of it." That is the whole thing, notwithstanding what my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger has said. If it really did any good at all to regard and treat them as criminals there might be something to it. But it is completely and utterly futile.
I have said this happened for several years. It does not happen now. It was cured in a very simple way. A local probation officer came to me and said, "Will you help us to have an adventure playground?" We started an adventure playground just over the wall, immediately adjacent to the factory, with no protection at all—for the same children. From that very day we had no further trouble. They would come round and ask for things, simple gifts of material they could use and employ. We had no further trouble at all. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger spoke about the need for education of these children—little ruffians, unbelievably so. It is absolutely true we must find some kind of way of getting through to them. In this case it was done by this probation officer and one or two voluntary workers with some little assistance from me. And the trouble did not continue.
Let us assume that in every case we had not taken the policeman's advice and talked to the parents and school masters—not once but a dozen times. We would have prosecuted and many of these children would have had two or three convictions. They would have landed in approved schools. This is quite unnecessary, absolutely unnecessary. I know we suffered many times, but the way was found; and that way was not to treat

423
these children gas criminals. There is no question whatever but that the courts do contaminate, and no question at all that the way to deal with these very young children is outside the court altogether. Let us find out the real cause why they are acting in this way, whether it is because of their parents or some association. Let us get through to them and deal with them. But let us not invest their meaningless delinquencies—because they are in a sense meaningless to them in terms of crime—with the full majesty and panoply of the law. I think the whole weight of experience is on the side of this Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:I do not want to delay the Committee. I rise for only a few moments to support the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and as I do not always find myself on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. I think almost everything that has been said covers the points which I feel are very strongly in favour of the Amendment. I hope most sincerely the Government will consider it, and consider it at this Committee stage of the Bill. I should very much have liked to see the break between criminal responsibility and no responsibility come at the point at which the children go from the primary school to the secondary school. But I realise that, as this is different within the United Kingdom—in England it is 11 plus, in Scotland 12—it may be difficult to say that it should be at that point because it may not always be at the same age. Therefore, the Amendment which specifies the age of 12, and the Ingleby Report which also specifies 12, is obviously the right age at which this reform should happen.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is right when she says that at that age—the primary school age, between 8 and 11 or 8 and 12—it is the job of education to reform the child. Education and parents seem to me to be the two great influences on children's lives at that age, and I hope very much that we might consider this as an educational problem, as a problem of special treatment, if you like, and adopt some of the suggestions made
424
in the Ingleby Report which Lord Ingleby outlined and which would deal with the problem. But let us not continue with the very low age of 8 as the age of criminal responsibility.
I feel, too, as I have now worked a great many years on Committees of the Home Office, that in some strange way this is very out of keeping with the modern, generous and advanced point of view of both the Home Secretaries we have had in recent years, first Mr. Butler and now Mr. Brooke, both of them men with far-sighted, liberal ideas. Somehow this does not seem to be in key with the kind of reforms to which we have been accustomed in recent years. I feel that something may have happened here—somebody has forgotten about it or has not thought about it enough—because I am suite sure that the Home Secretary and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who speaks for the Home Office in your Lordships' House, are really concerned in treating juvenile delinquency and juvenile crime in an extremely advanced and wise manner and I think there would be far more opportunity for doing this in the case of small children, if this Amendment were adopted.
I do not want to delay your Lordships. Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I have had a lot of experience in these matters and I have been in touch with almost all the organisations concerned—children's officers, child care officers and probation officers—and every single one of them is most anxious that the age of criminal responsibility should be raised. I do beg the Government to be generous on this occasion, to think of this as something in keeping with the reforms to which we have been accustomed from them in recent years, and to accept the Amendment on the Order Paper.
LORD LINDGREN: Though I have been the chairman of a juvenile court for many years, this is the first time I have intervened on this Bill, mainly because I have been rather overawed by the theoretical knowledge of many of my colleagues on the laws that I have been administering, without that knowledge, for some considerable time. I wonder sometimes whether we have progressed. As I sit week after week as

425
chairman of this juvenile court, I recall that I did things much worse than many of the youngsters who come before me, and all that happened to me, as one of the little ruffians of London, was that the policeman used his cape on a certain part of my anatomy or his gloves round my ear and I would run off, doing the 100 yards in less than 10 seconds. It did not come to court.
But what has worried me in the juvenile court and why I am supporting to the full this Amendment is that, when youngsters with their parents come before the court, one finds it is the first time that the parents have ever been in court, let alone the youngsters. I tell the parents that they have the right to prompt the child in any question to any police officer who makes a statement. Neither the parent nor the child knows what to do. When it comes to a statement by the child, I try to explain the difference between giving evidence on oath and making a statement from where he stands and how he can be cross-questioned by the police if he gives evidence on oath. The youngster is bewildered and the parent generally tells him to go and give his evidence on oath, because everybody else—policemen and any witnesses—have given their evidence on oath.
When the youngster picks up the Bible, I generally ask if be knows what an oath means. He hesitates, and the best answer I ever get is his promise to tell the truth. More often than not I have said to the youngster "Just to make a statement", because I have been well satisfied that in the real sense of the word the youngster did not understand what giving evidence on oath meant. If we are to have charges against children who do not really understand what giving evidence on oath means, then I think we ought to raise the age to 12, the more so because a great many more charges are now being made by the police against youngsters than ever before, simply and solely because if a police officer to-day did to a youngster what a policeman did to me back in the 1910's, he would be charged by the parents with assault. I am not going to say that most of these charges ought never to be brought, but I do think that many of them are trivial in the real sense of the word. If the age is raised, then those who have to administer the Acts dealing with juvenile
426
crime will be much happier in their administration of the law.
4.5 p.m.
LORD McNAIR: I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, though I should not be prepared to adopt every argument that she advanced in support of her Amendment. I wish to begin by making it quite clear what happens at present, as I understand it, though I am not able to speak with anything like the same experience as some of the noble Lords who have already addressed your Lordships.
As matters now stand, when the necessary facts constituting an offence and the knowledge of its wrongfulness are established in the case of a child between 8 and 14, that child is found guilty, but instead of being exposed to all the punishments available in the case of an infant over 14 or of an adult, the consideration of the child's welfare becomes the dominant factor. He is treated more nearly as a child requiring care or protection or a child beyond control, and any one of the following treatments may be applied to him. He may be placed on probation, committed to a fit person, sent to an approved school, detained in a remand home, or, if over 10, directed to report periodically at an attendance centre; or, in some cases, he may be fined a maximum of 40s. But the fact remains that he is found guilty of a criminal offence, though Clause 29 of the present Bill provides that if he commits an offence after attaining the age of 21, any offence of which he was found guilty under the age of 12 shall be disregarded for the purposes of any evidence relating to his previous convictions. But, until then, he carries a finding of "Guilty" on his record. I wish to emphasise that to-day the child in this age group of 8 to 12 can be found guilty of a criminal offence, though treated thereafter differently from a young person between 14 and 17 and quite differently from an adult.
The big question of principle before your Lordships is whether we are prepared to tolerate the conception that a child can be found guilty of a crime at so early an age as 8 to 12. My submission is that to do so is quite indefensible. We abandoned long ago the practice of treating children between 8 and 17 in

427
the same way as convicted adults, and we should now abandon the practice of prosecutinig children under the age of 12 and recording findings of "Guilty" against them. Certainly the facts must be judicially established by a juvenile court, because they form the necessary basis for the application by that court of one or more of the remedies at its disposal. But the finding of "Guilty", even though it will vanish from the records at the age of 21, is, in my opinion, bad for the child and cannot conduce to his correction and reformation. This child between the age of 8 and 12, on being found guilty of a criminal offence, becomes a young criminal. That fact may have one or more quite different effects, according to the character of the boy or his friends. On the one hand, it may make him a bit of a hero among his friends on the other, it may make him a bit of a rebel. or more of a rebel, against the society which convicts him of criminality for an act which he may know to be wrong but which is not wrong enough to make him a criminal at so early an age.
I can see no benefit whatever in a finding of guilty or in describing the proceedings as a prosecution. What really matters is the remedial treatment ordered by the court. If it is the duty of the court to record a finding of "Guilty", as it is now, it is exercising a criminal jurisdiction and the child is a young criminal. If, on the other hand, as the Ingleby Report proposes, the emphasis is laid on the remedial treatment, even though it may comprise minor sanctions for the parents and the child, then the court is exercising a civil jurisdiction somewhat akin to the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in the treatment of a ward, which is derived from the prerogative right of the Crown as parens patriæ to protect his interests. As matters stand now, in the case of a child between the age of 8 and 12 the object of the proceedings in the juvenile court is the criminal prosecution of the child and the finding of "Guilty". If this Amendment is adopted, the child's need for guidance and control will become the primary responsibility, and the parents responsibility will be made clear. The emphasis in the proceedings will shift and the offence will become evidence of the need of the application of one of the remedies
428
or sanctions which are, or should be, at the disposal of the court, and the main question will be: what shall we do with this boy?
There are some problems which it is sometimes easiest to understand by supposing that we are personally involved. Those of your Lordships who have sons or grandsons know vary well that a boy between the age of 8 and 12 is capable of doing anti-social and reprehensible things which are quite out of character and not due to any inherent wickedness: for instance, pilfering, setting fire to property and other wanton damage. When that occurs in the case of one of our sons or grandsons while he is at school, either a day school or, a boarding school, we count ourselves fortunate when a sensible headmaster can ascertain the facts and punish or admonish the boy in the manner best calculated to make him realise the error of his ways. Surely that is what we want, and what we should regard as more likely to make the boy a useful member of society than allowing him to be prosecuted and found guilty of a criminal offence. Applying that analogy to the present Bill, I would urge upon your Lordships that the criminal approach is misconceived and that the boy's wrongful act should be treated as a family problem, a domestic problem, and dealt with by a juvenile court without any criminal prosecution or a finding of "Guilty" being recorded against him.
I could not help feeling that some of your Lordships who have already spoken were rather hard on the juvenile courts. My experience of the juvenile courts is extremely limited, but many of your Lordship's know a great deal about them. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, upon the undesirability of children being herded together with the crowd outside the court. This is most undesirable and can easily be avoided by administrative action. With regard to the proceedings themselves, once guilt has been established in a good court it can take very much the form of a family consultation, with the aid of the parents and the schoolmaster, and it is perfectly clear that this is the main object of the proceedings. it is that very fact which, to my mind, is so inconsistent with the idea of a criminal

429
prosecution and the recording of a finding of "Guilty" which will hang around a child's neck until he attains the age of 21.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute, but I think that same noble Lords may be in the same difficulty as I am. I would support the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, if I were quite sure that the next Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, would also be included, but I would not support it without that. This is my difficulty. I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount, Lard Ingleby, has said, but he put up a case in connection with his Amendment, as well as this present Amendment, and spoke about the parents having to pay damages for what their children did. He has that particular scheme in mind, and I entirely agree with him in it. If it were the case that we were going to get the Ingleby Amendment after we had this Amendment, then I would certainly vote for this Amendment moved by the noble Lady, but I am very doubtful if I can do so without that assurance, and I cannot see how we can get the assurance. Nor do I know—and perhaps I can get this assurance—that those who vote for the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, will also vote for the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. Then I think we might get something clearer. Your Lordships will understand, as has already been said, that we all look upon this as a very serious subject. Now I think we have to face the fact of what we are actually voting for: are we voting for the entire scheme as drawn up by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, or are we not?
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: May I just deal with the point raised by the noble Lady?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was proposing to deal with it in the course of my speech.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Perhaps I may deal with one point. The noble Lady is suggesting a process of barter which I think must be somewhat foreign to your Lordships' House House in Committee. But, leaving that on one side, surely the position is this. The pre-
430
sent Amendment .is to raise the age of criminal responsibility, and that is all. If this Amendment is carried, then it is open to the Committee to add or not to add the Amendment to be moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. If this Amendment to raise the age is not carried, then I think I am right in saying that the noble Viscount's Amendment would not have very much meaning.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: Perhaps I might say that unless we had some assurance from the Government in favour of the present Amendment, then I would not propose to move my Amendments, which follow on and are dependent upon the raising of the age of criminal responsibility.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I think we are, in fact, of one mind. The noble Viscount's Amendment is consistent with a raising of the age, and doe's not have any meaning otherwise. But it is perfectly open for your Lordships to vote on this Amendment, and then to be perfectly free to take what line you wish on the second Amendment.
4.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lady has given guidance to your Lordships as to what should happen should this matter come to a vote. I was hoping that perhaps, before some Members of your Lordships' Committee made up their minds upon this issue, they might perhaps think that what I propose to say to the Committee on this matter is not entirely without substance. The noble Lady began her speech by saying that if the Amendment were accepted her voice would be silenced. I am not sure whether that was meant as an inducement or as a threat, but whichever way it was I should be sorry if in fact that were to be the consequence.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Silenced on this topic.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Lady added those important last three words when she spoke, but I am glad to have that assurance. So far as I am concerned, this is the first time that I have had the pleasure of speaking from this Box in your Lordships' House, and I hope that it will not be the last time, whatever happens to this Amendment.

431
The debate has indeed been an interesting one, and it is also an important one. There has been an endeavour, as I see it, to reconcile two things that are irreconcilable; that is, the noble Lady's proposal and the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Ingleby—Because they really are inconsistent. The whole of the noble Lady's case, if I understood it properly, was on the theme that children up to the age of 12 ought to be dealt with educationally, and not be brought before the courts. On the other hand, the theme of my noble friend Lord Ingleby is that they must be brought before the counts, but that we must have a new machinery for bringing them before the courts. The two do not seem to me to go very happily together.
I should like first to devote myself to the speech made by the noble Lady, and then turn to the proposals, which are quite different from the noble Lady's proposals, put forward by my noble friend Lord Ingleby. So far as the noble Lady's proposals are concerned, I think this is the second time that I have had the pleasure of hearing them put forward. In fact, I think it is the third time that she has raised them, and each time most persuasively and eloquently. She does not suggest that children over the age of eight cannot be guilty of what I might call criminal conduct. As I understand it, she argues two things: first, that criminal conduct should not constitute a criminal offence and, secondly, that the child should not be brought before the courts on account of that criminal conduct. She has said more than once—and she said it to-day—that we are unable to recognise that the training of children of school age in the way they should go is fundamentally an educational and not a penal matter. I entirely agree with her that the training of children in the way they should go is fundamentally an educational and not a penal matter, but I do not agree with her that recognition of that principle leads to the conclusion that children of between 8 and 12, guilty of criminal conduct, should not be punished on account of that conduct; should not be brought before the courts of this country on account of that conduct. Indeed, it is inherent in the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Ingleby that children of school age, guilty of criminal
432
conduct, should continue to be brought before the juvenile courts on account of that conduct.
I think I am right in saying, too, that the majority of the Ingleby Committee did not share the noble Lady's opinion that these young children of 8 to 12 should not be brought before the courts on account of that conduct. It is, indeed, an extremely difficult problem. I think we can all agree, whatever view we take, that it is only something in the nature of a last resort that a child should be brought before the juvenile courts on account of criminal conduct. Whatever view we take, I think we could agree upon that proposition if recourse to the courts is to be had at all. I was not in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when he spoke about the utter futility of proceedings before the juvenile court. That may be so in some cases. In some cases the proceedings of the court have failed to achieve their objective—and that does not apply only in juvenile courts. But I should not like to proceed upon an examination of this problem upon any such assumption.
Now I should like to turn to say something about the extent of the problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, touched upon that, too. She said on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 10) col. 820] that it is only
"… a tiny minority of small children who are dealt with by the courts and who are sent to establishments; who are taken out of the control of their own homes …"
I quite accept that. But that again, in my respectful submission to the Committee, does not really conclude the matter. Because, while it is only a tiny minority of children who come before the courts, as the noble Lady knows the courts have other ways of dealing with them than by sending them to establishments or taking them out of the control of their own homes. A substantial number are fined—say, 12 per cent. Those fines, under Section 55, I think it is, of the Children and Young Persons Act, have to be borne by the parents unless the court is satisfied that the parents or guardian have not conduced to the commission of the offence by neglecting to exercise due care of the child or young person. I cannot help feeling that that power of bringing, where there has been

433
criminal conduct, the young person before the court, and the power to impose a fine which will ordinarily be borne by the parent is, indeed, a salutary process. Others—say, about 35 per cent.—are put on probation. If the noble Lady's Amendment is accepted and the age is raised to 12, as she suggests, it will be impossible for the courts to deal with youthful delinquents in either of those two, as I submit, salutary ways.
The noble Lady stressed to-day, and has stressed on previous occasions, the width and extent of our educational system: the existence of child guidance clinics; of residential schools for maladjusted children; of schools for the subnormal; of special remedial classes for the backward, and boarding schools under local authority boarding school arrangements. It is a long and (I think the noble Lady once used the adjective) formidable list of our educational establishments. I recognise that it may well be that some of those delinquent children who are now dealt with by the courts could be treated as educational or medical cases or found to be in need of care or control within the meaning of Clause 2. Some of them could be; but, I venture to suggest, not all of them. Indeed, we may be getting in these days into the danger of regarding a perfectly normal, naughty child as maladjusted, subnormal or backward, or in need of care and control. But I do not myself believe that the majority of those now sent by the courts to approved schools could, for instance, be fitted into ordinary boarding schools under the local authority organisation; and if they were fitted in I do not see how they could be kept there. I think there are bound to be a considerable number who now go to approved schools who could not be dealt with as the noble Baroness has suggested.
May I remind your Lordships that in 1961 the noble Lady said, with regard to children between 8 and 12, that:
"even if we did nothing about them at all but what their ordinary schools and their families do, we should probably diminish rather than increase juvenile delinquency by taking them out of the courts when they first come into delinquent milieu."
I personally could not subscribe to her view, nor could the Ingleby Committee, that those between 8 and 12 who are guilty of what I hope I can call without
434
arousing any feelings criminal conduct—
LORD CHORLEY: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor keeps on talking about criminal conduct. Surely he would agree that it is for Parliament to decide what is criminal conduct, and if this Amendment is passed it will cease to be criminal conduct. At Common Law 7 was the age; and children not much more than 100 years ago, were actually executed for felonies at the age of 7; Which was a revolting thing. Surely this is just the same. The age was put up to 8 and now we say it should be put up to 12.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that relates to my argument except as an objection to my choice of phrase in using the words "criminal conduct". I hoped that I had made clear that I was trying to use a phrase which put in a very short two words a longer sentence, namely, that the acts done by a child were acts of a character and quality that in an adult would constitute criminal conduct rendering him guilty of a criminal offence. I thought I had made that plain to your Lordships. If I had not made it plain to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I would, of course, apologise to him.
May I come back to the argument I was putting forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. She has said more than once—I think she said it again to-day; and she said it in 1961—that the moment a child between 8 and 12 enters a court waiting room the child is introduced to a delinquent community. I find that difficult to accept. I find that a difficult reasoning to accept for raising the age limit against crime. Court waiting rooms are not used only by accused persons; they are used by witnesses and all kinds of people; and it may be that what she is saying about them indicates that there should be a greater degree of supervision of what goes on in court waiting rooms than now exists; but it does not, as I see it, count as an argument in support of her main proposition. It ought to be borne in mind that if we accepted her Amendment there would still be cases of delinquents and other children using the court waiting rooms when they come there for proceedings in relation to care

435
and control. I find that argument of the noble Lady not easy to accept.
I must say that I share the view of the Ingleby Committee that really you cannot, and it would not be right to do so, just accept this Amendment and raise the age to 12, as the noble Lady provides, without providing some alternative machinery of the kind that the Ingleby Majority Report recommended. I should like to make it clear at this stage that the Government approach to this problem has been, at least I hope I am correct in saying, both sympathetic and practical. We do not take the view that it would be right to go as far as the noble Lady has suggested without providing for some alternative machinery, if a satisfactory alternative machinery can be designed or constructed.
I should like to turn now to Lord Ingleby's proposals which he debated before your Lordships to-day. I am afraid he started by causing me some alarm and apprehension by quoting passages I had uttered in another House in debates on another Bill; and, as your Lordships know and as the noble Viscount knows, that can sometimes be embarrassing.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble and learned Lord always tells the truth.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I always endeavour to do so. But on this occasion, although one had the warning that what one had said was going to be quoted, I did not feel all that upset when I heard the passages he recited. He made it quite clear in the course of his speech that he could not accept the noble Lady's argument that these children should be left to be dealt with entirely by the educational process, and he emphasised that none supported that decision and it was the Committee's view that if a child was to be deprived of its liberty, sent to an approved school or something of that sort, it should be the decision of a court of law.
I should have thought that there was great force in that particular observation. But then, when one comes to examine the other proposals of my noble friend, there are, as I see it, great difficulties. Let us just consider them quite shortly. Your Lordships will see that in paragraph 86 of the Ingleby Report the Committee suggest, in relation to children under the
436
age of 12, that the definition in Section 61 (1) (a) should be amended so as to apply to a child who—and here I quote the words,
while under the age of 12 years acts in a manner which would render a person over that age liable to be found guilty of an offence".
That is a formidable provision, and I should like the Committee to consider for one moment what it in fact means. I thought myself, on reading it, that it meant what I was endeavouring to express by the use of the words "criminal conduct", but I am not sure, in the light of speeches made by my noble friend, whether he is really saying that that suggestion should apply only where a child has been guilty of such conduct as would, if he were an adult, render him liable to conviction of a criminal offence. I rather thought from what my noble friend said to-day that lie was suggesting that a lower standard should apply.
I feel a great difficulty about that. I think that it raises a very major issue. In the case of an adult you would have to prove the mens rea; you would have to prove intent. I think my noble friend has indicated on a previous occasion that he does not envisage that requirement in regard to a particular section. Indeed, what he said to-day rather indicates that: and if you are not going to have that requirement, just let us see What it means. It means that you will have a child deprived of its liberty on the ground of conduct which may be very similar to the conduct of the adult but which would not lead to the conviction of the adult. I must say I think that is rather a serious matter.
The noble Lady stressed to-day that one of the disadvantages of taking children before the juvenile court was that if the accused person was found not guilty then all the machinery of probation and all that could not be used; and she used the instance of the child taking the bicycle but not with a felonious intent. My noble friend suggested to-day, I think I am right in saying (or, at any rate, he has done on one occasion), that in relation to children brought before the juvenile courts under the procedure he envisages there should be a slightly different standard of proof from that required in a criminal case. He asserts that they must be proved to have acted in a manner which

437
would render a person lover that age liable to be found guilty of an offence. But if it is accepted that there should be a different burden of proof compared to that required for conviction of a criminal offence, let us examine where we are getting to. We are then accepting the proposition that on account of misconduct a child can be more readily and easily deprived of its liberty than an adult. I do not like that at all.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? My noble friend seems to have overlooked the fact that ever since the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, was passed children can be, and have been, deprived of their liberty, under Section 62 of that Act, merely because they are in moral danger in their homes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree: deprived of their liberty on that account, but not on the ground of misconduct. And what my noble friend is suggesting is that they should be deprived of their liberty on the ground of misconduct, on the ground that they have been guilty of acting in a manner which would render a person of 13 liable to be guilty of an offence. That is the argument. What I am saying is that it seems to me to be a serious thing to impose a lower burden of proof when the case is against a child of 12—to establish that he has acted in that manner—than would be required in the case of someone who is over 12. I do not think that this is merely a lawyers' point. It amounts to this. The argument has been put forward that really a tougher line would have to be adopted in relation to those under 12 than those over 12. That is a serious difficulty, I think. My noble friend says that he would like to get away from the conception of crime. But I do not think we are getting away from the conception of crime by adopting a formula such as that expressed in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 86 on page 33 of his Committee's Report.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: Will my noble and learned friend forgive me for interrupting again? He has quoted a number of times from part of a definition which we suggested might take the place of the existing definition, which appears in Section 61 of the Act of 1933. The part from which he
438
has quoted is only an alternative anyway, and it has been jettisoned by the Government in favour of what is now contained in Clause 2 of this Bill; and I myself said that I was perfectly satisfied with the drafting of the clause, which defines the child or young person in need of care or control.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not accepting for one moment that the same significance should be attached to "control" as to "discipline." But I am certainly not seeking to misrepresent the case put forward by my noble friend. I thought it was fundamental in the scheme he was advocating to-day that this new description should be inserted. If it is not, I do not see how that scheme is going to work with the noble Lady's Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted, how would this scheme graft on to it? As I see it, it would have the defects I have indicated. It may have advantages, because it may appear to some much better to find an establishment of guilt rather than a recording of guilt following upon that establishment. But if my noble friend's scheme for extending the powers is grafted on to the noble Lady's Amendment then this does seem to follow. Here I think I can pray in aid something the noble Baroness said in the course of Second Reading: that you are extending these powers to people to whom they do not apply at the present moment—namely, children under 8 years of age; and I am not sure that is very right.
The arguments on this question can be many and can proceed very far. I would say this quite frankly to your Lordships, if I may: I am not sure that either solution which has been put before the House to-day, either that of the noble Baroness or that of my noble friend, is really a correct solution of this very difficult problem. We all hate the idea of young children being brought before juvenile courts, whatever the reason for bringing them there, whether it is care or control; whether it is because they are in moral danger; whether it is because of the conduct of the parents, or whether it is on account of their own conduct. We should all like to see further developments on the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, which might divert some of these young people from the downward

439
path which leads so often and so sadly to a prolonged criminal career. But what at the moment we have to consider is whether we retain as a last sanction, a last resort for the very bad cases of behaviour of those between 8 and 12, power to bring them to the court, with the court's power to send them to an approved school, with the court's power to fine the parents and the court's power of putting them on probation. At the moment I am not sure that there is any real alternative to these powers which has been put forward. Attendance at the attendance centre is net quite the same thing. I myself should feel it was very undesirable to take away from the court the existing power of imposing fines, fines which, as I indicated, have to be borne by the parents unless the parents are shown not to have had anything to do with the offence. The Ingleby Committee excludes the power to fine. But I should have thought that that was a very desirable power to have.
We can debate this matter for a great deal more time. I could develop a great many more criticisms of the proposals put forward by my noble friend. It would be very interesting, but it would take up your Lordships' time. I should like to assure my noble friend that we have given very careful examination to his proposals as they now stand. We have listened to what the noble Baroness has said; we are not unsympathetic to the ideas. But I must say that I do not think that a satisfactory solution has yet been found. If it comes to a Division I shall have to advise my friends to vote against the noble Lady's proposal. But I hope, even at this hour, that it will not come to a Division, because I should like an opportunity, with my friends, of consulting to see whether, without setting up an entirely new procedure such as my noble friend suggests, we could devise some means which would, at least to some extent, meet the wishes that have been expressed from all sides of the House.
I think I have been in this sense rather a lone voice pointing out the difficulties which I see, and I hope the noble Baroness will not take it amiss that I conclude my speech by saying that, while I do not think that we could go so far as she suggests, namely, to
440
raise the exclusion to 12, nor do I think we could accept my noble friend's proposals as they stand, at the same time I should like, with my colleagues, to see whether we can find a means of going some way to meet them.
LORD LINDGREN: Before the noble and learned Lord resumes his seat, may I point out that he has not dealt with the problem which faces many of us in juvenile courts where we have a juvenile who just does not know what "taking the oath" means. There may be a child on a criminal charge, and to deal with him on that charge when he cannot take the oath and cannot understand the oath is, I think, wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I noted what the noble Lord said. I am sorry that I omitted to deal with that particular point in my reply, and I apologise to other noble Lords if I have not covered all the points in my reply. I took that point in mind. I agree that it is most undesirable that children should be mystified by taking the oath. There are provisions whereby they need not take the oath if they do not understand. But I will certainly give consideration to that point as well as to others.
4.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We have had a long and, I think, interesting debate this afternoon. Perhaps the most interesting thing is what was admitted by the noble and learned Lord towards the end of his speech: that practically every speech made, until we came to the one from the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, which was rather qualified, had been in favour of the Amendment. Of course the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, did not fail to pay attention to the further proposals which he had put upon the Marshalled List; but we had to point out that his proposals would not have any meaning unless the principle in the Amendment of my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger were first carried. Therefore, we come to a question of procedure.
I welcome the spirit which was displayed in the last few minutes of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, when he said that he thought that still further consideration might be given to this matter; but, of course, he did not

441
really promise further consideration towards accepting this Amendment in principle as moved by my noble friend, but would certainly be looking to find some alternative to the proposals of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, with the whole of which the noble and learned Lord does not agree. In my view, it is first of all essential that we Mould get the view of the Committee with regard to the principle in my noble friend's Amendment. Then, after that has been established—and there alas been practically no real view expressed against it this afternoon in principle—we could proceed to consider (a) the proposals put by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, or (b) any amended proposals that the Government feel they ought to put in respect of those proposals. would not say that I am wholly in disagreement with all Lord Ingleby's proposals, but that does not say that I would accept them all.
Every speaker who spoke on the principle of this Amendment to-day has been in favour of it. Let us get that principle established. When you talk about youngsters, aged from 10 to 11, who go to an approved school nowadays and you see the results on them of early treatment of this kind, it is essential, in my view, that we should first get established the principle of the Amendment; then we would heartily agree to considering still further checks upon the position That the Government might be able to arrive at on further consideration.
LORD OGMORE: I should like shortly to support most warmly the remarks that have just come from the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. What I feel that we have to decide here is whether a child of under 12 should be treated as having criminal responsibility. How many of us can really say that that should be so? I do not think that any normal person could say that a child of 9 or 10, or of 8½ years of age, should have criminal responsibility. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, himself expressed some sympathy with that point of view. Then his reply to it was, to my mind, irrelevant. He said, "While I agree, I think there are difficulties about what you do with children between 8 and 12." That is surely nothing to do with the child; that is our responsibility. What we have to decide first of all is at what age there should be criminal responsibility; and then it is for
442
us to decide what we do about it. We cannot go on penalising the child because we cannot make up our minds; otherwise we should be imposing a load and an onus on the child because of our failure to perform our duty as Parliamentarians. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that we must strongly support the Amendment, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness and by the noble Viscount who has just spoken.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: May I speak for one moment? I, too, like the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, was disappointed both by the tone and the substance of my noble and learned friend's reply. I thought he made heavy weather of it. After all, the age of criminal responsibility was raised in 1933 from 7 to 8 without there being a great number of technical objections raised, and children up to the age of 8 from thence forward were treated as being in need of care and protection. If the age is now made 12, those under 12 should be treated a children in need of care and control. It is not a difficult matter, and although I should wish that it did not go to a Division, if it does, I shall feel obliged to vote for the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think that the Committee should be fully aware of what exactly is involved here.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We are.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I say a word here. I think that certainly the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has misunderstood entirely what was in my noble and learned friend's mind, and this is what disturbs me about the present situation. The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition says that the Committee should first of all decide upon the principle of the Amendment. It is precisely there that I am not sure that there is complete clarity at the moment. Of course, if the Committee want to decide that the Amendment without any alteration is, in all circumstances, right, then I can see at once the necessity for pushing the matter to a Division. But that is not what I understood the noble Viscount to mean; nor did I understand that from the speeches which have been made, in particular the speech of my noble friend Lord Ingleby. Of course,

443
the truth is that what is called the age of criminal responsibility is not a conception known in those words to English law; it is a Continental conception and not an English conception. The point is that we have to decide what particular types of treatment to apply to children of all ages. If this Amendment were carried in its present form—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The noble and learned Viscount will forgive me if I interrupt him. We are not deciding anything at all in this Amendment about treatment. The Amendment says that in the principal Act the words
"It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of eight years can be guilty of any offence"
shall be amended to substitute "twelve" for "eight". We are therefore moving an Amendment which says that no child under the age of 12 years can be guilty of any offence. It is nothing whatever to do with treatment. That can be dealt with at a later stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If our rôles were reversed I should accuse the noble Baroness of taking a lawyer's point, because that is precisely what she has just done, and it is not, I submit, a particularly good one, because—and this is exactly what worries me in regard to what the noble Baroness has said—it does not seem to me to be really facing up to what is involved in the Amendment and what is the principle of it. If the Amendment is passed, as I understand it, the Committee will be deciding for a child who does acts which, apart from the age of the child, would be construed as criminal acts, that we could not now apply to that child fines, probation, approved school or sending into the care of a fit and proper person; but that if the same child were brought before the same court and accused of being (if this is the right term) in need of care and protection within the meaning of the earlier section of the Act, there could be applied to the same child, not the fine but all the other forms of treatment, such as supervision under a probation officer, sending away to an approved school, and sending it into the care of a fit and proper person. That seems to me to raise an anomaly.
444
All my noble and learned friend has said is that that being the true principle of the Amendment, would it not be better, as there will be at least three or four subsequent occasions when this particular matter can be discussed in Parliament, and at least two other occasions when it can be discussed before this House, to let us take this matter back—which we have offered to do—in the light of what has been said, and to discuss the matter again on Report? I can only tell the noble Lady—and I am sure she knows me too well to take offence on this in any way—that it would be easier to deal with it in that way, and I believe the ultimate result would be better if she did as I have asked her to do, rather than to force the matter to a division of opinion now when we are not really ready to propose a final solution. I am not by any means excluding the possibility that something along the lines of what she is suggesting, although not exactly the same, might be accepted. But it would he much more easy, quite frankly, to achieve that result if she allowed us to take this matter back, in the light of what has been said by this Committee, to our colleague, the Home Secretary, and to other colleagues in another place and to discuss the matter again at a later stage. If that does not commend itself to the noble Lady, of course we shall have to divide; but I hope that this matter is capable of reasonable agreement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I can see no reason, after the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, for changing what I said just now. We are in great sympathy with some part of the suggestions which have been made, if you first accept this principle—that is the point—a principle which has been upheld by the great majority of speakers in the debate this afternoon. I therefore will proceed to a Division on the basis of our Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Would the noble Viscount say what this principle is? Must it be exactly what he says, and nothing else? Will he define the limits of what the principle involves?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: If we carry this Amendment, we will go on to consider other

445
proposals which are made—I put them in two categories: (a) those of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby; or (b) any further ones the Government want to put—so long as we have the principle.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What is the principle?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Some of us will be in favour of some part of Lord Ingleby's
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause—
Attendance centres
" . In addition to the powers contained in subsection (1) of section 62 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the Juvenile Court shall have power to order a child found to be in need of care or control to attend an attendance centre in accordance with section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, and to order his parent or guardian to nay compensation for loss or damage caused by such child up to a maximum sum of £100."
The noble Viscount said: Rather to my surprise I find myself in the position of moving the Amendment which stands
Amendment; and we might be in favour of something else you might suggest. At this stage we are concerned with the principle.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What is the principle?
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Hughes, L.

Rea, L.

Auckland, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Ingleby, V.

St. Davids, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kenswood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Latham, L.

Shepherd, L.

Chorley, L.

Lawson, L.

Somers, L.

Crook, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Listowel, E.

Strang, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Summerskill, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McNair, L.

Williams, L.

Faringdon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Francis-Williams, L.

Meston, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Greenhill, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Ampthill, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Margesson, V.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Milverton, L.

Bethell, L.

Furness, V.

Molson, L.

Blackford, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Bossom, L.

Guest, L.

Newton, L.

Brecon, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Soulbury, V.

Crathorne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Spens, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Kilmarnock, L.

Teynham, L.

Dundee, E.

Lothian, M.

in my name. I explained this Amendment to the Committee in speaking on the previous one, and the idea of this Amendment is to give to the juvenile court in these care or control cases additional powers which they do not possess at present. The powers which they do possess at present have been referred to two or three times this afternoon. They are set out at the top of page 86 of the Committee's Report and they are as follows: A child found to be in need of care or control under the future definition can be ordered to be sent to an approved school; he can be committed to the care of a fit person who is willing to undertake the care of him—and that is usually the local authority—his parents can be ordered
to enter into a recognizance to exercise proper care and guardianship; or the child may be placed for a specified period under the supervision of a probation officer.
My Amendment follows two of the recommendations of the Ingleby Committee in that it provides also that the attendance centre order may be made against a child found to be in need of care or control, and that, as I say, is a very much smaller thing than the approved school order. It simply deprives a child of a specified number of Saturday afternoons off—if I may put it that way—where he is under the benevolent care of some admirable police officers who give him instruction of various kinds, and also give him what we used to call physical jerks. The attendance centre order, therefore, is quite a useful sanction for courts to possess, and I think, in the case of a child found to be in need of care or control, it will be a very useful addition to the range of powers which the juvenile court has.
The second power incorporated in the Amendment is to order the parents or guardians to pay compensation. The position about compensation under the present law is extremely obscure. It is thought that there is no power to order compensation to be paid where a child is found to be in need of care or protection, and I think that that is probably the position. There is certainly no power to order the parents to pay compensation where the child found to be in need of care or protection is under the age of 8 years. This new power was one we recommended as filling that gap, and as likely to bring home to parents their responsibility for keeping their children under control. It is only a power to the court; it need not be exercised. It will no doubt be exercised only where there is in the view of the court culpable negligence on the part of the parents, and it seems to me a very useful addition to the range of powers in this type of case.
I referred on the previous Amendment to a third power, the power to order punitive detention in a detention centre under Section 54 of the 1933 Act. I have not put that in, because it seems to me a somewhat disputable proposition and I felt that I was unlikely, if I
448
included that in my Amendment, to get the support of many noble Lords who sit opposite. I hope that some of them, at any rate, in view of the success their previous Amendment has had with the new clause which has just been moved into the Bill, will feel able to support the Amendment which I have put forward, which will complete the scheme which the Ingleby Committee recommended, backed by such an immense body of evidence and of public opinion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Ingleby.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it might save the time of the Committee if I said something at this stage upon this particular Amendment. My noble friend has moved it persuasively, and obviously held out an olive branch in the hope that he would get a quid pro quo for the last Division. I should like to say, without saying it in any detail, that this Amendment is, of course, a new departure. My noble friend is seeking, by the effect of his Amendment, to provide for penal sanctions to be imposed on all those in need of care—
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: Not all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: —all those in need of care or control. It is not limited to those between 8 and 12. This is a provision of general application which he wants inserted—namely, for the courts to have power to compel attendance at an attendance centre.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: I really must protest against my noble friend's taking this sort of point. We passed the Criminal Justice Act last year, and in that we reduced the attendance centre age from 12 years to 10 years. Therefore, for my noble friend to suggest that I am now proposing that an attendance centre order under the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, which is referred to in my Amendment, is going to extend to children below the age of 8 is really completely misconstruing my Amendment. My Amendment would apply, so far as attendance centres are concerned, only to children between the ages of 12 and 10.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not so advised, but I do not need to

449
spend much more time on that. There is this particular point, which I again do not want to spend much time upon, and it is that apparently this penal power is to be exercised on proof of conduct which is not of the standard required were a criminal offence to be charged. All I would say to the Committee is this. In the light of the last Division, I am sure the Committee will appreciate that the position has to be reconsidered, and reconsidered not only in relation to the last Amendment and the effect of it but in relation to this Amendment, too.
I really could not advise the Committee to accept this Amendment as it now stands, which extends the power of imposing the penal sanction to far wider a field than that to which it has ever been applied before. It would make it possible to require the attendance at an attendance centre of a child requiring care and control who is the innocent victim of parental neglect. It is all very well to say that the courts would not use such a power, but I myself feel somewhat reluctant to give such a wide and general power to any court on the ground that the court would not find it necessary to use it.
I am sure my noble friend, if he comes to consider the matter, will realise that it is really quite impossible for me to say Chat we shall accept this Amendment at this present juncture. I can only repeat that, quite obviously, after what has happened on the last Amendment, the position has to be reconsidered; and I would ask my noble friend, if he is not too enthusiastic as a result of the last victory, to be good enough to consider withdrawing this Amendment so that we can—the two subjects are, as he has emphasised, associated—consider them together.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: I think it is evident that the whole position will now have to be reviewed. I moved my Amendment as shortly as I could, merely to make its object clear to Members of the Committee; and, in view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Constitution and place of Sitting of Juvenile Courts]:
(2) In section 47 (2) of the principal Act (which relates to sittings of juvenile courts) for the words from "subject as hereinafter
450
provided" to "other courts are held" there shall be substituted the words "not sit in a room in which sittings of a court other than a juvenile court are held if a sitting of that other court has been or will be held there within an hour before or after the sitting of the juvenile court".
5.22 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22. Subsection (2) would permit a sitting of a juvenile court to take place in the same room, of course in the same building, as an adult court, provided that the sittings of the adult court and of the juvenile court were separated by just one hour. Most enlightened authorities, particularly those who gave evidence before the Ingleby Committee, have recommended that juvenile courts should be held in adequate premises quite apart from other courts, and one does not need to use many arguments or a great deal of emphasis to show why that should be. As it stands, the clause would permit those two different courts, the adult court and the juvenile court, to be held in the same room if only an hour intervened. I would submit that, allowing for the late departure of people who have been concerned with the adult court and the early arrival of those who are going to be concerned with the juvenile court to follow it, quite obviously the two parties will at times get mixed up, and that is wholly undesirable.
The present clause is, in fact, less favourable in this matter than Section 47 of the principal Act, because that Act already requires juvenile courts to sit either in a different building or in a different room from that in which other courts are held, or on different days from those courts. It is extraordinary that in this particular clause we should have a less favourable situation than that. I think everyone will agree that it is desirable to secure the maximum separation in time, place and distance between the two different kinds of court; and I should therefore like to hear from the Government some explanation as to why, in this Bill, there should be this undesirable weakening of Section 47 of the principal Act. I submit that, in the interests of the children and of the families concerned, the Government should admit that an

451
error has been made, and should accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Stonham.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): I am glad that we can now turn to the calmer waters of Clause 16. May I first respond to the noble Lord's invitation to explain the pedigree of this particular subsection of Clause 16? At present, under subsection (2) of Section 47 of the principal Act, a juvenile court is required to sit
"either in a different building or room from that in which sittings of courts other than juvenile courts are held, or on different days from those on which sittings of such other courts are held …"
This of course means that a juvenile court may not sit in the same room as another court on the same day, as the noble Lord has said. However, as the Ingleby Committee pointed out in paragraph 190 of their Report, this provision of itself does not necessarily secure that the juvenile court will be held in a room which suits its function. Nor does it secure that it is not held in the same building and at the same time as an adult court; that its ancillary accommodation is self-contained, and that it has a separate exit and entrance from that used by an adult court, which the Ingleby Committee recommended should be the case. I do not think that that is the sort of thing which one can achieve by Statute. It is rather the sort of thing which we seek to achieve with the co-operation of magistrates' court committees as new provision is made from time to time in the accommodation of the courts; and it is the sort of thing which is being provided for in the present court programme.
I should also point out that in some degree the present statutory restriction, which I think the noble Lord's Amendment would retain, makes it difficult to use the most suitable accommodation efficiently. For example, it precludes the use of an ordinary court room as a juvenile court in the morning and as an adult magistrates' court in the afternoon, even when there is no risk, so far as I can see, of contact between those attending, the juvenile court in the morning and those attending the adult court in the
452
afternoon, or when there is a lengthy interval between the sittings of the courts. That is why subsection (2) allows a juvenile court, a court of a different kind, to be held in the same room so long as there is an hour's interval between the two sittings. I am not saying that an hour is necessarily sacrosanct, but it seemed to those who drafted the Bill that an hour should provide for the effective decontamination (if that is the right word) of the court.
The noble Lord has suggested that to allow the present clause to remain in the Bill unamended would be a retrograde step, but I must point out that two expert Committees of inquiry, the Ingleby Committee and also the Aarvold Committee on Magistrates' Courts in London, concluded that there was no objection to the sharing of premises, provided that the persons attending the one set of courts, say the juvenile courts, could be separated from those attending the adult ones. That again comes out very clearly in paragraph 190 of the Ingleby Committee's Report. I will not trouble to read the passages to the noble Lord: he probably has them in mind. The clause as it stands is designed to ensure that there should be this effective separation, and I should have thought that it does, in fact, secure it. But, of course—and I now come back to what I was saying originally—this type of effective separation is, in the long term, better secured by really adequate and well-designed court premises; and that is now our object, following the advice of the Ingleby Committee and of the Aarvold Committee in this respect. But I cannot see why the provision for an hour's separation should be subject to the defects which the noble Lord sees in it.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: If the noble Earl were aware of the slummy condition in which some juvenile courts sit, I am sure he would be casting about everywhere to find better accommodation, and I hope we may take it that his defence of this clause is due simply to his desire to find more civilised accommodation. But there are two points to be considered—one temporal and the other geographical. The temporal point was dealt with by my noble friend when he said that, even with an

453
hour's gap between the sittings, there may well be an overlap. People will be coming out from the one court and others will be going into the next, and they will meet midway.
There is also the spatial or geographical point. The noble Earl pointed out that the Amendment would prevent a juvenile court from being held in a courtroom in the morning and a magistrates' court in the same room in the afternoon. The magistrates' courts have to be held in rooms which are, by definition, unsuitable for juvenile courts. A magistrates' court requires a dock. In a magistrate's court the magistrate practically always sits upon an elevated dais which removes him from the kind of intimate personal conduct which distinguishes the relationship in the juvenile court. And I cannot but agree with my noble friend that it would be an extremely retrograde step, in this day and age, to allow juvenile courts to be held in ordinary court rooms. I think the impact of this on many children and parents would be to suggest that we are doing away with juvenile courts altogether; and that instead we were now dealing with children only at separate times in a court indistinguishable from the magistrates' court.
EARL JELLICOE: I rise to assure the noble Lady that I am, of course, aware, and I hope she will expect me to be aware, that some of the court premises, particularly in London—but I grant that the same applies elsewhere—are quite inadequate. That is why I aim glad that real progress is being made with the programme in that respect. But we are not here to debate that: we are here to debate whether this hour provides a reasonable period. I Should have thought that it does. I should have thought that an hour allows time far those who have been attending one court to be well away from it before those coming into the next court arrive. I should not wish to quibble over the question of an hour, but I feel that the present provision that a court room must not be used for a juvenile court on the same day is, in fact, disadvantageous.
LORD STONHAM: I am beginning to wonder whether there is the slightest possibility at all that the Government are prepared to accept any Amendment on
454
the Order Paper, however reasonable or sound it is. With respect, the noble Earl has not dealt with the point at all. We are not dealing to-day with paragraph 190 of the Ingleby Report; nor, indeed, with the physical condition and layout of courts. We are dealing at this moment with subsection (2) of Clause 16, which will permit a court room to be used as an adult court up to I p.m. and as a juvenile court from 2 p.m. The noble Earl suggests that one hour should be enough, but he must surely be aware that court officials, or policemen who have the duty of ensuring that persons who are to appear before the court do appear on time, always tell them, quite properly, to come along a little earlier. It is perfectly obvious that there is going to be a whole crowd of young people with their parents assembling for the juvenile court at the time when people concerned in the adult court are coming out. That is the first point and it is unacceptable that the Government should maintain this position.
The second point is that Clause 47 of the principal Act already requires juvenile courts to sit in another building or another room: or, if the same room is used, on a different day. That provision was made for a totally understandable and desirable purpose. There is no reason why it should be weakened, and the noble Earl did not tell us why the Government have reached the decision they have done—or, if he did, it did not appear to me a sound reason. If the Government have done this as an indirect way of improving court rooms, or of providing more court rooms, I would say; if any change is desirable, why not wait until the provision of court accommodation is such that such a provision as this will do no harm? This really will not do. It is absolutely useless for us to come here and put forward suitable Amendments, with support of some of the greatest acknowledged authorities, and to be met with the kind of answers that we are now getting. I would say to the noble Earl that the Government must do better than that, and I would ask him at least to say that he will take this clause away and look at it again. It may be he will come back with something else, a different length of time; but as the clause now stands, it will not do at all.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like to make one point in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham; that is, that I referred to the question of physical accommodation only in reply to the noble Lady. It was she who was criticising, and I think she is perfectly entitled to do so, so I know a certain amount, a little about juvenile court accommodation in London. But I have in fact already told the noble Lord the reason why this amendment of the existing procedure was introduced in the clause. It means that, even though other circumstances may make it both convenient and possible, it is impossible to use a court as a juvenile court in the afternoon when it has been used as an adult court in the morning. There might well be practical reasons for wishing to do so, provided that there is not the contamination which the noble Lord fears. If it is a question of spacing out the courts, if an hour is thought to be not sufficient, I am prepared to look again at the practical issues involved. I am quite prepared to give the noble Lord that assurance that I will do that, and I shall be glad to do it between now and the Report stage. I would add that in one respect he has done a little less than justice to what I have said, from this position on this Bill. Because I can well recall that during earlier proceedings on this Bill I have been glad to give an undertaking that I would look again at the points which the noble Lords opposite had made and come back with Amendments.
LORD CHAMPION: I am sorry to intervene at this late stage. I did not hear all the arguments for the Amendment, but I am more worried about providing a separate room for the juvenile court. It so happens that in the court in which I sit one finds the juveniles occupy the same corridor as the persons who are being charged in the other courts. We have three rooms that we can use for magistrates' courts, and one of these we use for a juvenile court. Although the room is entirely separate, the corridor approaching the court is used by juveniles and their parents and also by persons who are being charged with even considerable offences. That seems to me to be wrong, and I hope that, in the consideration which the noble Earl is going to give in this matter,
456
he will also consider this aspect of the problem, which I regard as of more importance than having a separate day for the juvenile court.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to my noble friend, but he will appreciate that if there was a separate day for the juvenile court then there would not be a mix-up in the corridor. When I made the observations to which the noble Earl took some exception, I had in mind the fact that we had not yet had the pleasure of having an Amendment accepted, and I do not belittle the value of the assurances which he has given at various places. On the assurance that the noble Earl will take this back and look at it again, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in certain cases involving children and young persons]:
5.42 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to the clause:
"( ) The provisions of section 35 of the principal Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section except that for references in that section to child or young person there shall be substituted references to a child or young person who is charged before the court and for references to the juvenile court there shall be substituted references to the magistrates' court."
The noble Lord said: The position at present is that when a magistrates' court which is not a juvenile court is considering a case involving children or young persons, under the arrangements which are prescribed in Clause 17 as it stands at present it is in effect acting as a juvenile court. Therefore, it ought to be required to use the same facilities for studying the social background of a case as a juvenile court is required to do. My Amendment aims at securing that this shall be so.
I think it would be wrong to extend the scope of the magistrates' courts in relation to children as the clause at present extends it, without also extending to them the facilities available to enable the magistrates to have full regard to the welfare of the children. The Amendment looks a little complicated, but I hope my explanation is much more

457
simple. I do not know whether the noble Earl will regard this as a recommendation or not, but the Amendment is in line with recommendation No. 55 of the Ingleby Committee, and on this occasion I hope that this is a hopeful sign. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 48, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOE: I think I should deal with the narrower point which the noble Lard has just made, because we are coming to the wider point on the next Amendment. As I understand it, Section 35 of the principal Act requires the local authority to be notified of proceedings taken in respect of a child under 17 and makes it their duty to provide the court with information about his home surroundings (unless that is dealt with by the probation service) and his school record, health and character. The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to apply this section to proceedings in which, in pursuance of Clause 17, a child under 17 is tried by a magistrates' court other than a juvenile court.
I can assure the noble Lord that his Amendment is, in fact, unnecessary. I am advised that Section 35 already quite clearly applies to such proceedings. If the noble Lord were to look at the first part of the section, he would see that the words make it clear that it applies whenever
"a child or young person is to be brought before … a justice or justices … in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him, …"
I think the noble Lord will find that the words up to the comma do bite where he wants them to bite, and the first sentence of Clause 17 specifically deals with the commission of offences.
Could I just add, as the noble Lord referred to the recommendation of the Ingleby Committee, that I am not certain whether it is the recommendation to be found in paragraph 294 or paragraph 271 of the Report, but in the latter they recommend that magistrates' courts other than juvenile courts should be under the same obligation as juvenile courts to obtain and consider reports on juvenile offenders with whom they have to deal. I can assure the noble Lord that if this
458
is what he has in mind, although I do not think it is, the Government fully accept this recommendation. It is not one which requires legislation. As the Committee themselves have pointed out, it can be done by amending the Magistrates' Courts Rules, and when this Bill becomes law this recommendation will find its place in the Rules. On the main argument which the noble Lord has made, I can assure him that what he is after is already provided for in Section 35 of the principal Act.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. On a quick reading of the section to which he refers, I agree with him that it appears to be covered. If not, I shall have to return to it again. Meanwhile, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved to leave out Clause 17. The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Stonham, in the previous Amendment, has been aiming to improve Clause 17, and we are very glad to learn that, if the clause is to stand, apparently his improvement is already incorporated. But I should like to go a little further and get rid of Clause 17 altogether, whether improved or not improved. One of the things which shocks foreign visitors to this country, who are accustomed to proceedings dealing with children in their own lands, is that they can go into adult courts and sessions and there see a small child standing alongside an adult on a joint charge, or see him standing on a charge of aiding and abetting an adult.
When a young man of 18 goes out on a housebreaking excursion, he sometimes takes along his small brother. Small brothers are convenient because sometimes they can get through a hole that the principal actor finds too small. He takes his young brother along—at present, it can be a young brother of 8, but in view of the Amendment which has just been carried in future it will be a young brother of not less than 12—and a joint charge or, it may be, a charge of aiding and abetting is laid against the youngster and both are tried in the adult court. Visitors from many European countries in which this is impossible find this both surprising and shocking.
This clause makes only a small extension in power. Many of us would like to contract this power and wish to resist very strongly even the smallest extension of it. The Ingleby Committee's recommendation, which is to be found in paragraph 175 of the Report, suggested that:
"Where a child is charged with aiding or abetting an adult or is separately charged with what may be termed an 'allied' offence (for example, in a case in which there is a cross summons for assault, or a separate charge arising out of the same facts, where one of the defendants is over and the other under 17), the two cases have to be heard in separate courts even though the circumstances may be identical."
The Committee later said that
"it must be a serious complication to have separate hearings in different courts based on substantially the same facts."
Doubtless this clause has been drafted to avoid these complications. But the Committee gave no hint of what the complications were, except that they have two sets of proceedings instead of one. I can think of one possible complication, and that is that the two courts may arrive at different verdicts. Well, they might be justified in that; and, in any case, if they did arrive at different verdicts, it would at least give a guarantee that one was in accordance with justice, a guarantee that we do not otherwise have. But the serious point, surely, is that we ought not to countenance any extension of the power to bring young children into the adult courts, remembering, as we must, that before proceeedings are taken in that adult court there must be, first of all, committal proceedings before the magistrates' court and subsequently a trial at sessions or assizes.
We have been arguing previously about the importance of keeping very small children out of the juvenile counts altogether, and certainly out of the reach of criminal proceedings; and we have been arguing about the importance of keeping the courts separate and in separate premises. All of these things go by the board if we are going to make even a small extension of the conditions in which a juvenile and an adult are tried together in an adult court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 17.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
EARL JELLICOE: Since the noble Lady's Amendment would strike out Clause 17 in its entirety, I hope that she and your Lordships will forgive me if I briefly explain its purpose. At present where two people, one under 17 and one 17 or over 17, are charged with related crimes, it is held best that they should be tried together. This principle is embodied in subsection (1) of Section 46 of the principal Act, which assigns to magistrates' courts other than juvenile courts the trial of two sorts of crime. The first is where a person under the age of 17 and a person of or over that age are jointly charged with the same offence. The second is where a person under the age of 17 is charged with an offence and a person of that age or over it is charged with aiding or abetting him.
The Ingleby Committee thought, as the noble Lady has quite fairly and rightly pointed out, that this principle should be preserved, and, indeed, they recommended that it should be extended to two further cases. These were, first, cases where a person of or over the age of 17 is charged with an offence and a person under that age is charged with aiding or abetting him—this is precisely the converse of the case which I have already mentioned; and secondly, cases where a person under the age of 17 and a person of 17 or over that age are charged with offences arising from substantially the same facts.
Clause 17, which the noble Lady would like totally struck out from the Bill, gives effect to this recommendation, and she herself has said that the extension proposed would add probably only a small number to the offenders who are tried in this particular way. The present principle, as I understand it, which is enshrined in Section 46 (1) of the principal Act, is based on the principle of fair play—namely, that it is fair to try together defendants accused of the same offence. That is the fundamental reason, be it right or wrong. If that principle is accepted, as it has been accepted in the principal Act for offences covered by that Act, surely it is not illogical to extend it to the present offences covered by this clause, which are, broadly speaking, on all fours with the existing offences. If it has been held to be fair play in one set of circumstances, surely it is equally fair play in much the same

461
circumstances covered by the existing clause.
Why is it held to be fair play? I think the noble Lady gave the first and probably the principal reason—namely, that courts can come to entirely different decisions on the two cases: they could let off one defendant and they could convict another. The noble Lady, with her tongue in her cheek, used the argument that there was rough justice here in that one court would be right and the other count would be wrong, but I do not think that is an argument which she would wish to sustain or push too far. The second possible reason is that the two courts would impose different sentences. They may, of course, wish to do so, in any event, because the juvenile court for reasons of age, and many other reasons, might wish to impose a quite different sentence from that which was thought appropriate by the adult court. But I am not certain that that would necessarily strike the defendants as fair. They might well think that the fact that they had got different treatment in the two courts was not due to differences in age but to differences in the fairness of the trial and the trial procedure to which they had been subject. If they are tried separately, we cannot take it as certain that the evidence of the partners in crime will necessarily be available in each court.
For these reasons, I suggest that the Government have been entirely reasonable in following the Ingleby Committee in this respect. But I would again remind noble Lords, first, that the safeguard which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was wishing to introduce by the Amendment he has just moved, and has not at this stage pressed, is, I am advised, already there. Secondly, I would remind your Lordships that a court, other than a juvenile court already has power under Section 56 of the principal Act to remit a juvenile offender, whom it has judged to be dealt with and sentenced by a juvenile court. We shall be dealing in a few minutes with the question of how hest that particular procedure can be applied, but I would remind noble Lords that that is the existing position. I would submit, in all the circumstances, that the clause is right as it stands.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am not very happy with the conception of fair play put forward by the noble Earl. It seems to me that it is less a conception of fair play than a desire that the courts should always, so to speak, arrive at unanimous or consistent decisions, or should appear to arrive at consistent decisions. There is no reason why on a joint charge both parties, or all the parties, should be found guilty. It is quite common on a joint charge for one party to be found guilty and another to be found not guilty, even though the facts on which the case is based are substantially the same. But the most important point about this is, first of all, that we want to keep the children out of the adult courts; and secondly, that if it is fair play to try charges that arise out of the same facts together, this is something which children find it difficult to understand.
If I had my way, I would do away with joint charges for children in almost all cases, because children do not understand the way in which a joint enterprise inculpates all parties. It is a very common thing for a child to appear in court. He has perhaps a previous finding of guilt, and you ask him what the previous case was about. You ask what he did, and his answer is, "I was with some boys who took some things". No doubt he was either keeping watch or on the fringes of the gang. Children do not understand joint charges. I think, therefore, the argument that fair play requires that joint charges should be tried together is far weaker when applied to children than to adults. Nor do I understand the noble Earl's suggestion that the evidence of the partners in the crime might not be available. Unless the prisoners have been executed, I should have thought it would be perfectly possible to make their evidence available. It could be made available even if they had been subjected to sentences of imprisonment. I see no obstacle, and perhaps the noble Earl can enlighten me on that point.
In the circumstances, since this is but a very small extension of the appearance of the child in the adult court, I will not press the Amendment at this stage, if your Lordships agree, and if perhaps the noble Earl would say that he would look at this point, particularly in view of the

463
drafting of Clause 17 (b), which seems to be extraordinarily vague:
"… An offence arising out of circumstances which are the same as or connected with those giving rise to an offence …"
That might mean practically anything as drafted. Will the noble Earl look at that again, and see whether he cannot manage to restrict this extension to the adult counts even further?
EARL JELLICOE: I shall, of course, be very willing to look at the specific point of the drafting of paragraph (b) to which the noble Lady has referred. But I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking to re-examine the main point, because it seems to me that if the noble Lady's fundamental point is right, she is not going about it in the right way. Surely, if the principle she has admitted is right, what we should be doing is considering whether or not to repeal Section 46 (1) of the principal Act, and not whether or not to extend in a minor degree this particular provision.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that suggestion, and I should like to withdraw the Amendment and have an opportunity of considering whether the right course would be to repeal Section 46 of the principal Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
6.4 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:
Remittance to juvenile courts
. Section 56 (1) of the principal Act shall be amended by substituting the word "shall" for the words "may, if it thinks fit,".
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is that when a child or young person has been dealt with in a court which is not a juvenile court, it shall be obligatory on that court to remit him for sentence to the juvenile court. This is one of the cases where there are several stages in which this goal may be approached. There is, first of all, the stage represented by the present wording of the principal Act. The principal Act says at the moment that a young person may be remitted to the juvenile court if the court—that is to say, the court which its trying him—thinks fit. The Ingleby
464
Committee recommended that he should be so remitted unless there were special reasons to the contrary. That is stage two.
My proposal is that we should not allow a getaway by special reasons. I think it is very important that children and young persons, if they are to be sentenced, should be sentenced by courts who are accustomed to dealing with them: who are cognisant, as many magistrates' courts are not, with the various methods of treatment that are available; who are experienced in dealing with children and young persons, and who know the atmosphere of the children's court. I also feel that special reasons are very slippery. We have special reasons in a good many Acts of Parliament, and special reasons are disposed to become not so special. I have in mind, for instance, that if a person drives his motor car while disqualified by court order, he must be sent to prison if he is convicted of that offence unless there are special reasons. Yet, of all the persons who are convicted in the magistrates' courts of that offence, one finds that special reasons are found in something in the region of 40 per cent. of the cases. I see no occasion to allow a getaway which might be freely used by some courts and prevent children from being dealt within the courts which are appropriate for them and which are specially provided for dealing with their case. I would therefore beg to move that this Amendment be accepted.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 to insert the said new clause.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
EARL JELLICOE: In moving her Amendment the noble Lady referred to the Ingleby Committee's views on this, and I think it is fair to say that the Ingleby Committee took the view that remission to the juvenile court should be the normal course. I should like to make it quite clear that the Government agree with that view. The noble Lady will note—if she has not already noted, although I suspect with her sharp eye she has—that paragraph 14, sub-paragraph (1), of Schedule 3 to the Bill provides for the deletion from Section 56 (1) of the principal Act the words "if it thinks fit". That is designed to make

465
it clear that it is the Government's view that remission should be the normal course.
We think it right to follow the Ingleby Committee here, save that we share the noble Lady's slight aversion to and distrust of the phrase "special reasons", which I am well aware has given difficulty of interpretation in road traffic legislation, for example, to which she referred. By the same token, we think it would be wrong to adopt the noble Lady's Amendment here. To adopt it would, I suggest, be opening ourselves to producing odd and possibly highly undesirable positions. For example, it would make it impossible, save, I think, in the case of homicide, to use the power conferred by Section 53 of the principal Act to impose on a juvenile found guilty of a serious offence in the adult court, a sentence of detention in such a place as the Secretary of State may direct. That provision has been amended by Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1961.
Could I take another example of the sort of difficulty to which I think acceptance of the noble Lady's Amendment would lead? Let us take the case where two youths, one aged 16 and the other aged 17, are convicted at quarter sessions of a joint offence. The court consider that Borstal training is the right sentence for both youths. But if we were to accept the noble Lady's Amendment, the court would necessarily have to remit the youth aged 16 to a juvenile court. But the juvenile court, if it concurred in the view that a sentence of Borstal training was indeed required, would then have to commit the youth back to quarter sessions so that sentence could be passed Meanwhile, the youth would languish in a remand centre or in prison. If I am right in thinking that this is the sort of consequence which could follow from acceptance of the noble Lady's Amendment—and I have not taken a fanciful example—I cannot believe that that is the sort of object which the movers of this Amendment have in mind.
Could I grant one .thing straight away to the noble Lady? It is not a point she made, but it may be in the back of her mind that the juvenile courts are more likely than other courts gat present to take into account reports from probation officers and from other sources about the young offenders with whom they have to deal. The noble Lady, who was such
466
a distinguished member of the Streatfeild Committee, knows that the Committee recommended that where practicable a probation officer should prepare a pretrial report on every defendant under the age of 30 appearing before a court of assize or quarter session; and, as the noble Lady knows from an Answer I gave her in this House only a few days ago, we hope to bring the Committee's recommendation in Part B of their Report into operation by next Easter. When those new arrangements are fully operative a court of assize or quarter sessions will thus normally have full information before it of any juvenile offender with whom it has to deal.
It is possible, of course that when the superior court decides that a remand is necessary for further inquiries to be made, then time can be saved in certain instances by remitting a case to a juvenile court. I should like just to inform noble Lords that we propose to draw the attention of the superior court to this point in the circulars we shall be issuing giving effect to Part B of the Streatfeild Report.
I hope that I have not too much embroidered in my reply to the noble Baroness's main point, but I thought that there might be this other consideration at the back of her mind. In saying that, I would add that I do not think I could possibly recommend to your Lordships acceptance of her Amendment, but I would again draw attention to the sort of consequences which I am advised could follow from its acceptance.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have listened very carefully to what the noble Earl has said, and it is quite obvious that in principle there is really not much that divides the noble Earl and my noble friend except perhaps the rather wider words that the noble Lady is asking the noble Earl to accept. I think it is again a question of words and, if the principle is accepted, I wonder whether the noble Earl, between now and the next stage, would consider whether we could have this provision: that in all cases the matter be remitted to a juvenile court but, if there are to be exceptions, for the exceptions to be placed in the Bill. I think that probably would meet the point of my noble friend. In other words, except within specified exceptions, all matters of punishment would be referred

467
to the appropriate court, the juvenile court.
EARL JELLICOE: I can, of course, reaffirm that it is the Government's view that remission should be the normal course. I would also reaffirm that, as we see it, acceptance of the Amendment as it stands would be open to certain clear and obvious disadvantages. Whether that point could be met by spelling out the disadvantageous exceptions as such, and whether drafting would permit that, I do not know. I am quite prepared to see whether that would be possible and, if possible, whether advantageous. But I would not wish to give any undertaking at this stage that I could come up with an Amendment, but I am certainly prepared to look at this point.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The noble Earl suggested that he was embroidering upon what I have said and may I at once say that his embroidery is, as one would expect, very eloquent.
LORD STONHAM: Broderie anglaise.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I fully appreciate the difficulty raised by the type of case to which the noble Earl has referred, but the effect of his argument about these cases is really to drive me more towards the Ingleby recommendation than towards the Bill as it now stands, for it may be the Government's policy that cases should, apart from these very special instances, normally be remitted to the juvenile court, but it is not necessarily the policy of the court before whom these juveniles appear. It may be the Government's wish that it should be done, but there is no obligation to do it. I can see many a court which has a juvenile and an adult before it thinking that it might just as well sentence the pair of them, and sentencing the juvenile with very little understanding even of the range of sentences which are available.
I think the expression of the Government's wish in this House is by no means adequate to bring all the magistrates' courts and sessions of this country into line. So I hope that the noble Earl will look at it again and see whether there is any possibility of spelling out the exceptions or, if not, making it perfectly clear that the exceptions must be thoroughly exceptionable. As he has
468
been good enough to say that he will look at it again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Assessors for recorder in appeals and committals from juvenile courts]:
6.18 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or no such member". The noble Lord said: I am sure the noble Earl will agree that I should discuss with this Amendment the next one, No. 27, which is on precisely the same point. Clause 18 provides that:
"Where a court of quarter sessions…deals with a case on appeal from a juvenile court or wish the case of a person committed by a juvenile court to quarter sessions…the recorder shall, where practicable, be assisted by two members of a juvenile court panel, who shall sit with him and act as assessors."
That is a very desirable thing, which we all agree is necessary; and everyone, I am sure, approves that part of this clause. But then the clause goes on to say, in subsection (2) that
"Where…only one such member"—
that is, one person with experience of a juvenile court—
"or no such member is available the recorder shall sit either with that member or alone."
I am quite willing to accept that it is not at all times necessary for there to be two people with experience of juvenile courts to sit with the recorder, but I do insist that in all cases there should be at least one. Therefore, my two Amendments provide that if no person specially qualified to sit in juvenile courts is available to sit with the recorder as assessor and to advise him, then the recorder, without such assistance, should not be empowered to act at all.
Unless the Government accept this Amendment, a great deal of the value of this clause will be destroyed, because I can well imagine cases in courts where a recorder will say, "I am empowered to sit alone and I am going to sit alone." I think that would be most unfortunate, because we have gone to a very necessary amount of trouble to have persons specially qualified to sit in juvenile courts. The Government and we agree that in these two special cases referred to in the clause it is desirable that these assessors with their special knowledge

469
of the background of the kind of cases which the recorder has to consider, should be there to assist him. It therefore seems extraordinary that the Government should have drafted subsection (1) of this clause and should then proceed virtually to destroy it with subsection (2). I think the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, is going to reply. I hope that he will be able to agree that the clause shall be amended so that in all cases there will be one assessor from the juvenile court sitting with the recorder, and that if no such member is available—though I imagine those circumstances would be very rare—then the recorder should not consider the case at all on that occasion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("or no such member").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: May I draw attention to the fact that if, in a case such as that which the noble Lord has instanced, a recorder, having no member of the juvenile court to sit with him, was unable to deal with the case at that time, it would surely involve holding the case over to the next quarter sessions? Would that be in the interests of the child concerned?
LORD STONHAM: It really means that if the recorder could sit and consider that case only when an assessor was present, and could not consider it without an assessor, I am sure that such a person would be found to sit with him. The only purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that none of these cases should be considered unless the recorder has the advantage of the presence of an assessor qualified to advise him on that particular point.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I was very glad to hear the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, say that he approved of the system of having the assessors, because the Government attach a great deal of importance to it. Like him, I would take the two Amendments together. I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with him in his Amendment. One reason, as my noble friend Lord Forster of Harraby has just pointed out, is that if, for one reason or another, no assessors were available it is very likely that the recorder would have to put off the case until the next sessions. I am prepared to
470
admit that the time lag might vary considerably, but it might be on occasion, I believe, a matter of some weeks. I cannot see that any appellant or offender would desire to be held up as long as that. I think he would much rather get the job over and done with.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Has the noble Marquess had in mind the number of juvenile magistrates available throughout the country? I think he puts an unreal case.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I quite accept the fact that there are juvenile magistrates available throughout the country, but it might on occasion be difficult to get someone. We also feel that it would be a rare case. I admit that there is a choice of evils here: neither solution seems to be perfect. But the Government take the view that the hardship caused by delay outweighs the disadvantage of allowing an appellant or an offender to be dealt with by the recorder without the assistance of a juvenile court magistrate. I would point out that we think this is not going to be a matter which will occur very often—indeed, I imagine that the only times it will happen is when an assessor is unavailable as a result of some emergency or illness. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that he must press this Amendment. As I say, I think it is a choice of evils, to a slight degree, but we feel that the advantage lies with the clause as it stands.
LORD STONHAM: I find this most extraordinary. I would remind the noble Marquess that subsection (4) of this same clause provides that …
"… the said justices shall be selected from the juvenile court panel for the borough …"
We are dealing with a borough court. It is the same borough. It will not be an enormous place. They will not have to bring people down from the North of England to try cases in London. It is the same borough. There will be a juvenile court panel in that borough. They will be natives, as it were. The recorder will be the imported person, the foreigner. All I am asking is that one native who is qualified to help in these juvenile matters shall be there to assist the foreign gentleman who comes in and who has not, by definition in this

471
clause, special experience in these matters. Subsection (1) uses the words, "where practicable". There is plenty of protection there. What we want to do is to make sure that somebody will take reasonable trouble to see that one assessor is there. At present, there is nothing in this clause to ensure that. But if this Bill, when it becomes an Act, lays down that the recorder must sit with at least one assessor, somebody will take the trouble to ensure that one is there. I think that is a most reasonable thing.
I just cannot understand why the Government, having approved subsection (1), as we all do, should then run the risk of destroying it by subsection (2). The noble Marquess said that he did not want me to press this Amendment. I am not going to press this one because there may be others later on which we shall have to do major battle. But I am going to ask him to look at this point again; otherwise we shall have to put down the Amendment at the next stage of the Bill. We are not going to leave this point, because we are convinced we are utterly reasonable in the matter and that it would be unreasonable to reject the Amendment. I would ask the noble Marquess to look at this again, and if he will indicate that he is ready to do so, I will ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Children and young persons arrested and not released
21.—(1) Where a person apparently under the age of seventeen has been arrested without warrant for an offence and is neither brought forthwith before a magistrates' court nor released in pursuance of section 32 of the principal Act, he shall be brought before a magistrates' court within seventy-two hours unless an officer of police of a rank not less than inspector certifies to a magistrates' court within that period that by reason of illness or accident the said person cannot be brought before the court.
6.28 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER had given Notice of two Amendments, the first being, in subsection (1), to leave out "magistrates" (where that word
472
occurs a second time) and insert "juvenile".
The noble Baroness said: With the Committee's agreement, I should like to deal with Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 together. At an earlier stage in the Committee stage of this Bill the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, suggested, I think, that some of us were not aware of the difference between the conditions of the juvenile courts in London and those in the rest of the country; that we were seeking, as he suggested, to impose upon the juvenile courts a duty which they would not well be able to discharge because of the comparative infrequency of their meetings throughout the country. I think I did then tell the noble Earl that perhaps our horizons were a great deal wider than he had imagined, and I hope he will find in this Amendment evidence that that is true. The purpose of the proviso in my next Amendment, No. 29, is to see that when a person apparently under 17 has been arrested without warrant he shall within 72 hours be brought before, if possible, a juvenile court, though if no appropriate juvenile court is available within that time he may be brought before a magistrates' court. As the Bill now stands, there is no reference to a juvenile court. In a great many parts of the country there will not be a juvenile court that is sitting or can be convened within 72 hours. That is fully recognised, and that is the point of the proviso which is contained in Amendment No. 29. That we recognise.
What we are anxious to secure is that in places where juvenile courts are in more or less continuous session—as, for instance, in London and one or two other cities—the young person under the age of 17 shall be brought before the juvenile court and not before the magistrates' court. We do not want any consideration that the magistrates' court might be nearer or more convenient from the administrative point of view, to prevent a young person from being taken, where-ever it is possible and there is an available court, to the court before which it is appropriate for him to appear—namely, the juvenile court. But on those occasions—and we fully recognise that these may be the more frequent occasions—when there is not a juvenile court available within 72 hours, then a magistrates' court will do. But I do not want

473
there to be any excuse for using a magistrates' court if the young person could perfectly weal have been taken to a juvenile court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 5, leave out ("magistrates'") and insert ("juvenile").—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
EARL JELLICOE: In case some noble Lords are under a misconception here, may I make one matter connected with Clause 21 crystal clear straight away? I wish to make quite clear what the noble Baroness well knows, that the term "magistrates' court", which finds its place in Clause 21, of course embraces juvenile courts. The last thing we had in mind was any intention to exclude juvenile courts from this context.
That said, could I turn straight away to what the noble Baroness has said to her Amendment? I am not certain that the balance of advantage would always lie in following the noble Baroness's 72-hour period. I should point out that in this context a magistrates' court also includes a single justice with power to remand in custody. Where, for instance, a young offender is arrested on a Monday, say, and a juvenile court is to be held on the following Wednesday, which is well within the 72 hours period, might it not be better to bring him before the justice on the day of his arrest, in some circumstances, if that can be done straight away, without waiting until the Wednesday? The question for that justice will, as I understand it, be whether to grant bail or to remand in custody, usually until the next juvenile court. I do not think that is a question which need necessarily be left to the juvenile court. I would have thought that there was a lot to be said for having that simple question considered as quickly as possible.
I should be the first to agree that in many cases it is best that the young person concerned should, in the first instance, go before the juvenile court. If he can be brought straight before the juvenile court, which can deal with his case straight away, I am sure that there is clear advantage there. I do not think any of us would disagree with that for one moment. But I am not quite certain, with the hypothetical case which I have produced, that the balance of advantage
474
would lie in waiting for the juvenile court. I would have thought, when the issues are quite simple—to remand in custody or grant bail—that in certain cases it might be better for the young person concerned to be dealt with absolutely straight away, and not to wait up to this full 72-hour period.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I appreciate the sympathy which the noble Earl has expressed with the purpose of this Amendment. I am not altogether convinced that to bring a young person before a single justice, perhaps within 48 hours, is more advantageous than keeping him for 72 hours and then bringing him before a juvenile court. The number of cases in which that justice is going to take the responsibility of releasing him is, I think, likely to be extremely few, especially in those cases where the justice is not himself familiar with the proceedings of juvenile courts or accustomed to dealing with juveniles.
I am indeed aware, as the noble Earl has suggested, that the phrase "magistrates' court" includes juvenile court. That is the reason why no consequential Amendment was proposed for subsection (2) of this clause. But I still feel that the advantage lies entirely on the side of bringing the young person before the court which, after all, is the type of court that is going to deal with him eventually, and bringing him there in all cases after arrest, as soon as possible when a court is available within the prescribed period of 72 hours. However, in view of the noble Earl's sympathy for the purpose of the Amendment, I am prepared to withdraw it and to wait to see whether he may not come forward with another proposal at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: I want there to be no misunderstanding. I am sympathetic to the main purpose lying behind this Amendment, but I do not wish it to be understood that I was necessarily undertaking to reconsider this point.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: That was not intended to be implied. I am merely living in hopes in respect of the noble Earl's sympathy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23:
Age limits for children sent to special reception centres
23.—
(3) After subsection (5B) of the said section 27 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
"(5C) Before exercising its powers under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section or under subsection (5A) of this section in relation to a child who has attained the age of twelve the court, unless to do so would in its opinion cause undue delay, shall permit the local authority providing the centre to make representations to the court as to the exercise of those powers and shall consider any representation so made."
6.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (3), to omit the proposed new subsection (5C) and to insert:
"(5C) The Court shall not exercise its powers under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section or under subsection (5A) of this section in relation to a child who has attained the age of twelve without the consent of the local authority providing the centre."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. There is no objection to this clause as a whole; I think it is quite satisfactory. Neither is there any objection at all to the raising of the age to 15 years, or possibly 16 years when the school leaving age is raised. The purpose of the Amendment is to alter the relationship of the local authority to the court when committals are made to special reception centres. Under subsection (3) of the clause as it now stands, the local authority is allowed to make representations against a committal order, unless to have those representations would, in the opinion of the court, cause undue delay. The position now—and it is not only an administrative difficulty, as I shall try to explain—is that, due to the heavy demand for places in these reception centres, it is often the case that there is no available room. In fact, the general demand for places in reception centres set up under the Children Act, 1948, is much heavier than can in fact be met.
Here, in this clause, we are considering—and I have no objection to it at all—committing offenders up to the age
476
of 15 to these centres. The local authority will have to have regard not only to the question of whether there are places or not, and to overcrowding, but also to the welfare of other children there, many of whom will not have appeared before a court at all. It is not merely administrative convenience; it is mixing up older children, possibly, with younger children, some of whom are before the court on perhaps serious offences and others who have not been before a court at all. Therefore, I am putting forward this Amendment which, instead of leaving the local authority to make representations in a matter of this kind, would require the court to secure the consent of the local authority which is providing the reception centre.
I appreciate that it is a very difficult point to decide on whom to throw the onus of responsibility. You might argue that the magistrates in a juvenile court have to deal with the boy or girl somehow; that, with this power as it is in the clause as it stands, they have to push him or her on to someone else. One can understand the position of the magistrates in the juvenile court: they want to make the best possible decision for the child. But if the place is not there, then it may well not be the best decision for the child. On the other hand, if it is there then the local authority will gladly give consent.
It may well be that the local authority representative will be in court, or will certainly be on hand within, a short time, so that the answer could be obtained. But if subsection (3) gives the court, as it does, the authority, not in fact to make any representations to the local authority at all, but simply to say that the child must go to such-and-such a reception centre, then I think we are going to create difficulties all round—difficulties for the local authority, and, in unfortunate circumstances, not only for the child concerned, but also for other children. I appreciate that this is a very knotty one on which it would be foolish to be passionate either way, but I think that it is a point which merits the very careful consideration of the Government. For that reason, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 3 to 10, and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
6.42 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the terms in which he has moved this Amendment; and I was also very glad to learn that he had no objection to the general principle underlying Clause 23. In order to make its pedigree even more respectable, perhaps I may mention that Clause 23 derives to some extent from representations made since the Ingleby Committee's Report was received by the local authority organisations. Their views were endorsed by my right honourable friend's Advisory Council on Child Care, and it was as the result of these twin representations, as it were, that the Government decided, contrary to the Ingleby Committee recommendation, to raise the upper limit for committal to a special reception centre. That is done by Clause 23, and the effect of subsection (3), as it stands, is that before remanding a child aged 12 or over to a special reception centre the court must (unless it would involve undue delay, which is the only qualification) allow the local authority who provide the centre to make representations. There is to be no shutting out of the local authority from the right to make representations.
The noble Lord's Amendment would go further and require the specific consent of the local authority. I confess that I, too, cannot feel particularly passionate about this Amendment. I myself am rather doubtful whether we should go as far as the noble Lord suggests. In the Government's view this is rather a matter on which, after the local authority have had full opportunity to state their views—and they would have full opportunity to do so—the ultimate decision should be left to the court.
I would emphasise, as I have already mentioned, that the clause as it stands has been framed in the light of advice we have received from the Advisory Council on Child Care, from the Association of Municipal Corporations, and, indeed, from the County Councils Association. There was also consultation with the London County Council. It was in fact the local authority associations who took the initiative with us over the clause as a whole, and we have received no representations from the associations as such urging that the local authorities should have a right of veto
478
here—although I understand that the London County Council view on this point may be different. Moreover, we specifically consulted my right honourable friend's Advisory Council on the particular point that is made in the noble Lord's Amendment, and having had the question put to them quite specifically, they felt that the consultation provided for was adequate. I should mention that the Advisory Council includes not only members of children's committees (and some very distinguished ones), but also children's officers. And the consultation provided for seemed to them to be reasonable and adequate.
I should also mention that there is a precedent for going as far as, but not not further than, the consultation provided for in the clause as it stands. I am advised that the right of consultation conferred by Clause 23 is precisely the same as the right the local authorities now have, under Section 76 of the principal Act, to make representations to the court about the committal of a child under 17 to their care. I have said that, like the noble Lord, I share his comparative lack of passion on this particular point. I feel that the balance inclines a little the other way, and that the consultation provided for should be adequate; and it is my understanding, as I have mentioned, that the local authority associations share that view. In the circumstances perhaps the noble Lord may not wish to press this particular Amendment, although I am sure he has many coming along later on which he will wish to insist.
LORD STONHAM: I am very glad to see that the noble Earl and I are so much in agreement on this point. There is only one thing I should make clear. He has mentioned his authorities, and I am not in a position to dispute what he says. But I should say, on behalf of the London County Council at least, that, while they support this clause in principle, they regard it as an essential element that the court should not be empowered to make such an order unless the local authority are willing to accept the child in the special reception centre. I think it only fair to make their position clear. I myself imagine that if the local authority were in the position of not having any places available they would take steps to keep the court informed all the time.

479
Therefore, I should have thought, the court would know in advance if the position as regards vacancies was likely to be extremely stringent, and would be unlikely to send a child in those circumstances. If they did so, then quite obviously the local authority would have to take steps to see that it did not go on, otherwise a dangerous situation would arise. I do not think it is necessary to pursue this particular discussion any further. If it is necessary to do so at a later stage, of course I will do so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Attendance at court of parents of child or young person brought before court]:
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER moved, in subsection (1) in the proposed new Section 34 (1) (a), to leave out "each of his parents and" and to substitute "his parent, or". The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment of some importance and may I say at once that in moving it I have no wish to detract from the responsibility of parents for their children's misdeeds. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove the provision in the Bill that when a child or young person is brought before the court
"each of his parents"—
which I presume means both of his parents—
"and any legal guardian of his, shall, unless the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require his attendance … be required to attend at the court".
That is to say, if the Bill becomes law as it stands both parents will, in the ordinary case, be required to attend the court. This is, I think, an Ingleby recommendation.
I am aware that there may be some obscurity in the drafting of the Amendment. In drafting the Amendment we have tried to follow Section 34 of the principal Act which is a little curious, since it is expressed in terms which seem to suggest that the child or young person has only one parent. This seems biologically improbable. It refers to summoning "his parent or guardian" in the singular. We have adopted as nearly as we can that language, in order to
480
provide that at least one parent shall be summoned to attend the court. Perhaps while I am on the point of drafting, I may point out that the drafting of Clause 24 is not entirely impeccable, since in subsection (1) (a) the masculine pronoun "his" is used twice to refer to two different persons, in one case to the child and in the other case to his parent. This might, I think, give rise to some confusion.
The substantial point in this Amendment is this. The court is to require the attendance of both parents unless it is satisfied that it would be unreasonable. How is the court to know whether it is unreasonable? In a very small number of cases the court may perceive that the offence is of a very trivial character. But I do not see how even that is going to be easily accomplished, since the court does not meet first of all to decide whether to summon the parents, and then on a second occasion to try the case. In nearly every case it is not apparent from what appears on the sheet whether the case is a grave one or a minor one. A term such as "larceny" would cover an enormous range of cases. This will mean that, since the court cannot meet at a sort of pre-court meeting to decide whether or not to summon the parents, both parents will have to be summoned in practically every case. Both parents will then arrive, and in many cases the presence of both parents is, frankly, quite unnecessary.
What will the court do? Perhaps when it sees that the case is not of great importance it will say that one parent can be excused. By that time the parent has very probably had to lose a day's work, and also, if it is a busy court, he may have had a long wait, a wait that may run into hours, before the case was called. The result of this will be that you will be having both parents summoned both for circumstances in which it is necessary and for circumstances in which it is quite unnecessary. You will be having them summoned as a matter of routine, and a great deal of time, valuable productive time, will be in effect wasted by both parents waiting in the waiting room until the case is called and coming to court for the hearing of the case. It seems to me that. particularly in National Productivity Year, this is a very odd proviso to suggest.
After all, it is perfectly clear as the law now stands that, if the presence of both parents is necessary, and this appears in the course of the case, the case can be adjourned for both parents to be summoned. This is quite common practice. It is quite common practice for a case to be opened with only one parent present, for the case to be heard, but, before it is concluded and the young person is dealt with, the case is adjourned or the young person is remanded and the second parent is required to attend. Sometimes it is a case where it is important to have both parents present together. Sometimes it is a case in which perhaps the mother comes in the first instance, and the court has reason to think from the probation officer's report that the father is, so to speak, the nigger in the wood pile. The court may then remand the young person and say, "Before we decide what to do with this young person, we want to see his father". The father is then summoned.
This surely gives the court enough power to bring home parental responsibility sufficiently in all cases. It ensures that the case will not be heard unless at least one parent is present. But it does not involve the really rather ridiculous situation of both parents being Obligated to be present in cases in which there is often not the slightest necessity for this; when the homes are reasonably harmonious homes in which there is a good understanding between the parents and when the presence of one parent is perfectly sufficient to give confidence to the child and to give the court the kind of information that it requires. It is, therefore, simply for the purely practical reasons of how this is going to work out, and because I can see no way round the problem that both parents will be summoned as a matter of routine in virtually every case, with a great waste of time, that this Amendment has been proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("any") and insert ("his parent, or").—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am grateful to the noble Lady for pointing out some drafting errors, and I have no doubt that those will be considered in the proper quarters, She has argued in her usual most persuasive manner that
482
it should be sufficient that a child's parent, in the singular—either his father or his mother—should attend the court; not as the Bill says, that both his parents should attend. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lady pointed out, that this part of the Bill is taken from the Report of the Committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, and I think it would be worth while reminding the Committee of what the Ingleby Committee had to say on this point, because it is the peg on which the Government have hung their views:
"parents should appreciate their responsibilities towards their children and one way to bring that home is to require their attendance at court when their child's case is being heard. We agree with many of our witnesses … that both parents should be required to attend unless the court is satisfied that the attendance of one may be dispensed with … Great value is to be derived from the presence of the child's father"
and the absence of the child's father is to be deplored. We on this side of the Committee very much take that as being a most reasonable point of view.
The noble Lady seemed to think there was a practical point about the difficulty of getting both parents to attend, and she raised the question of what the word "reasonable" meant—as so often is the case in these matters. I have always taken it that, if a court considers it is unreasonable to summon one of the parents, for instance, the father, it is doing so not necessarily because of the nature of the case, the gravity of the case, but because of the possibility, as she pointed out, of a man being away from work, losing a day's wages, and that kind of thing.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I hope the noble Marquess will forgive me if I interrupt him, but will he please deal with the point of when the court makes this decision?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Lady has asked me when the court makes the decision. The court must make the decision at the first moment that it can meet to consider the case at all. I am sure that she will agree.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Marquess again, but the parent has to

483
be present at every stage of the proceedings, so he must be present when this decision is made.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: But this is a permissive clause in the Bill. Section 34 (1) (a), mentioned in this clause, is permissive, as the noble Lady has pointed out. I am merely trying to say to her that the court is not necessarily empowered to ask that both parents should be there: it is purely a question of what is reasonable in the matter. For instance, it would cause enquiries to be made by the police. What I was trying to point out to the noble Lady was that when the court meets to consider Whether both parents should be required, It can at that stage instruct the police to find Out the circumstances—for instance, concerning the father at work. But if the noble Lady is still unhappy about this clause I am prepared to have another look at it. I do not want to undertake anything, or to promise that we can alter it in any way, because we attach the greatest importance to the recommendations of the Ingleby Committee on this point: that both parents (and, if possible, the father especially) should be summoned to attend the court.
LORD STONHAM: Before my noble friend accepts or rejects the overtures of the noble Marquess, could I point out to him that he mentioned that, under this clause, the court will decide whether one or two parents will have to be there. But before ever the court deals with many cases, the constable or the police officer, doing his duty, will have advised both parents of the court where the charge is to be dealt with. Therefore, under the clause as it now stands without Amendment, both of them will be there, in many cases, without any action on the part of the court at all.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I think the noble Marquess is perhaps not entirely seized of the real practical difficulty. The parents are required to attend the court during all the stages of the proceedings, unless it is unreasonable. Now that must mean that the parents are summoned in the first instance. The count may then possibly decide, after they have been got there, that their attendance, or the attendance of one of them, is unreasonable, and
484
may let him go. But unless the court is to have a preliminary sitting in all cases (which would be improper, judicially speaking) there is no way that I can see round the difficulty that both parents will have to be summoned, in case they are required, because the court cannot otherwise be satisfied whether or not it is unreasonable. That is the difficulty. I think the noble Marquess sees that there may be a practical difficulty there, and if he will look at it again from an entirely practical point of view, I should be grateful.
I said at the beginning that this has nothing to do with any watering down of parental responsibility. I myself have been very much impressed in practice with the frequency with which both parents turn up; and I have also been impressed with the frequency with which courts look at the situation after the first stage of the proceedings and say, "Now it might be very important to get either the father or the mother here, or both here". Will the noble Marquess look at it again from an entirely practical point of view? I am sure he is seized of the difficulty. If I may take it that he is seized of the difficulty, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: Before the noble Lady withdraws her Amendment, I should like to say that, whilst I differ from the noble Lady because I consider it an excellent thing that both parents should normally be required to attend, I think there is a difficulty in drafting here. I believe something might be done to make it possible, in trivial cases, for the court to have power to dispense in advance with the attendance of the second parent.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I just say to the noble Lady that I am most grateful to her? Perhaps I misunderstood her, on the practical basis, to begin with, and I am certainly only too glad to have another look at this matter from that point of view.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: On the strength of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27:
Form of oath for use in juvenile courts and by children and young persons in other courts
27.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, in relation to any oath administered to and taken by any person before a juvenile court or administered to and taken by any child or young person before any other court, section 2 of the Oaths Act 1909 shall have effect as if the words "I promise before Almighty God" were set out in it instead of the words "I swear by Almighty God that".
(2) Where in any oath otherwise duly administered and taken either of the forms mentioned in this section is used instead of the other, the oath shall nevertheless be deemed to have been duly administered and taken.
7.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved to leave out Clause 27. The noble Earl said: We are up against the very formidable problem of persuading a rather frightened and bewildered child to tell the truth. Let me say at once that I realise that there is no trite solution to that problem, and let me say immediately that I quite recognise that the present procedure of administering an oath to a child is profoundly unsatisfactory. My Amendment may be criticised on the grounds that it would leave the present position unchanged, but I will not withdraw my Amendment unless I obtain an undertaking from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to co-operate in inserting a much better provision, the nature of which I shall indicate.
I did not feel equal myself to proposing a remedy for our present discontent. I feel that any such remedy would involve careful consultation with child psychologists and a great deal more thought and care than a private Peer could be expected to give. The ingleby Committee heard a great number of witnesses who disagreed with the present procedure and who proposed various substitutes for it, some wishing (and I have much sympathy with this view) to leave out the words "Almighty God" altogether. Other remedies were also proposed. The Ingleby Committee, on the whole, took a rather more conservative line in the matter than some of the witnesses.
I have four objections to the proposed new form of oath, and my first objection, which I put forward with the trepidation that becomes an unlearned Lord, is on legal grounds. "Promise" is a word with two definite legal meanings accord-
486
ing to whether it is a written promise, in which case it becomes a covenant, or whether it is a spoken promise—the lawyers call it a promise per parol—which is more like the promise under this Bill. If we pass this clause in its present form, the legal writers will have to rewrite their textbooks, because we are going, to give to a word in an Act of Parliament a new legal meaning. The learned authors of those textbooks will have to say that since 1963 the word "promise" has had three different meanings.
Even an unlearned Lord can look up a dictionary, and I have taken that trouble. In looking up the word "promise" in A Dictionary of English Law by the late Lord Jowitt, I found the following:
"To have legal effect, a promise must either be under seal, when it forms part of a covenant, or must form part of a contract—that is, be made in consideration of something done or to be done by the promisee".
Here we have a promise which certainly does not form any part of a contract at all.
But it is not only the legal textbooks that will have to be re-written. We shall have to re-write the dictionary as well. I looked up the word "promise" in Murray's Oxford Dictionary, and I studied the numerous instances it gives of the use of the word "promise" in literature. There was not one single case in which a supernatural power was invoked to ratify a promise. I then looked up in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary the definition of "oath" and I found the following:
"An oath is a solemn appeal to God or to something sacred in witness that a statement is true or a promise binding."
I read that as meaning that if you invoke the supernatural or the sacred in support of a promise it ceases, by dictionary definition, to be a promise at all and becomes an oath. The phrase, "to promise before Almighty God" is just not English. If you are going to bring Almighty God into it, it becomes an oath and the word should be "swear". And I see some sardonic lexicographer of the future making some rather acid comments on the totally new sense given to the word "promise" by Parliament in its wisdom in the year 1963.
Thirdly, I have considered the matter from the point of view of child psychology; and let me say at once that here we are on much more dubious ground and on which I feel a good deal less confident. All the same, not very many years have elapsed since I was in the habit of listening to children talking among themselves. My recollection (and this could very easily be checked by the Home Secretary; he could invite the opinions of child psychologists or schoolmasters) is that the child uses the word "swear" in "I swear I won't tell", "Swear I'll give it back", and "Swear I won't hurt you', rather than "promise". It is perhaps relevant, at the same time, to recall that a child has its own form of oath which has come down, I imagine, in childhood's tradition from very ancient times. When a child wants to assure another child of its veracity, the child says, "Cross my heart", and sometimes adds, "Wish I die". That is, in all essential features, an oath. It is the invocation of a sacred sign in witness that a statement is true or a promise binding.
Children, then, use an oath even if they are not familiar with the word "oath". I ventured—I thought it as well to check whether that childish form of oath was still in use—to ask for the benefit of the experience of an intelligent little girl of 12. She told me that at her school children frequently crossed their hearts and that after they had crossed their hearts they felt bound to observe a very great accuracy and truthfulness. I then asked the child what she thought of the word "promise". I find it more difficult to convey her answer to your Lordships' Committee. She said, "Oh, a promise …" and then, not to put too fine a point on it, she made a face that left me in no doubt that she considered a promise an altogether less satisfactory form of asseveration. I think it is true that "promise" does not form part of a child's vocabulary or a child's thought. It is a word which grownups, and perhaps rather unwise grownups, have imposed on children. So they say: "Promise you won't get dirty", "Promise you won't bite your nails—promise, promise!" And the child
488
says, "I promise", but in fact is speaking our language and not his.
My fourth point must concern the religious aspect of the matter. I recognise that the formula used is "before God" and not "by God", but I feel that that is a distinction without a difference. I do not suppose that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I will provide each other with theoretical discussion in the matter, but I can only say that, so far as I can see, the words "before God" and the words "by God" are just the same. Now I am very frightened of children committing perjury, and I am afraid that children only too often lie after taking an oath. I want to avoid that so far as it is possible. I want your Lordships to remember that fifty years ago I suppose we could assume that almost every child knew the Ten Commandments, probably by heart, and that the Ten Commandments had been very much impressed on the childish mind. I am not so confident that that is so to-day. In the past a child knew the Commandment: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain", and a child might well be frightened of breaking that Commandment. I fear it is not the case to-day.
It seems to me that instead of changing the oath we should, quite simply, re-write the affirmation in a form suitable for use by children. I suppose that the child, like any other of Her Majesty's subjects, has the right, if he conscientiously desires, to make affirmation rather than an oath. We certainly ought not to impose an oath on a Quaker child. We ought not, I think, to permit a child from an agnostic home to take an oath. Those children ought to make an affirmation and not an oath; but, frankly, the present form of affirmation is totally unsuited to a child.
"I solemnly and sincerely say and affirm …"
These are not words a child can understand. My suggestion is that we re-write the affirmation in some form that a Child can understand, such as:
"I know that it is wrong to tell lies and I will do my best to tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Some formula like that could easily be found and would, I believe, be useful not

489
only in the case of a Quaker or agnostic child witness but also in the case of other children who do not understand, or say they do not understand, the nature of an oath.
Further, I would allow more discretion to the court in the administration of an oath. I see no reason why a juvenile of 15 or 16 should not take the oath in the accustomed adult form, which would be precluded by this clause. I believe that the solution to the problem, so far as it is a solution, would be found to lie on the lines that I have ventured to suggest, and I hope I shall get a sympathetic reply from the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 27.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
EARL JELLICOE: During our Second Reading debate the noble Earl described the new form of oath for use in juvenile courts suggested in Clause 27 as "a dangerous little mouse". The noble Lady described it as "a ridiculous mouse".
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: Not the oath.
LORD STONHAM: The Bill.
EARL JELLICOE: Well, the Bill in the context of the oath. In any event, if Clause 27 is going to be described as a mouse, I prefer to describe it as a gentlemanly, sensible little mouse. I am grateful to the noble Earl not only for the sincere and sympathetic terms in which he has moved this Amendment, but also, and particularly, for the opportunity which he gave me of discussing it with him, because I think that without that opportunity I should have found myself hard pressed at this moment to answer some of the more recondite points which he has made.
As I understand it, his objection to the present Clause 27 is on four main grounds. The first is a legal objection. He has argued that the use of the word "promise" has no legal effect unless it forms part of a contract. That proposition may have sonic general truth, but I would urge on the noble Earl that it is not relevant in this context. So far as English law is concerned, this clause, if passed, will clearly make this one of the ways in which witnesses may be lawfully
490
sworn. A witness sworn in accordance with the new clause would be legally sworn for the purpose of the Perjury Act, 1911, so I do not think the oath provided here would be without the requisite legal force.
The noble Earl's second objection, I gather, is a philological one. Here I find his argument (I should like to read it) more difficult to follow. If he is arguing, as I thought he was, that it is appropriate to appeal to the Deity when swearing an oath, but not when promising, I should not have thought that that argument was necessarily valid. In any event, by his own yardstick of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, I should have thought that "promise" in our language has a perfectly clear-cut meaning. Using the synonyms for "promise" which the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives, the new oath would read:
"I undertake (or engage) before Almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
That seems clear-cut to me.
The noble Earl's third objection to the new formula is that it is not couched in language which a child would understand. I would grant straight away that it is extremely difficult to find a form of words equally suitable for children of all ages, and that for some children the new form proposed may not be easily comprehensible. But I would urge upon the noble Lord that it has not been adversely criticised by any of the professional bodies invited to comment on the Ingleby Committee's Report, and it has the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, who was consulted on this point. We think it should serve its purpose without being open to the objection to the present formula, to which the Ingleby Committee drew attention.
In all the circumstances, I feel that this is as about as good a formula as we could have. I should not think that it would be taken by the child as a sort of "Second Division" oath, suitable only for them, and less binding than the "First Division" oath sworn by an adult, because the new form of oath will also be used by adults giving evidence in juvenile courts. I would also submit that an oath derives at least a part of its solemnity from the circumstances in which it is administered, as well as from the actual

491
words. I am inclined to doubt that even where a child realises that the formal oath may be somewhat different from the oath normally sworn by adults, he will necessarily conclude that he is that much the less obliged to tell the whole truth.
The noble Earl also mentioned the matter of affirmation. He thought that if we were going to change the formula at all, we should change the formula of affirmation. As the noble Earl knows, it is already possible for a child to affirm, since Section 1 of the Oaths Act applies equally to children as it does to adults. Here, again, I should have thought that a child Who was mature enough to exercise his right to affirm on his own account rather than to take an oath should be mature enough to understand the force of the words in the standard affirmation. I gather that, in practice, very few children do choose to affirm instead of taking an oath, and where younger children choose to affirm possibly they do so under parental influence, in which case parents would explain the purpose of affirmation, which then in general would be clear to the child.
All in all, I prefer the formula which we have suggested in Clause 27, and I hope that, with the noble Lord's kind assistance, I have been able to persuade him at least part of the way that this formula, which of course closely follows the recommendation of the Ingleby Committee, is not a totally inappropriate one. Perhaps it may be possible (at least, I express the hope) that, alien though the new formula strikes the noble Earl's ear at this present hour on this particular day in 1962, with time he may bring himself to be reconciled to it.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I am afraid I am far from reconciled to the present form of oath, if it is an oath. I still maintain that to "promise before Almighty God" is not English. If you are going to bring Almighty God into it, the only correct word to use is the word "swear". I remain dissatisfied with the suggestion that a child could possibly use the present conventional form of affirmation, or that, if the did manage to pronounce the words, he could possibly mean anything by them. I think it would be a good thing if far more children were encouraged to affirm rather
492
than take the oath. In general, I am quite unconvinced by the noble Earl's arguments. I will withdraw my Amendment, but on Report I shall probably move to delete the words "before Almighty God".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Disregard in proceedings against adult of offences committed by him while under age of 12]:
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 20 which the Committee have already approved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 29.—(Baroness Wootton of Ahinger.)
EARL JELLICOE: May I just say that I entirely agree with the noble Lady, and I would advise noble Lords to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Hours of employment]:
7.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved to leave out Clause 32. The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Molson has had to leave to fulfil a long-standing engagement, and he has asked me to move this Amendment on his behalf. Clause 32 reduces the hours for employment of children below that in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and my noble friend is rather puzzled as to what actuates the Government in this change. He has been unable to find anything in the Gowers Report which recommended such a change. This change would create quite a revolutionary situation in the newspaper delivery business, which is a favourite part-time occupation for small boys in the morning and sometimes in the evening. This apparently does not do any harm to their health, and, if one is to believe the biographies of famous men, often leads to great positions and affluence in later life. The local authorities under Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933,

493
already have power to make provisions altering the hours, and my noble friend would like enlightenment as to the Government's reason for altering the Act of 1933. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 32.—(Lord Hawke.)
EARL JELLICOE: I think the Government thought it was desirable to take the opportunity of this Bill to rationalise and give statutory form to what is already the existing de facto position throughout most of the country. That is the main reason behind the clause. But since my noble friend has asked me what the reason behind the clause is, perhaps I may return the compliment and ask him what the reason behind the Amendment is, because it is not clear to me what the Amendment will effectively achieve. I will say why I feel that. The clause, as my noble friend has explained, amends the provisions of the principal Act so as to alter from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. the earliest hour, and from 8 p.m. to 7 p.m. the latest hour, at which a child of compulsory school age may be employed in Great Britain. If this Amendment were pressed and accepted, it would still be illegal, as I understand it, to employ a child before 7 a.m. in any part of England or Wales or after 7 p.m. in virtually any county and, indeed, in most county boroughs.
Let me explain what the factual position at present is under the by-laws to which my noble friend referred. The intention, which will be met if the clause remains unamended, is to make in every area provision for a night interval of at least twelve hours for children. That is generally secured by the existing bylaws. I do not at this hour wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time, but perhaps I may cite the statistics here. In England and Wales, 3 in every 4 authorities allow employment before school (as a rule only for the delivery of milk or newspapers, as my noble friend mentioned) but none before 7 a.m. Three county councils and 8 county borough councils allow employment after 7 p.m. on schooldays; 5 county borough councils allow employment after 7 p.m. on Saturdays or during holidays; and only 3 authorities allow employment up to the present statutory limit of 8 p.m. In Scotland, as I understand it, the position is broadly similar, except that 6 of the 35 authorities permit employment
494
to start at 6.30 a.m., and 8 allow employment up to 8 p.m. The clause will therefore make the smallest practical difference in most places, and I should have thought it was a difference which, by and large, was valuable. The noble Lord mentioned the question of delivery of newspapers. I think the forms of occupation in which most school children are engaged are the delivery of newspapers or milk, and in agriculture. I would make it clear that no representations have ever been received from milk delivery interests against this particular clause, and they had notice a long time ago that it was our intention, when there was a chance of legislating, of doing so along these lines. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents, Booksellers and Stationers also indicated in 1955 their acceptance of these important restrictions which are now embodied in the clause. I would have thought that they are in the best position of all to speak for the newspaper interests in this context. As regards agriculture, the position is that employment after 7 p.m. is allowed in three counties only in England and Wales at present. But this concession is confined to school days only.
I would suggest that there are substantial advantages in getting this de facto position, which, broadly speaking, exists already throughout the country, formalised by Statute. I would also urge that there is a subsidiary advantage, but one Which I do not think we should ignore; that the new nestriotion, if agreed to, will comply with a minimum standard which is laid down fin International Labour Convention No. 79 of 1946, which regulates, or is intended to regulate, internationally night work by children and young persons in non-industrial employment. I do not think it would be altogether satisfactory if we allowed to pass by the chance which this Bill provides, and which this clause would give us, of, as it were, coming into line with an International Labour Convention which in fact was promulgated as long ago as 1946. I would, in all the circumstances, urge that the clause as drafted—I am not talking about drafting points, but broadly speaking—is reasonable.
LORD HAWKE: I thank my noble friend for his very long and detailed explanation. I feel sure that much of

495
the information Which he gave the Committee was not known to my noble friend. He will, of course, consider the noble Earl's explanation and decide whether or not he wishes to carry it further. But I am sure we shall all be delighted to hear that the noble Earl is not nipping any potential millionaires in the bud by restricting their newspaper rounds at an early age. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: Before the noble Lord finally withdraws his Amendment, may I intervene to make it quite clear that we on this side of the Committee wholly support the Government in this clause as it now stands, and would be opposed to the Amendment? I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is right in saying that his noble friend was unaware of many of these facts, otherwise in all probability the Amendment would not have been tabled.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35:
Entertainment
Restriction on persons under 16 taking part in public performances etc.
35.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person under the age of sixteen shall not take part in a performance to which this section applies except under the authority of a licence granted by the local authority in whose area he resides or. if he does not reside in Great Britain, by the local authority in whose area the applicant or one of the applicants for the licence resides.
(4) The power to grant licences under this section shall be exercisable subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe and a local authority shall not grant a licence for a person to take part in a performance or series of performances unless they are satisfied that he is fit to do so, that proper provision has been made to secure his health and kind treatment and (in the case of a person of compulsory school age or, in Scotland, school age) that, having regard to such provision (if any) as has been or will be made therefor, his education will not suffer; but if they are so satisfied, in the case of an application duly made for a licence under this section which they have power to grant they shall not refuse to grant the licence.
(7) Any statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
7.45 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to subsection (1) "or has his place of business". The noble Lord said: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I thought it was somewhat grim that we had reached the stage of the Bill marked "Entertainment", and our entertainment is to be denied us for a further period. In other words, we have reached the "fun and games" section of the Bill. Clause 35 places a restriction on persons under the age of 16 taking part in public performances, and we wholly support the clause in principle. The Amendment which I now move deals with the situation in the main of young performers who live outside the country, and who therefore cannot themselves apply for a licence from the local authority in the area in which they reside, because they do not reside in this country at all. The application is normally made by the person who is going to employ them, or someone on his behalf who makes an application to the local authority for a licence so that they shall perform.
So far as the London County Council are concerned, they have found that many applications for licences which are at present made by theatrical employers—because the 1933 Act does not specify, as we know it, the local authority from whom application should be made—for children coming to this country from abroad are automatically sent to the London County Council, because normally the applicant's place of business is in the London County area.
It is felt that this will unquestionably continue, even when this new provision becomes an Act of Parliament, unless this clause is amended in the manner in which I am suggesting, by having not only the words "his residence" but also "Or has his place of business". If those words are added, then the local authority, wherever the applicant had his place of business, would be empowered to grant the licence. Again this is not a major point. I think it is valid. It is an administrative point which has validity, and I trust that, if not now or not in this exact form, at some later stage it will prove acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 16, at end insert' ("or has his place of business".)—(Lord Stonham.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: As the noble Lord pointed out, we have now come to the "fun and games" part of the Bill, and it seems quite appropriate that in this case I should be able to tell him, to start the ball rolling properly, that the Government entirely agree with this Amendment. They think it has a valid point, both in practice and in principle. I do not want to keep the Committee any longer; we are prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Marquess for having enabled me to break my duck.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (4), after "kind treatment" to insert:
"that adequate and proper provision has been made for the management and investment of his earnings,".
The noble Lord said: I am quite prepared to believe that this is a pretty controversial provision or suggestion, and one which will be very difficult to apply, but I think it is well worth discussing. We are all agreed on this principle of protecting young persons, children under 16 years of age who are engaged in theatrical performances, from exploitation. We are determined that they shall be properly licensed by a local authority, that provision shall be made to look after their health and their kind treatment, that they shall have proper teaching, and so on, and also, of course, that there shall be regulations laying down the conditions subject to which a licence should be granted. My Amendment suggests that the Government should at least give some guidance in this matter even if the particular Amendment is not acceptable—for example, what kind of conditions a local authority should be able to impose in granting a licence. They should be able to prescribe the hours of work and rest, welfare and education, and to insist on a medical examination by a doctor. And this is the point of the Amendment: that where a child earns high fees, they should be able to prescribe any neces-
498
sary safeguards to prevent the exploitation of the child.
I assume from the Bill that these matters will be dealt with by means of regulation, and the purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to ask that the regulations will deal on behalf of the child with the investment of the child's earnings and so ensure that performing licences are not granted in any case where there is a danger of exploitation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 11, at end insert ("that adequate and proper provision has been made for the management and investment of his earnings,").(Lord Stonham.)
7.52 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I agree with the noble Lord that this is a controversial and, indeed, difficult subject. I would also agree that it is well worth discussing, and, I would go further than that and say that I am sure the object of the noble Lord's Amendment will command both support and sympathy. It is, as I understand his explanation, to enable local authorities, by one means or another—and I am grateful to him for saying that he was not attached to the particular wording of his Amendment—to protect a child from being exploited by an unscrupulous and mercenary parent or having his earnings squandered or mishandled by a stupid one. However, it seems to us that to achieve this object the Bill will have to go a good deal further than the noble Lord proposes. Indeed, we are not at all sure that the object which he has in mind and which has our sympathy could reasonably be achieved with any degree of certainty.
Could I explain—since I think the noble Lord has almost invited me to—the background of our thinking here? It may take a few minutes, but I think we have the time, since I gather that our first relief comes at 8 o'clock. Those of your Lordships who have refreshed your memories with what the Bateson Committee proposed in years gone past will recall that they thought that protection for a child performer's earnings could be provided in two ways. In most cases child performers did not earn a lot of money. For these, Bateson thought it would suffice if the amount of the earnings were stated in the application for a licence and the licensing authority could,

499
where they judged it right, encourage good management by insisting, as a condition of granting the licence, that a proportion of the earnings should be banked. This is found in paragraph 225 of the Bateson Committee Report. Some local authorities do this already, I understand, and they will also be able to continue to do that, if they judge it right, under the regulations to be made under the powers conferred by the clause. Those regulations will, of course, cover a wide variety of matters like hours of work and how many hours a child of a certain age should do in film work—the sort of matters to which Bateson gave a lot of attention.
Local authorities' responsibilities and powers in this matter of finance will be spelled out in the regulations, too, and in the Circular from the Home Office Which will doubtless accompany them. Those regulations could well deal with this existing practice of local authorities. The Bateson Committee recognise, however, that this would provide only a temporary safeguard and one which does not ensure that the earnings were wisely spent. It would seem doubtful whether these fairly light defences would amount, at least in many cases, to that
"adequate and proper provision…for the management and investment of his earnings"—
to quote the words of the noble Lord's Amendment—about which the local authority must be satisfied before granting a licence.
However, the Committee thought that no more vigorous control than that was called for where the earnings were small. The Government agree with this view in the case where earnings are small, and in support of that view I would merely point out that there is no control at present over how the money which a child earns in other kinds of employment outside the entertainment field is spent. I would, however, grant that there are a few children like the child "stars" of the films who earn large sums of money and offer much mare temptation to the unscrupulous parent, and, indeed, more scope for the foolish one. For children in this small class the Committee recommended, and I quote their words, that
"salaries earned in any period of twelve months over a certain amount"—
500
£100 they suggested—
" should be paid into the County Court for administration as a trust fund on behalf of the child"
I should like to say straight away that at first sight this idea of introducing a specific safeguard as recommended by the Committee or the more general safeguard suggested by the noble Lord is attractive, provided it were limited to the cases where the earnings are substantial. However, the Committee's recommendation appeared to us to be unduly rigid. It would not suit, by any means, every case. Fortunately, there are many good and sensible parents who, if they were fortunate enough to have a child "star" in their family, would manage that child's financial affairs in a good and sensible way, probably giving them—if I dare venture the thought—more personal attention than a county court might.
The precaution proposed by the noble Lord is more general and might well sidestep that particular difficulty. That I would grant. Nevertheless, I think there are substantial difficulties in the way of adopting it. For example, before a licensing authority could be satisfied that proper provision was going to be made for the management and investment of the child's earnings in the employment for which the licence was to be issued, they would need to know a great deal more about the child's financial circumstances than what he was merely going to earn, if the licence was issued. They would really need to look at his financial situation as a whole: what other money he had earned, what he hoped to earn in the future, what income or expectations he had from other sources, how much should properly be spent on his education, training and recreation, and a whole host of other possible factors. This means that really to discharge their responsibility here the licensing authority would need to look with a much more inquisitorial eye at the family's financial affairs than I think many people would consider reasonable. Where the parent was well-disposed I think the information would be freely given, but those are just the cases where there is less need for a safeguard. Where the parent was not well disposed I think it might be only too easy to conceal the true situation if

501
that suited the parents' convenience. I do not wish to over-elaborate or to exaggerate these difficulties. They do not arise, of course, in the other matters with which this clause deals. These factors will emerge very clearly from the application, which will show what provision is being made for the education, or to which a medical certificate can be attached—for example, showing the child's health; there are ways of checking on the child's physical development and, indeed, on whether he is following what had been laid down.
But on the question of finance it will I suggest, he much more difficult satisfactorily to check whether the conditions that may have been suggested are in fact being followed. I suggest that the adoption of this Amendment might well land the licensing authorities in real practical difficulties. How would they decide, for example, whether the amount set aside for a young film star's education or living expenses or training was reasonable? How could they say that a particular way of investing the child's money proposed by the child's parents, on the best professional advice, was unsuitable? And how would they stand if, having insisted on some other form of investment, the child in the end proved to be less well off than if the parent had been allowed his or her own way in the first instance?
To sum up, we think that there will be, on the whole, few cases in which a child needs to be given protection of the kind proposed in the Amendment; that there would be great difficulty in putting the licensing authority in the way of exercising the kind of supervision which would be necessary, and that in any case this is not the sort of responsibility which the licensing authority should properly be expected to assume. All in all, therefore, and while I am sympathetic to the object behind this Amendment—and I hope the noble Lord wild take it from me that is not a mere form of words—we see very great practical difficulties in it, and I do not think I could advise your Lordship's to accept it.
LORD STONHAM: I hope that it will suit your Lordships' convenience if I reply briefly to the noble Earl before we get on with other matters. I am very
502
grateful indeed—and this is not a mere figment of speech either—to the noble Earl for the very careful way he has dealt with this Amendment, and I say at once that I shall in a moment or two ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw it—but with this understanding: that I personally, and I am quite sure others, want to study what the noble Earl has said. We do not brush off the difficulties, but having considered carefully what he has had to say we may well come back with some other Amendment, well knowing that there is a general desire to try to meet this point. I assure the noble Earl that local authorities, at least the local authority particularly concerned, the London County Council, do feel that this is a responsibility which should be placed on them. I am in a position to say that they would welcome an assurance that matters of this kind could be dealt with in the regulations relating to the investment of fees and earnings; and I may perhaps have a further word on that point with the noble Earl afterwards.
But what I and, I think, all of us are concerned with is to prevent exploitation of juveniles. I am not going to mention any names; it would not be fair. But this is not confined to film stars. There are 15-year-olds, and younger, who have earned, and are earning, very high fees indeed. In some cases it is well within my knowledge there is a regular system of exploitation by—I do not know what you call them: entrepreneurs, who take up these youngsters on spec, agree to pay them a weekly sum for what seems to be a considerable period, a year or maybe even two years, and then, apart from expenses, take all they earn. I will not do it now, but I could give the noble Earl many instances of that kind of thing. That situation continues for years afterwards, always assuming that the young person is a success. If he is not eventually a success, of course, he is thrown on the scrap heap. But it may well go on for years, and the person concerned gets only 30 per cent. Or, if he is very lucky, 40 per cent. of what he eventually earns, even as a great star. This is exploitation, and as the Government have taken the opportunity in this Bill to do many things that it has for a long time been necessary to do, particularly in the world of entertainment (I think it was in 1950 that the

503
Committee reported) it is about time we took such steps as are open to us in matters of this kind.
I know that this matter is difficult. I know that it would be totally undesirable to attempt to interfere unfairly or unduly with the rights of parents, or indeed with the children themselves. There can be too many interfering busybodies. But big earnings of this kind are suddenly thrust on child and parents who are totally unprepared for them, either by background training or upbringing. They do it in the world of entertainment, which: in many respects is totally different from the ordinary business world and. therefore, where there is need, so far as possible, for some form of protection of their investments. I think this has been a discussion of considerable value which will be, I am sure, studied. We may come back to it at a further stage. I am most grateful to the noble Earl and I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, withdraws his Amendment, I hope that he has not in mind, and will exclude from his strictures on exploitation, the legitimate stage. I do not believe that there is such exploitation in the legitimate theatre—and here I must declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Society of West End Theatre Managers. I hope that the noble Lord will make clear to your Lordships that his strictures on other branches of the entertainment industry do not apply to the legitimate theatre.
LORD STONHAM: I was not aware that I was levying strictures on any particular branch of entertainment. I simply said that it is within my knowledge, and I expect within the knowledge of other noble Lords, that there have been cases of exploitation within the world of entertainment. At a later stage, on another Amendment, I shall be discussing the various forms of entertainment, and I do not think I should anticipate what I am going to say then.
EARL JELLICOE: Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, may I say that I am glad to accept the invitation to discuss this matter further with him or, indeed, with any other noble Lords
504
who are interested, and rightly interested; and I should be grateful for any further information on this question which noble Lords can put into my possession. I have noted what the noble Lord said about the attitude of the London County Council, and if he now sees fit to withdraw this Amendment I should like to reciprocate the spirit in which he is withdrawing it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOE: I think the table is now spread, and in view of that I beg to move that the Committee adjourn till nine o'clock.
Moved that the Committee do now adjourn.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to
The Sitting was suspended at ten minutes past eight o'clock until nine o'clock.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House" and insert "approval by affirmative resolution of both Houses". The noble Lord said: From the discussion which we have had on previous Amendments to this clause its vital importance will not be contested, though this Amendment has nothing to do with the material in the clause, except the question of the regulations and statutory instruments likely to emanate from the Minister. Subsection (7) states:
"Any statutory instrument…shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament"
Amendment No. 37, in the names of Lord Williamson, Lord Crook and myself, is to change that so that it refers to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. In view of the importance of the material of the clause and of the regulations likely to be made, we take the view that Parliament ought to have the opportunity of making an Affirmative Resolution. This is a point which has often been raised in regard to all types of Bills, and it is a general control which we think Parliament, through both Houses, should have. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 34, leave out ("annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House") and insert the said new words—(Lord Lindgren.)
EARL JELLICOE: I am sure that we all appreciate the brevity with which the noble Lord has moved his Amendment. What sort of matters will these regulations cover? I think it would help if I just quickly told your Lordships the sort of ground we think they will cover. For example, we feel that the sort of thing that we should provide for in the regulations are opportunities for the child's place of work to be approved by the local authority, who must be satisfied that suitable dressing rooms, lavatories and so on, are provided; and again, if, for example, a child has to spend the night away from home, that his lodgings are approved by the local authority, who should attach conditions as to a change of lodgings. Again, we feel that they should cover matters like the number of days and the total number of hours for which a child might he required to work in the entertainment field.
That said, I am sure we should all agree that the main purpose of delegating powers is to relieve Parliament, once matters of principle have been settled, of the need to scrutinise subordinate matters. If we were to make too many subordinate instruments the subject of Affirmative Resolution I think we should begin to lose the main purpose behind them. But I would also agree—and I know it is perfectly familiar to all noble Lords there this evening—that the choice between the two kinds of procedure for control by Parliament over delegated legislation is a difficult one. There are no hard and fast rules here. I think we could all state precedents one way or the other, But I should have thought that the sort of ground which these regulations would Cover will be dealing, not with matters of principle, but with matters of fact and of detail, Which, as I have suggested, are not unsuited to the Negative Resolution procedure. I agree that the regulations are important—I would not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has said—but I think they are not going to touch ion matters of principle but only on matters of fact, on questions of precise controls and, to some extent, on matters of detail.
I myself remember a year or so ago introducing from this Box the Housing Bill. That Act, as it is now, provided for the making of important regulations
506
far the management of houses in multiple occupancy. Those regulations have since been prescribed; they went into matters of great importance and detail, but I do not think (they were matters of principle. Those regulations were, of course, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and that was thought adequate by Parliament. These regulations will fall, to my mind at least, into the same sort of category. I would also suggest that they will cover much the same ground as the present rules which are made under the principal Act. Those rules, the Employment of Children in Entertainment Rules, 1933, are not even subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, but, so far as I know, this fact has not troubled Parliament. I believe that this is always a difficult matter of judgment, but it seems to me that the clause as it stands will already increase the degree of Parliamentary control in this field. I suggest that it does so adequately enough. It goes beyond anything Parliament has so far thought appropriate in this held. In view of that, I would suggest to your Lordships that the Negative Resolution procedure is probably sufficient.
LORD LINDGREN: I cannot say that I am greatly surprised at the reply which the noble Earl has given. It is a question, as he has stated, of delegated legislation. We are disappointed, because this is an important matter; it is one in which we are dealing with the lives and the well-being of children under 16 years of age. But, in view of the statement made by the noble Earl, and also in view of the hour of the evening, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.9 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
"( ) On the extension of the compulsory school age (or, in Scotland, school age) to sixteen years, that is to say—

(a) In England and Wales, on the coming into force of an Order in Council under section 35 of the Education Act 1944;

(b) in Scotland, on the coming into force of regulations under section 32 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962;

a person shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed not to have attained the age of 16 until he reaches the upper limit of the compulsory school age for the purposes of the Education Acts 1944 to 1962."
The noble Lord said: As the amended Education Act now stands, a child who reaches school-leaving age during the term cannot leave school until the end of the term in which he or she reaches that age. Under the Education Act, 1962, there will be a change, which means that after September, 1963, a child attaining school-leaving age during a term will be able to leave school only at the end of two terms, the spring and summer terms, and not the Christmas term. It is obviously a very important period in a child's school life, particularly if, as we contemplate, 16 will be the school leaving age. It will be a time of examinations and the culmination of school life—assuming that it is going to end at the age of 16 years. Therefore, particularly on this question of children who will be in entertainment, it is extremely important that the child should, like other children, complete its school career, and that extraneous and probably very transitory considerations should not be allowed to interfere with that child's future. It is for that reason that we feel that this Amendment is necessary.
It may well be that the noble Earl will think that it can be met by other means, but, as I see it now, without any explanation, this seems to me an omission, or perhaps it is a failure to look forward to the position which will be created under the current Education Act, the position which will exist in September, and after September, 1963. Therefore I hope that the Government can agree to this change. I beg to move.
Amendment moved
Page 19, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOE: The noble Lord always makes good points. I think on this occasion he has made an even better point than usual. As I see it, the Bill as drafted is defective in the respect to which he has drawn attention. I can assure the noble Lord without further ado that we accept his Amendment in principle. We should, however, like to look at the detailed drafting of this matter, as there may be some difficulties there, but I do not think I need trouble your Lordships, at this rather late hour for us, with those. If it would suit the noble Lord, I should be happy to dis
508
cuss with him the best way of putting this particular defect, to which he has rightly drawn attention, straight between now and Report stage.
THE EARL OF IDDLESLEIGH: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, withdraws his Amendment, as I have no doubt he will, I rise to draw attention to the needs of the theatrical profession in respect of children of 15 and 16, because those needs have not received due consideration from your Lordships' House. The age of 16 in a child is extremely important for theatrical producers. They have to produce plays such as Peter Pan, and innumerable other plays in which children appear and play a significant rôle. There are not very many, but some boys and girls of 16 can play the part of a young child. For obvious reasons, there are very few boys and girls over that age who can, with any measure of conviction, play the part of a small child. Plays involving children have a rather special place in the theatrical world, and I am very anxious indeed that no unnecessary restrictions should be placed on the production of these plays. That must be borne in mind, as well as the interests of the children concerned. I think it may be necessary, on Report stage, to move some safeguarding Amendments so that, in duly regulated circumstances, children of 16 may be able to receive licences. I will not trouble your Lordships with an elaboration of this matter, but I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that theatrical interests are important and that some procedure allowing for exceptional cases may have to be produced.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, for his remarks, but, in the main, we have been dealing with licences for children up to the age of 16 years, and I rather feel that, on further study of the matter, his point will be covered. In any case I do not think it hinges on the particular point about education and staying on to the end of the term in which the child reaches school-leaving age. But certainly, although it is not really my part to study this, I shall be delighted to consider with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, another form of words which will embody this principle on which we are both agreed. I am grateful to him for his kind remarks, and I would ask your

509
Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Restriction on licences for performances by children under 13]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (1), to insert
"( ) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the expression 'acting' shall include singing, dancing and musical performances."
The noble Lord said: I always believe in pressing my luck, and I hope now to complete the hat-trick by securing the acceptance of this Amendment, or an assurance that something like it will be embodied in the Bill. As will be quite obvious to the Committee, the main purpose of this Amendment is to obtain a definition of the word "acting", because it might be assumed—indeed, I should myself assume it—that the word "acting" means performing in a nonmusical play. If I am right in that assumption, it would seem to be creating quite an absurd anomaly that, for example, a child under 13 of exceptional musical ability would be prevented from obtaining a licence whereas a child of 6 years of age who for example, takes part in one of those deplorable T.V. advertisements, and who assures her mother that her skin is so soft because she is using one particular kind of detergent instead of another, would be able to obtain a licence to enable her to take part in such a performance. In my submission, those little children, child actors, who take part in these advertisements that we see on television are certainly in need of protection, and should be protected.
At the same time, although I am moving a great many Amendments relative to the entertainment sections of this Bill. I have no desire at all (and I believe this is what the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, had in mind) to preclude from proper, legitimate and controlled employment other child performers who delight us and who should, in proper circumstances, be encouraged. For example, as the clause now stands the whole host of juvenile pantomime performers (the children in Peter Pan, and all the Christmas pantomimes which for a quarter or half a century have delighted our
510
children) and the hosts of young performers, the singers and amateur children who come from dancing academies in the suburbs, are not, I would submit, subject to correction by the noble Earl, acting in the sense of this clause. They come on in little ballets and performances of that kind. They are juvenile dancers and not, I would submit, actors. The noble Earl may produce the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to prove that I am absolutely wrong; but even if he does I shall not be really convinced. Many magistrates who will consider cases of this kind, or local authorities who will license these children, may not have the same version of the dictionary as the noble Earl. Therefore I submit that some such explanation as I have put in this Amendment should be included in the Bill.
I am quite prepared for the noble Earl to say that when we begin to define things, specifying singing, dancing and musical performances, we may thereby be excluding something else that ought to be included. We are always up against this difficulty when defining something at some length, and I am quite prepared to be corrected on that. But I submit that the expression "acting"—and only that word in the Bill—is not sufficient for the purpose we have in mind. We are all virtually agreed on the conditions for licensing by local authorities and I hope that we shall be agreed that provided we are satisfied about those conditions, we should not exclude young people from employment, from providing enjoyment for others, and even possibly of a future career starting as juvenile performers.
For these reasons I ask the noble Earl either to accept this Amendment in principle or to say that he will look into the matter and produce an improved form of words to embody the point that I have made. I assure the Committee that this is quite a serious point, though I had it on the authority of a noble Lord who has honoured me with his friendship that when he read this Amendment he was inclined to regard it as a sort of comic Amendment. It looked rather funny that we should have to define this point. I say this to assure your Lordships that it is necessary to define this; and I hope that, before we part with this Bill we shall define it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the expression 'acting' shall include singing, dancing and musical performances")—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOE: This is not a simple matter, I am afraid, and the noble Lord's Amendment touches on what is, in fact, a real difficulty. I must, therefore, even at this hour, give a little background. The Bateson Committee, as your Lordships will recall, thought that two categories of children should be distinguished among those employed in the entertainment field. On the one hand, there are those who play parts which can be played only by children, and, secondly, there are those who play parts which can equally well be taken by adults. The Committee thought that it was wrong to allow children in the second category to be employed, if they were two years below the statutory minimum age for employment in general—that is to say, two years below school-leaving age.
I should make it clear that it was children in this category to whom the Committee applied the phrase of children engaged on "troupe work". When I read the Bateson Report, I was surprised to see this phrase used in this context. I must confess I have always thought of a "trooper" in rather different terms. But perhaps we should leave that. In any event, the Government fully support the Bateson Committee's view that the statutory minimum age for employment should bite at those children doing the sort of work—chorus routines, for example—which an adult could equally well do.
On the other hand, the Committee thought that it would be against the interests of art generally if films and plays had to omit any part for a young child or have it played by someone who was obviously older than the part required. The Committee, therefore, recommended that
"The licensing authority should be able to licence a child of any age to take part in a play, if satisfied that the child is required for the artistic representation of the part and that the safeguards will fully assure the child's welfare and can be made effective".
The Government also support the Committee in this view. None of us would wish to deprive the stage of Lady Macbeth's legitimate children.
512
The present position is that a licence may not be granted in any circumstances for a child in England or Wales until he is 12 years old and in Scotland until he is 13. So, in giving effect to the Bateson Committee's recommendation, Clause 36 allows, for the first time, a licence to be granted to a child under 12 in England and Wales. So far, I think we are all agreed. However, Clause 36 also imposes a new restriction on children between 12 and 13 in England and Wales—and eventually on those between 13 and 14 in Great Britain—by restricting the engagements for which they may be licensed to acting. But that added restriction applies only to that particular year group.
It is true that a child whose talent lies in singing, dancing or playing a musical instrument will not be able to get a licence until he reaches the minimum age laid down by the clause, although there are certain exemptions, like charity performances and certain other performances, in which children may be able to take part. We are sorry that there should be this limitation. It may mean that a potential Mozart, if we have one in this country, would not be able to perform at the Festival Hall until he was the required age of 13 or 14, as the case may be. But we have not been able to think of a way of avoiding this, if we are to give effect to the Bateson Committee's other recommendation, which we think is right, that children under 13 should not be licensed to take part in troupe work. If it were possible to find a way of prohibiting this troupe work, without also ruling out talented young dancers or singers or musicians, to whom the noble Lord has referred, the Government would be only too willing to find it. But although this has been our intention, we have met with very considerable difficulties, purely of a drafting nature. The real trouble, as we see it, is that if we include dancing and singing with acting in this clause, as the noble Lord suggests, we shall open the door to groups of young people under 13 for performing in the sort of troupe or chorus work that the Bateson Committee regarded as a mere substitute for adult labour, and which we should wish to prohibit under the age of 13. I should make it clear that as long as a child under 13 is taking

513
an individual part in a play or other dramatic performance it can be licensed. Despite its drawbacks, Clause 36 would avoid that particular difficulty.
To sum up, we sympathise with the noble Lord's object and we should like to find a means of achieving it if we could do so without harm to the main purpose of the clause. However, for the reasons I have given, at the moment we have been unable to find a formula. If we can find a formula which will allow for the artistic performance and also at the same time mean that troupe work in the sense employed by Bateson is cut out for children under 13, we shall be glad to do so. At the moment we have not found a way.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his frankness, but, while I do not blame him personally, I feel that he has given a deplorable answer to this problem. He frankly announces that the Government are sorry that there should be this limitation, and they very much regret that this may stultify or nullify a future Mozart, but, nevertheless, there is nothing they can do about it because of something the Bateson Committee said in regard to troupers under 13. I will say at once that we shall look at this closely, and if the Government cannot do it, then we will put our own suggestion down on the Report stage.
When you think that a child of 5 or 6, a little tiny toddler, will be permitted under this clause as it now stands, without amendment, to have his or her face made up, to be rehearsed and made to stand in front of cameras for a soap flakes advertisement, or something of the sort—Scene 1, Take Seven, that kind of thing—but that equally nice, or even nicer, little girls of 12 cannot take part in a performance of Toad of Toad Hall under the very strict supervision of wardrobe mistresses, mammas and papas, simply because of this provision or the inability of the Government to find a form to meet this position, it just does not bear thinking about. Almost the only distinction I have in life is that I live about 50 yards from Yehudi Menuhin. This clause as it now stands would have gravely handicapped his early career, because he would not have been able to perform in public.
514
Really, this is a confession of failure such as we seldom hear in this House, and it is not possible to consider it. The one difficulty which I see is that if my Amendment were accepted as it stands there would be the possibility (this is a sort of hypothesis, and I do not admit the possibility) that we should get the kind of shoddy little troupes touring about the country with children in choruses which could be composed of adults, and sometimes are, quite deplorably. But the noble Earl said that they had decided that the statutory minimum age should bite on youngsters of that sort and that kind of exploitation so as to prevent it.
I should have thought that the many safeguards which we have all agreed should be embodied in the Bill would also bite on the licensing of those young people so that they could not be employed and exploited in that way. It seems to me—and anyone who looks at commercial television will, I am sure, agree with this—that the clause as it now stands permits and approves exploitation of little children, but prevents the proper and desirable employment of young people of talent in music, dancing and in other forms of entertainment in which it is desirable they should be employed.
Your Lordships may have heard—if you have not, you are one of the few—the record of a boy's voice, pure inimitable, ageless, singing Oh, for the Wings of a Dove—a boy from the Temple Choir. He made that record, which has sold well over 1 million copies, when he was a child. That boy, Lough, is now a man of over 50. That is music, singing, and he would not have been allowed to perform in this way with the clause as it now stands. We are not going to allow this clause to go away from us with such nonsense in it. If it is merely a case of finding a form of words, then we will find a form of words. That is another matter Which I should like to discuss with the noble Earl.
I think there is something more than that. I think that in the way in which the clause is now drafted, and in the use of this single word "acting", the Government have not given sufficient thought to this. They have rather been pursuing, as it were, the easy way, which is often the most difficult way. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will say, at least

515
so far as he is concerned, that he agrees that the word "acting" as it stands at present is not satisfactory. It does not embody what we all want to do. We should make a joint effort so that between now and the Report stage we shall find a form of words which not only will be generally acceptable but will permit the kind of performances we all think would be legitimate and proper to be given in the interests of children.
EARL JELLICOE: I should like briefly to reply to that. I think the noble Lord has brushed aside rather cavalierly the arguments which are to be found in the Bateson Committee Report. I would also draw attention to the fact that this young man could have recorded that gramophone record because he might very well have been exempt under subsection (3) of Clause 35 of the Bill as it now stands. Finally, I would point out that this particular difficulty, about which the noble Lord is making rather heavy weather, is a difficulty which applies only to one year group. It is a difficulty—and I admit it—but it is one which already applies under the present law to all children under the age of 12. We are merely extending the difficulty, in so far as we are extending it, by raising that limit from 12 to 13. Nevertheless, I made it plain to begin with that I was quite prepared to have a look at this particular clause because there is a difficulty here. If we can find, either separately or together, a way of getting round it I, for one, should be very glad.
LORD CONESFORD: May I put one point to my noble friend? He said that there might be an exception under subsection (3); but would it be a performance within subsection (2)? I should have thought that the noble Lord opposite was wrong, even on that ground.
EARL JELLICOE: Of which clause?
LORD CONESFORD: Subsection (2) of Clause 35.
EARL JELLICOE: I think the noble Lord opposite is wrong, but I always require notice of noble Lords opposite being wrong.
LORD STONHAM: In view of the assurance now being repeated by the
516
noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment but will return to it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
9.42 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 36 to insert the following new clause.
Advertising
".—(1) Subject to the next following subsection nothing in subsection (1) of section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (which places restrictions on the employment of children) shall prohibit the employment of persons under the age of thirteen if that employment is for the modelling of children's clothes or for photographic or television advertising purposes.
(2) The power of a local authority to make byelaws contained in subsection (2) of section 18 of the Act of 1933, shall include a power to make byelaws for securing the health, kind treatment and education of persons referred to in the foregoing subsection."
The noble Lord said: Section 18 of the Children's and Young Persons Act, 1933, us subsequently amended, prohibits the employment of children under 13 years of age, but the law in this respect, as we all know, is being disregarded and it is very difficult to enforce its provisions. For example, a number of children are being employed as models to display children's clothing; others are being employed in quite substantial numbers as photographic models and, as I mentioned during the earlier discussion, for taking part in television films for advertising purposes; and, as I think we are all agreed, in some cases in undesirable conditions.
Some time ago I raised the question of rehearsal rooms for television performances, and subsequently, at the invitation both of the B.B.C. and commercial television, I visited a number of these rehearsal roams. Some of them were good and I think there has been some improvement in that matter; but some of them are far from good, and the conditions under which these child performers are required to act in films for advertising purposes often leave very much to be desired. I am not saying that there are not legitimate trade purposes which justify the employment of children as photographic models and for purposes of that kind. I do not think anyone would disagree that that is necessary, and you cannot have adults taking the place of little children for

517
purposes of that kind. Indeed. there is no objection to this practice providing it is properly regulated, and the whole purpose of this proposed new clause is to enable the local authorities to make by-laws for the proper regulation of this type of employment, so as to retain control over it. I think that the purpose of the Amendment is quite clear, and I believe, too, that in view of what I have said about it it would generally, in principle at least, meet your Lordships' wishes. I do not say that the suggested wording of the new clause is necessarily ideal, but I hope that if it cannot be accepted in its entirety, at least the Government will accept it in principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 36, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like first of all to express my sympathy with the aims of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment. As I understand the situation at the moment, Section 18(1) of the principal Act and Section 28 of the principal Scottish Act prohibit a child from being employed till he reaches the age of 13, to be raised to 14 when the school leaving age goes up. The only permitted exceptions are (a) where local authority by-laws allow it, for instance when the child is employed by a parent on horticultural work or something like that; and (b) a child employed under authority of the licence agreement under the provisions for licensing to take part in entertainment which come under Clause 35 of this Bill, or in cases where the child is exempted from the need for such licence. As I understand it, the noble Lord's new clause is intended to allow a third exception: that is, a child employed for the modelling of clothes for photographic or television advertising purposes.
I should like to point out, first of all, that the noble Lord's Amendment does not appear to extend to Scotland. I do not know whether this was by accident or design; perhaps he would like to enlighten us at the end. Secondly, I think I should stress that many children who are employed for what the new clause describes as photographic or television performances will be taking part in a performance to which Clause 35 already applies; that is to say, a performance
518
which comes under subsection (2), paragraphs (c) and (d), which refer to broadcast performances and any performance recorded by whatever means for use in broadcast or film intended for public exhibition. These children will have to satisfy the conditions of Clause 36, but if a licence is granted they will not need the relaxation granted by the noble Lord's new clause. Therefore, I presume this is intended mainly for children who are going to be employed as models for still photographs to be used as advertisements.
What is worrying the Government somewhat is that we are finding it hard to understand quite why the noble Lord has selected this particular category of child under 13 for exemption from the protection so long conferred by Section 8 of the principal Act. In other words, it seems hard to understand why children who pose for a commercial photographer should be exempted but those who pose for a commercial artist should not. If it is permissible, for instance, for a child to be employed where the object is to produce an advertisement, why not Where the object is to produce a technical picture or, for that matter, pure art? In other words, it seems to me the line is being drawn too finely. The noble Lord's new clause quite rightly aims at ensuring that the right conditions are forthcoming for any child licensed under this subsection. I am advised that the local authority in making the by-laws as he suggests could not deal adequately with the case of individual children, but only with general categories defined by such criteria as age, occupation or sex, and that therefore this subsection could not possibly perform the task which I am sure the noble Lord wishes it to perform.
Another point is that we are not certain that the present law really hampers the advertising of such things as clothes, food and sweets intended specially for children, and means that they are not, and cannot be, adequately advertised. I should also like to say, on Section 18 of the principal Act, which has been in force for a long time, that little representation on this subject has come to the notice of the Home Office, but such as has, has on the whole been all against the use of young people as models. Therefore, while we sympathise with the intention of the Amendment, we feel that there is possibly not sufficient

519
reason on artistic, economic or general grounds why this particular form of employment should be singled out for special treatment, and possibly the noble Lord would care to think about it again. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: As a matter of principle, I do not want young people employed in this way at all; but as a matter of actual fact and practice I know that they are so employed, and I am rather astonished to hear from the noble Marquess that lie or his Department have little evidence that they are so employed. We need only the evidence of our eyes. Pick up virtually any magazine which deals with clothing or domestic consumer goods which have some effect on children, or look at almost any television advertisement, and you will find young people are employed in this way.
I do not know whether, by "evidence", the noble Marquess means representations that have been made by local authorities or by others. If that is a deficiency, then I would assure him that the London County Council, which is a not inconsiderable local authority, is extremely concerned about this particular matter. Therefore, the reason for this proposed new clause is not, as it were, to create or acknowledge a new, class of children's employment, but to admit that it exists and to find some way of regulating the conditions of that employment. That is its sole purpose.
In almost his first words, I think that the noble Marquess said that he has some sympathy with the idea which lies behind it. Therefore this appears to be another of those matters where we are in sympathy with regard to the objective, but where the exact form which I put forward for meeting it does not meet with the Government's approval. I agree that on this occasion the noble Marquess has said enough to indicate why, and to give me serious thoughts about the efficacy of this method of doing it. Therefore, I gladly accept his advice to read again to-morrow with great care what he has said, in the hope that we can come forward with a more satisfactory method of meeting the difficulty. With that, I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Supplementary provisions as to licences under section 35]:
9.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after subsection (4), to insert
"( ) The holder of such a licence shall at least seven days before the person named in the licence takes part in a performance to which it relates, furnish to the local authority within whose area the performance is to take place particulars of the licence and such other information as may be prescribed by regulations."
The noble Lord said: I think the noble Earl will agree that I should discuss with this Amendment No. 42. Clause 37 provides that
"Where a local authority grant…a licence authorising a person to take part in a performance in the area of another local authority they shall send to that other authority such particulars as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe.…"
The clause further provides for the revision or revocation of the licence by that local authority, and that in that event they shall inform the other local authority if the licence relates to a performance in their area. There is in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, in Section 22 (which is repealed by the present Bill), a provision requiring the holder of a licence, at least seven days before the person named in the licence takes part in a performance, to furnish to the local authority within whose area the performance takes place a notice enabling that authority to be satisfied that any conditions in the licence are being observed. In this connection the local authority in whose area the entertainment is to take place are to satisfy themselves, among other things, that the performers have a proper medical examination; that the educational arrangements are satisfactory, and also that the credentials of the person in charge of the performer are satisfactory.
The Amendment I am now moving requires the holder of the licence at least seven days before the performance to give to the local authority in whose area a performance is to take place particulars of the licence and such other details as may be required. It is a necessary provision to enable a local authority who have not themselves

521
granted the particular licence to have the knowledge that a young person who has a licence is going to perform in their area, and to make sure that the terms and conditions of a licence—a licence which they themselves have not granted—are carried out. The second Amendment, which goes with it, is to provide a penalty if the provisions of the first Amendment which I have moved are infringed. This again seems a reasonable and necessary safeguard for the young person concerned, and I hope that it will command the sympathy of the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Lord's Amendment would reenact Section 22 (4) of the principal Act, which imposes on the holder of a licence the duty to give information to the local authority in whose area the performance is to take place; in other words, the enforcing authority. But subsection (3) of Clause 37 already lays that responsibility upon the local authority that issues the licence, and the Government do not feel that there is any need for both provisions. We take the view that it is on the whole better that the responsibility should be upon the licensing authority. That should encourage both licensing and enforcing authorities to make better arrangements for consultation and co-operation, which was a point upon which the Bateson Committee laid some emphasis.
There is one other complication if this Amendment is carried, and it is this. For instance, if the person whom the noble Lord wishes to be responsible for notifying the enforcing authority should fail to do so or forget to do so, he would, as I am advised, be in danger of being prosecuted even though the enforcing authority had already full particulars of the licence from the licensing authority. That seems to be rather an absurd situation. I do not know whether it would happen very often, but there would be a danger if he were also responsible. For those reasons, I feel that I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw it, because we really think it is not adding anything much to the Bill as it is. We think it is unnecessary.
LORD STONHAM: I certainly do not want to add anything that is unnecessary to the Bill. I will have to look at that point. I was not quite clear on one point which the noble Marquess made just at the end of his remarks. He spoke about the enforcing authority, which of course would be the authority which granted the licence, and not the authority in whose area the performance took place.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Perhaps the noble Lord misunderstood me. By "enforcing authority", I meant the authority to whom the licence had been sent; in other words the authority in whose area the performance is going to take place.
LORD STONHAM: In that event I think that my point is probably covered. If the licence must be sent to that authority, then it is up to them to see that the terms of the licence are carried out, and it may well be that this Amendment would then indeed be unnecessary. I will, of course, have a look at it again, but on this occasion I must say that the noble Marquess seems to have made his case, and I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
10.4 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, after Clause 39 to insert the following new clause:
Central licensing authority
".—(1) A central licensing authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State which shall be responsible for licensing

(a) all children under 13 years of age;

(b) all children coming from or going abroad; and

(c) all children taking part in television broadcasts.

(2) The central licensing authority shall be responsible for supervising the application by the local authorities of the regulations governing the licensing of children between the ages of 13 and 16."
The noble Lord said: I very much regret that an Amendment of this importance should come at this late hour in our proceedings. The brevity with which I will move it will have no redaction to its importance, or to the importance we attach to it. Much has been said about the Bateson Report this

523
evening, about the fact that it is twelve years old, and that since It was introduced there has been a very big addition to the field of employment, particularly in commercial television. So far as this Amendment is concerned, it is an attempt to give effect to a recommendation of the Bateson Committee which has been ignored by the Government in the Bill now presented to Parliament. I do not think there are many who would justify the multiplicity of administration which we now have—the Home Office, the local education authorities, the Ministry of Education and the magistrates' courts. Page 2 of the Bateson Committee Report said:
"The advantages of a simple administrative system which would be applicable to employment in all types of entertainment, as the problems are akin, have throughout struck us very forcibly",
and then they make the recommendation that there should be a central licensing authority. As I said, I think that is one of the major recommendations of the Committee, and yet it has been ignored.
This Amendment (and, if I might say so, the following Amendment, to Clause 40, is consequential upon it) brings that administrative machinery in line with the recommendations of the Bateson Report; and, also, it would, I think, be a valuable addition to the protection of young persons engaged in the entertainment world. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) A central licensing authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State which shall be responsible for licensing

(a) all children under 13 years of age;

(b) all children coming from or going abroad; and

(c) all children taking part in television broadcasts.

(2) The central licensing authority shall be responsible for supervising the application by the local authorities of the regulations governing the licensing of children between the ages of 13 and 16.")—(Lord Lindgren.)
EARL JELLICOE: I agree fully with what the noble Lord has said about the importance of this particular matter. As the noble Lord has said, the Amendment is clearly intended to give effect to the recommendation of the Bateson Committee. From the drafting point of view,
524
I would suggest straight away that the Amendment is probably defective. It does not, for example, set out fully the powers and duties of the proposed new central licensing authority; but as I understand that the intention behind the movers is to ventilate the principle involved here, and as, if I were to accept the Amendment, we could probably quite easily remedy the drafting defects, I will not labour that technical point.
In their Report the Committee expressed the view that the existing system suffered from three main defects: the procedure for appeal, which at present lies to my right honourabe friend the Minister of Education; the lack of uniform criteria; and what they called, "unequal administration"—and the Committee suggested that the best way of overcoming these defects would be to set up a simple, central licensing authority. The Government, after full consultation with the various organisations and interests conecrned here, have come to a different conclusion. I should like to say straightaway that we have not ignored the Bateson Committee's recommendation here. We have, in fact, after due consideration, decided not to adopt it. I think I should say why.
It may be true, first, that the present appeal procedure is defective, as Bateson suggested it was. If that is the case, I would suggest that the best cure is not to abolish the right of appeal. The Government think it better to substitute a new form of appeal to a magistrates' court; and that is in fact provided in Clause 37 (6) of the Bill. As regards uniform criteria and standard administration, I would grant that these may well be desirable objectives, but the Government consider that more uniformity over this whole field is in any event likely to be achieved if the discretion vested in the licensing authorities is somewhat reduced in the way in which the Bill provides. For example, under the Bill the licensing authority must in future issue a licence if they have power to do so and are satisfied on the matters that the subsection requires them to take into account.
Moreover, the regulations to be made under Clause 35 by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will prescribe in more detail than the existing regulations how the power to grant

525
licences should be exercised. But, that said, I would urge that complete uniformity is neither necessary nor desirable, since we must take full account of local circumstances in this field. I doubt whether we should, in fact, gain much by interposing a now body between the local authorities and the Home Secretary here, and I f would make it clear, as is clear from the whole context of the Bill, that the Home Secretary will be the responsible Minister. He will be issuing the regulations or he will be the responsible Minister in this field.
I think that this new tier of responsibility would be open to several objections. The most important is that the proposed central licensing authority would not be in a position to carry out its responsibilities alone. As the Bateson Committee themselves recognise, a licence should be granted centrally only after due consultation with the local authority in the area in which the child concerned is living. The Bill recognises that the local authority must be responsible for enforcement and must have power to vary the conditions attached to the licence. In these circumstances, I find it hard to know what the proposed central authority would, in fact, do. The decisions would have to be based on the views of the local authorities, and it seems much better that they should remain wholly responsible not only for issuing but also for enforcing the licences.
I also believe that there is little justification for treating children who are employed in television, as the Amendment would treat them, differently from children employed in, say, making films. After all, television is no longer "experimental" (to use the word which the Bateson Committee employed some ten or so years ago), whatever else we may think about its merits or demerits. So far as children going abroad (the third category covered by the Amendment) are concerned, we have long had machinery under which licences are issued centrally by the Bow Street magistrate. As I mentioned during the Second Reading debate, this system seems to be working perfectly well, and, in default of evidence to the contrary, I see little point in disturbing it.
This leaves only one category of children among those listed in subsection
526
(1) of the new clause—children coming to this country from abroad to seek employment in the entertainment field. I grant that rather different considerations might apply to this category. Nevertheless, they are few in number, and the Government feel that they can be adequately dealt with by providing that the licensing authority for them should be the local authority in whose area the applicant or applicants reside; and I see little justification for setting up a central licensing authority for this category alone.
May I now turn to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause? It would seem from this that the sponsors of the Amendment think that the local licensing authorities, in exercising the powers vested in them by law, need to be controlled in some way by the central licensing authority. There are arguments far giving the whole power to a central authority, but in the Government's view there are better arguments for giving the whole power to the local authorities. I should have thought that the proposed new subsection would in fact be an uneasy compromise between the two.
If the work of the local authorities under the power conferred by this Bill really requires supervision, it is doubtful whether the proposed central licensing authority would be the best supervisor. The local authorities' exercise of their present power has been unfettered and the Government see no sufficient reason far introducing a new tier of responsibility, in addition to the Government themselves, into the structure of the scheme set out by the Bill. All in all, I can see no real grounds why in the future, as in the past, these powers should not continue to be exercised by the local authorities, acting, of course, under the general direction of my right honourable friend. I grant that the Bateson Committee thought otherwise. Nevertheless, I cannot see that there would be a really useful role for this new central authority, nor do I see that it is really needed, and I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: I must thank the noble Earl for the detailed reply he has given. He will not expect me to agree with him all the way through, but some of his points have some validity, and, in

527
view of the nature of the reply, I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Financial assistance under s. 20 of Children Act 1948]:
EARL JELLICOE: I suggest that we may perhaps consider this Amendment and No. 46 together. They may appear to your Lordships to be extremely complicated. I can, however, assure your Lordships that they are purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 30, leave out ("their care") and insert ("the care of a local authority").(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment is also drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 33 leave out second ("the") and insert ("a").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 52 agreed to.
10.20 p.m.
Clause 53 [Absence of parent or guardian of child received into care of local authority]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "unknown" to insert "to the local authority". The noble Lord said: Your Lordships have never heard me make any reference to the lateness of the hour, and I certainly do not intend to do so now, because whenever I move an Amendment the night is still young, and I am sure that as adequate consideration will be given to this, the last fairly controversial Amendment as it was to the first. However, I can comfort your Lordships by saying that I shall take only two minutes. Clause 53 enables a local authority to assume parental rights over a child if the whereabouts of the parents have been unknown for twelve months. This clause is a valuable one and should clear up any doubts arising from the generally accepted version of abandon-
528
ment—that is, leaving a child to its fate; and obviously it is a clause which we on this side fully support.
There is, however, one question which the clause as it stands appears to us to leave in doubt. The clause says:
"Where after a child has been received into the care of a local authority under section 1 of the Children Act 1948 the whereabouts of any parent or guardian of his have remained unknown for not less than twelve months …"
and so on. My Amendment would make it read, "remained unknown to the local authority". In other words, I am asking the question: remained unknown to whom? I am assuming that it means "remained unknown to the local authority", because it would be the local authority concerned who would, under the clause, have been trying to trace the parents, but without success. If this Amendment were accepted they would clearly be enabled to assume parental rights over the child. I am sure that that is what the Government mean, but the clause does not make it clear, and I think the insertion of the words in the Amendment is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 4, after ("unknown") insert ("to the local authority").—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOE: I am sure the noble Lord is right to draw attention to this matter, which I must confess has given me some slight difficulty. I do not wish at this stage to be dogmatic in any way in my reply to the noble Lord. I will be brief. As I am advised, in the context of the clause there is no room for doubt. The word "unknown" is being used, as it is commonly used elsewhere in similar circumstances, of information that is not ascertainable from any source from which one might reasonably expect to derive it. That assurance should go some way to meet the noble Lord's point.
I have a difficulty about accepting the Amendment, which otherwise I should be rather inclined to accept, because it does dot the "i" and cross the "t." As I read the Amendment, it might give the impression that the local authority is able to act under this clause, as amended, merely because it did not happen to know the child's whereabouts, when in fact it had not troubled to make inquiries of other persons to whom the whereabouts might be known. I understand

529
that it might have that legal force. I am not saying that many local authorities would be so bereft of responsibility as to exercise this important power in those circumstances, but I think we should be careful in this legislation, and in the light of what the noble Lord has said, I should like to consider whether the present wording, his suggested wording or some other possible wording, is the more watertight.
LORD STONHAM: I regard that as a very satisfactory reply from the noble Earl. I am not dogmatic about this. I think he agrees that, as the words now are, there is a genuine doubt as to exactly to whom the whereabouts have to be unknown. Secondly, there is a doubt in my mind. I feel quite sure that we mean "unknown to the local authority". I hope that between now and Report stage the noble Earl will be able to consider this again and make that point clear.
With regard to the local authority's not having bestirred itself sufficiently to find the parent or guardian, I agree that, hypothetically at least, there is that danger. But there is an urge upon the part of every local authority which has a child in its care—I do not say this in any derogatory sense—to relieve itself of the responsibility, if it properly and legitimately can, without damaging the interests of the child. That means that it would make every attempt to find the parent or guardian. In normal circumstances it would be an extremely bad local authority who did not do that. I do not think a great deal of the danger the noble Earl put forward in this respect. I believe—and I think he does—that the clause, in the fourth line, needs a little more clarification so as to show exactly whom we mean, and I am sure that before we part with the Bill in this House we shall be able to clear that one up together. With that, and again thanking the noble Earl for his reply, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
EARL JELLICOE: I hope that we may consider this Amendment and Amendment No. 49 together. They are both fairly small Amendments, and quite simple, and I trust that they will commend themselves to your Lordships. Paragraph 12(3) of the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act enables a local authority to undertake, as agents of the managers of an approved school, the after-care of a person who, after being released from the school, is under the supervision of the managers. Paragraph 26 to Schedule 3 of the Bill substitutes a provision making it the duty of a local authority (and this follows an lngleby recommendation), if requested by the managers to do so, to undertake the aftercare of a person released from an approved school. As it stands at present, the paragraph, unlike the provision it replaces, applies only while the person concerned is under the supervision of the managers, and not during any further period when he is voluntarily receiving advice and assistance. The Amendment extends the paragraph so that it applies to the whole period of both compulsory and voluntary after care. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 28, leave out from ("cause") to ("to") in line 29.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: This Amendment is consequential. It relates to Clause 22 and is, I think I can assure your Lordships, minor and perfectly anodyne in its effect. I trust that you will allow the Amendment to go through, as it were, with that explanation. If so, I feel, having secured our half-century of Amendments, that we might then draw stumps for the evening.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 30, at end insert—
("any person in their area who is out under supervision from that school or who may be visited, advised and befriended in pursuance of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1961")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I fear that my remarks which I have just made were in fact applying to No. 50—
LORD STONHAM: Most acceptable.
EARL JELLICOE: —which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43 line 44 at end insert—
("The Mental Health Act 1959
45. In section 72 (6) (a) after the words 'said Act of 1933' there shall be added the words or section 22 (5) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1962'.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 3, as amended, shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I venture to ask why it is—I do not expect an answer necessarily at this moment, but I am calling attention to a small point—that as you are amending the Oaths Act, Section 27, the Oaths Act is not mentioned in one of the Schedules?
EARL JELLICOE: I must confess to the noble Earl that I have not the faintest idea, but I will look into the matter.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I am grateful to the noble Earl.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

  DUAL CARRIAGEWAYS IN SCOTLAND
  DUAL CARRIAGEWAYS IN SCOTLAND