Sitting of 7 February 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Medical Laboratory Technicians (Salaries)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now considered the resolutions, copies of which have been sent to him by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North, passed at the meetings held in Glasgow on 23rd November, 1961, and in Edinburgh on 24th November, 1961, of the Association of Scientific Workers concerning the salary agreements recently negotiated by the Whitley Council on behalf of the medical laboratory technicians of Scotland; and if he will now take immediate steps to implement these agreements.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I have seen these resolutions. The agreed salaries will operate from 1st April.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that failure to honour these resolutions is shockingly inconsistent with the orderly economic system built up in the country over generations? Will he look into the matter with a view to seeing that these agreements properly arrived at are duly honoured by the Government?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not think that I can add to my original Answer.

    Lochs (Fish Stocks)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to permit the stocking of further lochs in Scotland with fish as an additional attraction for tourists
    398
    and to establish the controls necessary to prevent irresponsible depletion of the stocks.
    Mr. Maclay: The improvement of fishing in Scottish lochs, by stocking or other means, is primarily for the owners of the fishings; and the Scottish Tourist Board is prepared to assist in certain circumstances. The question of control will, no doubt, be considered by the committee on Scottish salmon and trout fisheries which I am appointing.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is not the Secretary of State aware that the greatest handicap here is that once the lochs are stocked, they may be irresponsibly poached instead of fished in accordance with proper regulations? Does he agree that it would be no hardship to the general public if this were done in the ordinary way that anglers have on rivers, in which case the money could be spent on stocking? Would not this be a great attraction to tourists?
    Mr. Maclay: Doubtless, that is one of the matters which the committee on Scottish salmon and trout fisheries will consider.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware of the very great importance in this whole matter of research, especially research into trout fisheries? Does he not think that it was clearly proved in the Report of his Department last year that the bias is now towards salmon and away from trout research, and will not this be very deplorable especially for the Scottish hill lochs?
    Mr. Maclay: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows of the very valuable work which goes on at the Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory. I am not aware of what he refers to in the latter part of his supplementary question, but I will look at it.
    Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it good enough that this tremendous potential tourist asset which could bring tens of thousands of pounds to Scotland is left to the whims of a few private owners to determine whether or not it should be developed?
    Mr. Maclay: I know very well that many owners are prepared to co-operate with the Scottish Tourist Board and with hoteliers to improve lochs. There is the

    399
    difficult question of poaching to which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) referred; that has to be considered, and will be.

    Salmon Breeding
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what success has followed the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board's work on the artificial expansion of salmon breeding; and whether it has proved practicable to stock additional rivers.
    Mr. Maclay: Some rivers affected by the Board's operations have been stocked with eggs and fry and the Board has carried out experiments in the rearing and planting of smolts. It considers that preliminary results are satisfactory. The artificial stocking of other rivers is a matter for the proprietors and district boards concerned.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect to have evidence of the success or otherwise of this very valuable development, and will he give publicity to the work which is being done so that it may become known throughout the country?
    Mr. Maclay: I understand that a reliable assessment cannot be made until four or five years after the smolts have migrated to the sea. I take the right hon. Gentleman's second point well. Publicity should be given to the result.

    Local Authorities (Rent Rebate Schemes)
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities operated rent rebate schemes in the financial years 1956, 1959 and 1961; and what was the total amount rebated in each of the above years.
    Mr. Maclay: In 1956, 37 local authorities operated rent rebate schemes and the total annual amount of rebates granted was estimated to be £11,259. The corresponding figures for 1959 are 55 and £237,900, and for 1961 56 and £198,500.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is not the enormous increase in the rent rebates being given by local authorities a direct result of the rent increases which the Secretary of State has forced them to make as a result of the high interest charges which
    400
    are the responsibility of the Government? Will he consider making substantial increases in the subsidies paid to local authorities in order to ease the burden on the lower-paid workers?
    Mr. Maclay: When the hon. Gentleman has had time to digest the figures I gave, he will see that his conclusions are not correct. Only the figures for 1959 and 1961 are comparable, and he will note that less was rebated in 1961 than in 1959.

    State Management Districts (Off-Sales Licences)
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now give his consent to off-sales licences granted by the Licensing Courts in State management districts.
    Mr. Maclay: It is my practice to examine on its merits each application for any authority to sell liquor in a State management district to see whether special circumstances exist which would justify my granting it.
    Mr. Brewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but may I ask whether he could say what he is trying to prove by the State management experiment? Is he trying to show that the Scottish Office is at least capable of running a pub? Does not he think that things are managed better in England? If Woolworth's wish to sell drink in England, the matter is left to a licensing court. Why should my right hon. Friend incur political opprobrium by turning down an off-licence certificate to the Wholesale Co-operative Society in a State management district?
    Mr. Maclay: Unfortunately, I find that in many of my functions I have to incur political opprobrium. The answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend would involve going into very deep waters, if that is the correct description in this connection. I do not think that Question Time is the time to go into the matter in full.
    Mr. Hoy: Is not the Secretary of State aware that these licensed premises and hotels have played a very satisfactory part in the life of the local communities in which they exist? It must seem a little strange, even to the right hon. Gentleman, that his hon. Friends

    401
    are so greedy and grasping and want to get for their own private interests profits which should go to the State.
    Mr. Maclay: I am convinced that anything for which I am responsible is run very well and fulfils a useful purpose, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are strong conflicting views about the desirability of State management.
    Mr. John MacLeod: It may be that they are well run, but why should these districts be treated in a way totally different from any other district in Scotland? Surely this experiment should be allowed to have some healthy competition within it when my right hon. Friend's own local licensing courts agree that there should be such competition.
    Mr. Maclay: I am afraid that to answer all these supplementary questions would take me much more time than is permissible at Question Time.
    Mr. MacLeod: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Ambulances, Midlothian
    Mr. J. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ambulances in Midlothian are operated by one man only; and if he will make it compulsory for each ambulance to have two men in attendance.
    Mr. Maclay: Normally all of them. But an attendant is provided if requested by the general practitioner and the majority of emergency calls are dealt with by ambulances from Edinburgh which are normally double-manned.
    Mr. Hill: Is the Secretary of State aware that many ambulances, when they go to pick up patients, are manned by one man? When they go to pick up stretcher cases, that man must beg assistance from the public. I know of a case in which a fifteen-stone man was involved and where the man driving the ambulance had to get his wife to help to carry the man out. Would not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again and ensure that ambulances are manned by two men instead of one?
    Mr. Maclay: If the general practitioner requests a second man, that man
    402
    is, as far as I know, almost invariably provided. What the hon. Gentleman may not appreciate is that 80 per cent. of ambulance cases are sitting cases. It would not be sensible or practicable to provide two men for every case.
    Mr. Hoy: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general practitioner is not always involved? In a case involving an accident which
    I have drawn to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, when the ambulance arrived there was only one man, the driver, in it. No one can blame him. Could not we have a service under which two men are sent with an ambulance to prevent trouble?
    Mr. Maclay: As I said in my Answer, the majority of emergency cases are dealt with by ambulances which are double-manned. I am investigating the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers and hope to write to him very soon about it.

    Teachers
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes taking to overcome the growing shortage of teachers required to meet existing educational needs and the additional shortages which will accrue from educational developments such as raising the school age, reducing the maximum size of classes and introducing compulsory part-time education.
    Mr. Maclay: I have written to the three main teaching bodies asking them to discuss with me this serious problem for which there is no single or simple answer. I shall also meet other bodies. After these consultations, I shall consider what further steps may be taken.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the Secretary of State realise the magnitude of the task which faces him in the next ten or twelve years? I hope that he will take a long view—and also a short view—of this problem. Does he realise that, if he is to meet the needs of teaching alone as expressed in his fourth Departmental Report, he must obtain at least 12,000 teachers in the next ten years and that to do this he must be prepared to spend money at a rate and in a quantity which he has never before attained?
    Mr. Maclay: Of course, I am fully aware of the gravity of this problem, but I am not convinced that money is by any means the only issue involved in solving it.

    Fire-Fighting Services, Hawick
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reviewed the fire-fighting services in Hawick since the fires in mills in 1959; and if he intends to establish a full-time manned fire station in the burgh.
    Mr. Maclay: I have been discussing with the South-Eastern Fire Area Joint Committee the need for whole-time firemen in the burgh and I await its proposals. The number of pumping appliances at the station has been increased and their pumping capacity has doubled.
    Commander Donaldson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the increase in the number of pumping machines in the area, and while appreciating the high standard of the volunteer firemen in Hawick, may I ask him whether he will ask his advisers to consider that, if there were a big fire in a mill in Hawick and at the same time another in Galashiels where the major full-time force is maintained, great difficulty would arise? Will my right hon. Friend consider that point in the discussions which are proceeding?
    Mr. Maclay: I will certainly see that that point is borne in mind.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that some firemen in the rural and outlying districts consider that they are ill-equipped in that they have not enough skilled people and that, while ordinary people can help very greatly in putting out fires, unless there are enough skilled and trained men in the brigades, great danger may result? The members of fire brigades complain that there is a deficiency in skilled men because of competition from other better paid trades.
    Mr. Maclay: That may be, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will join me in paying a high tribute to the part-time men for the invaluable work that they do.

    Air Services
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has now made to British European Airways concerning the Toot-hill Committee's suggestions on the improvement of air services in Scotland, in order to further industrial growth.
    Mr. Maclay: I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation to consider the Toothill Committee's suggestions. B.E.A.'s present plans for its summer services provide for the use of larger aircraft and increased capacity on Scottish routes.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, which gives some encouragement. Has he pointed out in his representations that dissatisfaction with the air services in Scotland is not by any means a new thing and that a large number of British chambers of commerce, not least that in my constituency, the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce, have constantly made representations about the importance of better air services? Has my right hon. Friend any hope that there will be an improvement in the winter months as well as in the summer schedules?
    Mr. Maclay: I cannot forecast what will happen in the winter months, but I should tell my hon. Friend that the schedules have been sent to the Scottish Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation, to the Scottish Council, and to the Scottish chambers of commerce for comment.
    Mr. Strachey: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget the needs of Dundee in this matter. It is the one major city of Scotland not served by a direct air service to London or to the South in general. This is really a very unsatisfactory situation.
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware, and have been for some years, of Dundee's flying problems.
    Mr. Brewis: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that we have a magnificent aerodrome at Prestwick? Will he ascertain whether we could have more services to that airport?
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since British European Airways began to operate, it has never had a single suggestion from any individual associated with the Toothill Committee, and, even though the Chairman of the Toothill Committee is also Chairman of the Scottish Advisory Council, he never asked B.E.A. to give evidence to his Committee and at no time did he himself make any suggestion for improving the services, although he had the opportunity to do so?
    Mr. Maclay: This is getting very wide of the Question.

    Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the date on which he expects the building of the second phase of the extension to Victoria Hospital to start; and if he will give an indication of the date of completion.
    Mr. Maclay: The regional hospital board expects to place the contract in May and to start work shortly after that. The present estimated construction period is two and a half years.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is more than two years since he gave an assurance that the building of the hospital would start in the autumn of 1961? Now that it will not start until May this year, will he give an assurance that his Department will take every step possible to ensure that the building is completed by the anticipated date?
    Mr. Maclay: Although I agree that the starting date has again slipped, I am advised that there is good prospect that the completion date will remain as stated when I was last in communication with the hon. Gentleman.

    Hospital Houses (Rents)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will revise his proposals for raising rents of hospital houses in the light of recent representations made to his Department by the Confederation of Health Service Employees.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the decision he has reached on rents for hospital houses as a result of the representations of the Confederation of Health Service Employees.
    Mr. Maclay: I have carefully considered all the representations made to me, but I still consider that the new basis of rent introduced in November last year is fair and reasonable.
    Dr. Mabon: Is it not grossly unfair for the Secretary of State on the one hand to agree to the freezing of pay for many members of hospital staffs and on the other hand to propose substantially to raise their rents? Is it not grossly unfair to deal in this way with sections of the community who are performing such great service and whose standard of life is being reduced by Government action?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will be well aware that a great many of the previous rents were extremely low indeed and bore no relation to the value of the accommodation.
    Miss Herbison: Is not the Secretary of State aware of all the problems connected with these houses being tied houses? Is he not also aware that many of the people living in these houses are amongst the law-wage earners in Scotland? Since he has done nothing at all to help to increase their salaries, it is totally wrong for him to single out these people and put this very great increase on their rents, thus lowering their standard of living.
    Mr. Maclay: On the first point, the hon. Lady will be aware that the rents of tenants who are required to live in houses at the hospital may be specially abated by up to 15 per cent. to allow for this. On the second point, she should not say that I have done nothing to help to increase the salaries of persons in the hospital service. She will realise that salary negotiations go on through the normal channels.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases the rent increase involved runs up to 400 per cent.? Is it not unjust in principle that employees in tied houses like this should have a level of rents imposed on

    407
    them based on a calculation which is considerably higher than that obtaining in any other public authority in the country?
    Mr. Maclay: Percentages are very misleading in a case like this, because it depends entirely on the point of departure.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that these increases are very great indeed and that some of these workers are paying far more than they would pay even for privately-owned property elsewhere? Is he also aware that the majority of them live in areas which
    do not provide the ordinary amenities of life which people now expect? This fact has not been taken into consideration in fixing the rents.
    Mr. Maclay: No. The hon. Lady is well aware that the Treasury Valuer has been willing to consider appeals against his valuation, and this is just the kind of point which would be considered on an appeal.
    Dr. Mabon: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of these replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Nurses (Salaries)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the application for an increase in salaries for all nursing staff lodged with the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council on 11th August, 1961.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a decision will be made on a claim for an increase in salaries which has been before the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council since 11th August, 1961.
    Mr. Maclay: The Council is meeting to discuss this claim on 13th February.
    Dr. Mabon: Was it not quite monstrous that the Secretary of State should have presumed to tell the House only a minute or two ago that these negotiations are going on all the time, when he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health have done nothing since 11th August? As these people have very low salaries indeed compared with
    408
    those earned in other industries, and as in the light of the Government's pay pause there can be no argument about productivity in relation to nurses and midwives, is it not ridiculous that this matter has been delayed for so long? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to speed up the consideration of these claims and give these people a decent wage for once?
    Mr. Maclay: I cannot add to what I have said. The Council is meeting to discuss this claim on 13th February.
    Miss Herbison: Does it not seem strange that it takes six months from the time to claim is lodged until a Council meets to take any decision on it, although at the same time the Minister responsible can without any questions impose on some of these people higher rents with no right of redress? Is he aware that these nurses are among the most devoted people that we have and it is all the more important that the Government should treat them in a reasonable and generous way?
    Mr. Maclay: I certainly agree that nurses are some of the finest people we have in the country. I do not agree that the changing of rents is necessarily a hardship. It is something which had to be done and had to be looked at in the context of what rents were being paid.

    Hospitals, Dundee (Physiotherapists)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the establishment for physiotherapists at Dundee Royal Infirmary and Maryfield Hospital, Dundee, respectively; how many full-time physiotherapists are at present employed; and what are the salary ranges for a physiotherapist so employed.
    Mr. Maclay: The Board of Management would like to see eight physiotherapists at Dundee Royal Infirmary and seven at Maryfield; at present four full-time physiotherapists are employed at the first and three full-time and three part time at the second. Salaries range from £525 to £650 a year for the basic grade of physiotherapist to £710 to £870 for the superintendent grade.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that over Dundee as a whole the number of physiotherapists is running at rather less than half what it should be? Does he not agree that this is due to the pitifully inadequate salaries that they are offered? Is he aware that Dundee Football Club recently offered a physiotherapist for their players a salary substantially in excess of the salary received by the physiotherapist in the main teaching hospital responsible for thousands of Dundee people? Although Dundee Football Club is the best club in the country, is not the Government's meanness creating a cock-eyed situation?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman is really developing the almost classic case for almost indefinite inflation, one step leading to another for ever and ever more.

    New Teaching Hospital, Dundee
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the estimated dates for beginning and completing the new teaching hospital at Dundee.
    Mr. Maclay: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the hon. Member in his letter of 10th January, it is expected that building work will start in 1964; the regional hospital board will announce the actual starting date nearer the time. The construction time will probably be five to six years.
    Mr. Thomson: Will the Secretary of State deny absolutely the authoritative rumours which are now rife in Dundee that the starting date may be 1965 instead of 1964?
    Mr. Maclay: I gave the hon. Member the very latest information in my possession. I will certainly see if I can run down these rumours.

    Housing, Glasgow
    Mr. J. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for new houses in Glasgow and of the acute shortage of land, he will allow the areas at Darnley and Summers-town to be used for building.
    Mr. Maclay: Proposals for the development of these areas were
    410
    included among amendments to the Glasgow Development Plan put forward following the quinquennial review. The objections to these amendments were the subject of an inquiry last year. I am aware of the urgency and shall issue my decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bennett: While thanking the Secretary of State for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that it is ten years since an earlier Secretary of State for Scotland advised the local authority to look to these areas for the building of houses? Is it not a shocking state of affairs that in 1962 we are no nearer having this land for the building of houses than we were then?
    Mr. Maclay: As my original Answer indicated, I have received the report of the inquiry and am studying it as fast as I can.
    Mr. Hannan: Is it not possible for the Secretary of State, having made up his mind on this matter, to let the local authority know his decision in advance of his decision on the overall plan?
    Mr. Maclay: I would not exclude that possibility, but certainly at this stage I must have some idea of what the overall plan will look like before I could even consider what the hon. Member suggests.
    Mr. Mclnnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the reasons for his Department's objection to the site at South Toryglen being developed by Glasgow Corporation for housing purposes.
    Mr. Maclay: South Toryglen is zoned for housing in the Review of the Glasgow Development Plan. This Review has been the subject of a local inquiry, the report of which has recently been received and is now under urgent consideration.
    Mr. McInnes: Can I reasonably appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again to accelerate matters?
    Mr. Maclay: I will do the best I can but this is a very complex plan.

    Peel Hospital, Selkirkshire
    Commander Donaldsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why in Command Paper 1602, the Hospital Plan for Scotland, there is no mention of the

    411
    Peel Hospital in Selkirkshire either in the major or minor works programmes; and if he is satisfied that this hospital, serving a large area, is adequate and up to the standards required in the hospital service.
    Mr. Maclay: Minor works are being undertaken as necessary, and I believe the hospital is providing an adequate standard of service. Priority for major reconstructions is a matter, primarily, for the regional hospital board.
    Commander Donaldson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever opinion the regional hospital board has reached, it is not the opinion of the chairman and members of the Border Area Hospital Board, nor indeed of the vast majority of my constituents and those who also live in Berwickshire, apart from Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles? Is he aware that this general hospital is in such
    an isolated position that staff are not keen to go there? While not denigrating in any way the excellence of the hospital staff, from surgeons to potato peelers, who all perform excellent work, I would point out that this position is a source of great anxiety to my constituents and those in an adjoining constituency. Can my right hon. Friend go further and give some hope of a properly situated hospital up to modern standards in the reasonably near future?
    Mr. Maclay: I understand my 'hon. and gallant Friend's concern, for this is a very important matter, but he will appreciate that I am bound to have regard to the views of the regional hospital board in matters of this kind. I would mention that more than £230,000 have been spent on this hospital over the last ten years.

    Shipbuilding, Aberdeen (Trawlers)
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will request the White Fish Authority to speed consideration of four applications for loans or grants to build trawlers in Aberdeen, in view of the difficult shipbuilding position.
    Mr. Maclay: I understand that the Authority's Scottish Committee has, in accordance with a policy discussed with the trawler owners' association, deferred consideration of three applications and that a fourth has been withdrawn.
    412
    Decisions on individual applications are a matter for the Authority and much as I regret the shipbuilders' difficulties I could not properly intervene.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are applications outstanding with the White Fish Authority for building in the shipyards of Aberdeen which would not come under the category he has mentioned? Could he not make representations to the White Fish Authority, at a time when orders are few and it is very important to try to keep skilled men together in teams, that these applications should be considered with greater speed than they are at present?
    Mr. Maclay: All I can undertake to do is to study my hon. Friend's supplementary question, because I was not aware of the particular point she made in the first part of it.

    Burgh of Culross
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints he has received concerning allegations of maladministration in the burgh of Culross, Fife; whether he will investigate such charges; and whether he will reply to the complainants to that effect.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received representations about certain payments claimed by contractors and allegations that councillors have contravened certain statutory provisions. I can determine the legality of payments by a local authority only if they are reported
    to me by the auditor; and any person who has reason to believe that an offence has been committed should report the circumstances to the criminal authorities. I am sending copies of the hon. Member's Question and of this Answer to the town clerk, the auditor and the persons who made the representations.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very much obliged for that Answer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is rather strange. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two of the contractors were councillors or in one case an ex-councillor? Is not the case for prosecution abundantly made by reference to the relevant Section of the Local Government Act? Would

    413
    the right hon. Gentleman undertake to eliminate the impression created at Culross that he and his Department have been stalling on this matter for political purposes?
    Mr. Maclay: That is really a most preposterous suggestion for the hon. Member to make, and I have not heard it made by anybody else until this minute. I would refer the hon. Member to the original Answer which I gave, which sets out the position as it stands and explains the action I am taking.

    Child Care (Voluntary Homes)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the Report of the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care concerning the rôle of voluntary homes; and if he will take the necessary legislative and administrative action to give effect to the Council's recommendations for raising the standards of care, accommodation, equipment, quantity and quality of staff to those of the local authorities.
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. The Report did not recommend legislative action, but I have substantially increased the total grant available for raising the general standards of the homes. Local authorities have also agreed to increase their maintenance payments for the children for whom they are responsible.
    Mr. Hannan: Can the right hon. Gentleman let us into the secret as to who published and printed this Report? It is published in rather a tawdry fashion. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer this question. In view of the value of the Report, because it is an excellent one, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish it as a Command Paper? Will he, further, consider this, that the Report points out that many of these voluntary homes have no case work at all at the children's homes, and since this is a very important matter will he give some urgency to its consideration?
    Mr. Maclay: I will certainly consider everything the hon. Member has said in his supplementary question. I quite agree that the Report is a very valuable document, but I should not like to commit myself to publishing it in any
    414
    other form, because opinions and tastes differ as to what is the ideal form of such publications.

    Edinburgh-Glasgow Road (Parking)
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he intends to prohibit parking on the A.8 road between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
    Mr. Maclay: As soon as the necessary signs can be erected. Delivery is expected in the next few days and the no-waiting Order should be in force later this month.
    Mr. StodartIs my right hon. Friend aware that to get these signs up has taken, I think, over a year since this question was first raised, and that motorists will welcome the erection of them after waiting so patiently for them?
    Mr. Maclay: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments, but the fact is that the democratic procedures which we invariably follow in the Scottish Office in such matters do take a considerable time to implement.

    Forth Road Bridge
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has formed of the number of vehicles which will cross the Forth Road Bridge as compared with the total of those at present using the ferry and those travelling on the A.9 road to or from the Kincardine Bridge.
    Mr. Maclay: Up-to-date information on this matter is being compiled by the consulting engineers to the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board. Until this work is completed any prophesy I could make now would be based on out-of-date figures and might be misleading.
    Mr. Stodart: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this survey is to be carried out in some climate of urgency? Is he aware that the rate of fatal accidents in Edinburgh is the highest of any among the Scottish cities? Is he aware that the suburban railways in Edinburgh are under sentence of death, and is it not of great importance that heavy traffic or through traffic

    415
    which wishes to by-pass the city and to keep out of the centre should be enabled to do so?
    Mr. Maclay: On the question of urgency I can assure my hon. Friend that this is going forward as fast as reasonably possible. All the other points he raised, while related to the Question, do not really arise directly out of it.
    Mr. Steele: Could the Secretary of State give us some explanation as to why a survey is necessary to find out what traffic is likely to cross the bridge? Is there some doubt whether it will be completed or not?
    Mr. Maclay: There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The point is that since the original surveys were taken, before commencement of building, the pattern of traffic has changed, and it is necessary to do another survey, particularly in relation to tolls.
    Hon. Members: Oh.

    Education (School Places)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he is now formulating to meet the expected increase of 104,000 pupils by 1975 in the rolls of education authority and grant-aided schools.
    Mr. Maclay: The present level of educational building is fully adequate to provide by 1975 the additional places required.
    Mr. Rankin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this as a most extraordinary Answer? Is it not the case that in many places today existing pupils cannot be taught within the four walls of the school buildings and that in some places schools are running two sessions on one and the same day? How is he going to accommodate those 104,000 children without building new schools? Does he realise that the bulge of a few years ago has now become a plateau of definite height? Can he assure us that he will make a better go at solving the problem created by the plateau than he did when he was faced with the bulge?
    Mr. Maclay: The simple answer to most of the hon. Member's supplementary question is that 137,000 places have
    416
    been provided during the last three years, which suggests that there should be no special difficulty about providing 104,000 additional places by 1975.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Secretary of State aware that most education authorities in Scotland are seriously worried at this moment at the lack of proper buildings for the education of their children? Is he also aware that there are many heads of schools who have realised that they just cannot do the job they are supposed to do because of the scattered nature of the buildings? Is he not at all worried that added to those difficulties will be the extra one of increased population?
    Mr. Maclay: I agree that there are many imperfections, and it will take time to cure them, but I think that if she studies the figures I gave in my answer to the first supplementary question the hon. Lady will appreciate that this matter has been tackled with energy in past years and that we should be able to solve it.

    Remand Homes
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many remand homes are not being fully utilised; and what accommodation exists in such homes that is not being used.
    Mr. Maclay: All homes are fully used, but with a rapidly changing population any one may have many vacancies on any particular day.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that my information is that full use of accommodation at remand homes is quite uncertain? They are mostly homes covering a regional area. Would he not consider the concern of parents and probation officers and others because children, especially the first-offence cases, are being removed to Barlinnie and other prisons? Could he not examine the possibility of freezing some little accommodation in certain remand homes for use for this purpose till he gets his remand centres ready?
    Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. Member will appreciate that freezing of any of this accommodation might not have the effect he desires, because the population is bound to change almost hourly

    417
    in these remand homes, and while at any given moment there may be vacant places they may be filled up quickly and others may become empty.
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to implement the recommendations of the Special Committee of the Scottish Advisory Council on Child Care which recently reported to him on Scottish remand homes.
    Mr. Maclay: I have already asked local authorities to submit proposals for improving their remand home arrangements. I shall announce my decisions on the more general recommendations after I have received the views of the local authority associations, whom I have consulted.
    Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point that arises from the Report is that this is not a matter for the local authority? Is he aware that the Special Committee expressed dismay at the inadequacy of quality and quantity in the staff of the remand homes and pointed to the need for national negotiating machinery to secure that more and better paid staff should be employed? Is not this a matter for the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility?
    Mr. Maclay: I am bound to consider the views of local authorities on this matter before I come to any conclusions.

    School Dental Service
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have no regular school dental service; and how many more dentists would be required to give full dental coverage.
    Mr. Maclay: About a hundred more dentists are needed to provide adequate regular dental inspection. Treatment is a less serious problem as the parents of most of the children requiring it prefer to use the general dental service.
    Mr. Manuel: Is not this lack of staff and withering of the service a quite deplorable state of affairs? The Secretary of State will be aware that certain local authorities have decided that they are to allow children off from classes to attend outside dentists. Would it not be a great saving of educational
    418
    time if the preservation of teeth and dental care were done in dental clinics in the school? Will he tell the House how he is to recruit the necessary dentists in order that the work can take place at the schools?
    Mr. Maclay: I agree that this is highly desirable and discussions are going on about it, but the hon. Member should appreciate that only three of every eight parents offered treatment through the dental service accept it the rest prefer to use the normal service.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that dentists in Scotland are extremely worried about the condition of children's teeth which they consider to be largely due to the overeating of sweets? Can he not have some research made to see whether something can be done to ensure that children obtain the necessary vitamins to protect teeth against decay due to sweet-eating?
    Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have just launched a big campaign to try to encourage children to eat sweets at more sensible times. I am sure at any rate that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) would be an advocate of happy smiles.
    Mr. Manuel: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what I am concerned about is not the extraction aspect of this problem but the regular and urgent examination of children's teeth at school in order to ensure preservation? That is the aspect to which the right hon. Gentleman should apply his mind and not the actual dental work ensuing from inspection.
    Mr. Maclay: I do not disagree with the hon. Member.

    Central Scotland (Regional Planning)
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the proposal made by the Scottish section of the Town and Country Planning Association, in its Interim Report on Investigations into Dispersal Policy in Scotland, a copy of which has been sent to him, that he should appoint a small commission to examine the regional planning problems of the central belt of Scotland; and what reply he has made.
    Mr. Maclay: These matters involve issues of policy and administration which are of such wide-ranging importance and complexity that I do not consider they could be usefully remitted to a single commission, however representative.
    Mrs. Hart: Is the Secretary of State implying that he believes that his own officials are perfectly competent to deal with these problems? Does he not recognise that when voices of such authority as are contained in this memorandum suggest that a commission would be valuable, this suggestion might well be taken up? Is he aware that such a commission might even offer advice which his own planning officials have not so far put forward?
    Mr. Maclay: I am well aware of the importance of the body which produced this memorandum, but frankly I am not very keen on jumping into appointing yet another committee for the sake of appointing one. The stystem of consultation between the Department and the local authorities and other interested organisations is effective, but my mind will not be closed at some future date if there is need to consider any further steps.
    Mrs. Hart: Is not this a matter which is very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to deal with by consultation between his planning officials and separate local authorities? Is he not aware that the whole point is that the matter should be considered on a regional basis and that from that point of view a commission which could gather information on a regional basis could provide information which might be valuable?
    Mr. Maclay: The new town of Livingstone and the area proposals theme are an example of what the hon. Lady wants.

    Approved Schools
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how often approved schools will be visited by his inspectors under the new regulations issued in December; and how many are employed in the inspectorate.
    Mr. Maclay: It is hoped that one or other of the two inspectors principally responsible for approved schools will be
    420
    able to visit each school at least twice each term. In addition, they, and the specialist inspectors and my Department's medical officer, will visit individual schools as often as may be necessary.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that this number will be adequate to avoid a recurrence of such incidents as happened in my constituency about three years ago? In view of this and other Questions on these matters, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the time has arrived when he should review all the services for young people, covering remand homes, remand centres, detention centres, borstals, children's homes and the rest in order to establish a new and logical service for young people?
    Mr. Maclay: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, the recent appointment of a second inspector for approved school work will enable the inspectorate to keep in touch more closely with the schools than was the case formerly. We will certainly watch whether the service is adequate. The second part of the supplementary question raises a very wide issue.

    Tourists (Tax)
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the taxing of tourists in Scotland; and if he will give an assurance that, in considering such representations, he will take into account the need to develop tourism in the Highlands, and the traditional hospitality of that area.
    Mr. Maclay: The suggestion for such a tax came up at a conference recently organised by the Scottish Tourist Board and it is considering it. The only representation which I have had came from the hon. Gentleman himself. The Answer to the second part of his Question is "Yes, Sir".
    Sir D. Robertson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appoint the Scottish Tourist Board? Is he not aware that a proposal of this kind to tax very welcome visitors, wherever they come from, is wholly repugnant to people in

    421
    Scotland? Would it not injure the tourist trade which is the Government's economic policy for the Highlands?
    Mr. Maclay: I feel that it would be only right to await the Scottish Tourist Board's views before attempting to come to a conclusion on this important matter.
    Mr. Stodart: Is it not the case that in several countries where tourism is one of the most successful industries a small taxe de séjour is imposed and there is no feeling of any hostility on the part of visitors because of it?
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not also the case that the country which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has in mind, which I think is Switzerland, is in a position entirely different from that of Scotland? It is surrounded by great nations whose nationals can walk, drive or go by train over the border and do not have to cross the Channel or undertake a long journey.
    Mr. Maclay: This is obviously a matter which allows differences of view.
    Mr. Hoy: Is it not complete nonsense to think of taxing people who come to certain parts of the country and excluding all the rest? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not say that it is nonsense and have done with it?
    Mr. Maclay: I am not prepared to say that it is nonsense before the Tourist Board, which is doing invaluable work in attracting visitors to Scotland, has expressed its views.

    County Road System
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received a memorandum stressing the need to accelerate the rate of progress of the improvement of the county road system and other relative matters; and what reply he is making.
    Mr. Maclay: I understand that the County Council of Ross and Cromarty is considering sending me such a memorandum. If and when it does so I shall study it carefully.
    Mr. MacLeod: Does my right hon. Friend realise that at the present rate it will take forty-three years and thirty
    422
    four years respectively to bring trunk and Class 1 roads even up to the required standard and that the rate of progress is not keeping pace with the increased traffic? Is it not time that we had a comprehensive road programme which should be carried out with a sense of urgency?
    Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a very substantial increase in expenditure on road building in recent years.

    Cowglen Military Hospital (Land)
    Mr. Mclnnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if a definite decision has yet been reached with regard to the future use of the land at Cowglen Military Hospital.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. The Western Regional Hospital Board has not yet completed its plans for the reorganisation of general hospital services in Glasgow and in consequence a decision cannot be reached.
    Mr. Mclnnes: Will the Secretary of State undertake to accelerate proceedings in the negotiations which are taking place? The right hon. Gentleman must, and I believe he does, recognise the tremendous housing problem in Glasgow.
    Mr. Maclay: I have asked the regional hospital board to complete its review of sites and services as soon as possible.

    Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the time of waiting at the out-patient department at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley.
    Mr. Maclay: I am not aware of any general difficulty; but if the hon. Member has a specific complaint I shall gladly look into it.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received complaints of patients having to wait four and five hours and even longer in the out-patient department? Is he aware that no responsibility attaches to the

    423
    staff of the hospital and that they require facilities at the hospital with which only he can deal? Will the right hon. Gentleman get on with the job of giving Paisley decent hospital facilities?
    Mr. Maclay: I should be very grateful if the hon. Member would send me the details of matters which cause him concern. The regional board has agreed in principle to provide more premises in order that additional clinics may be held.
    Miss Herbison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not dependent upon my hon. Friend sending details of one or two cases of someone having to wait a long time? Is he aware that in quite a number of hospitals there is no appointment system and that waiting time is far too long and that he should be trying to do something about these matters?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Lady must be aware that I have taken a great deal of trouble to try to get hospitals to institute the very system she is asking me about, and many hospitals have done so. I have only to receive details to follow up a particular case.

    Migration
    Mr. J. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the gross and net figures of migration of people from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom and overseas, respectively, during 1961.
    Mr. Maclay: Figures will not be available until May.

    Primary School Places
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of primary school places provided by new school building in Lanarkshire and Scotland, respectively, from 1946 to the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Maclay: The number of primary school places provided in the period 1946 to 1961 inclusive is approximately 41,000 in Lanarkshire and 259,000 in Scotland.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite his boasting only a short time ago about the rapidity of the
    424
    provision of school places, this is considerably less than half the number of primary school children in Scotland? Is he aware that there has been a serious division of opinion between his Department and the Lanarkshire education authority on the question of school buildings which has held up work now for over a year? Will he see whether something can be done to meet Lanarkshire's problem so that Lanarkshire especially, if not the whole of Scotland, can get on with the provision of very badly needed school places? Will he especially see what can be done in my own constituency at Wishaw, where there is a very serious lack of school places?
    Mr. Maclay: I very greatly regret the difficulties which have arisen with the Lanarkshire education authority over the last period. Fortunately, I am glad to say that it has now agreed to continue building.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Secretary of State aware that more than two-thirds of the school building programme as now decided up to 1963 will be concentrated in the new town of East Kilbride? We have no objection to East Kilbride getting school places, but is he aware that one-third of the building programme is quite insufficient for the rest of Lanarkshire?
    Mr. Maclay: The programme now submitted to me will undoubtedly need further examination as time goes on.

  TRANSPORT

    Road Accidents (Speed Limits)
    Mr. Graham Pageasked the Minister of Transport to what extent the imposition of a 40 miles per hour speed limit has reduced the number of personal injury road accidents on roads previously without a speed limit and on roads where there was previously a 30 miles per hour limit, respectively; and if he will relate the figures of his answer to the several categories of road users.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): From a sample survey in the London Traffic Area the Road Research Laboratory concludes that on roads previously without a speed limit personal injury

    425
    accidents were 19 per cent. fewer than would otherwise have been expected. On roads previously subject to a 30 m.p.h. limit the number of accidents was not significantly affected by the change.
    There was no significant difference between the results for different classes of road user.
    Mr. Page: As these speed limits really do, as my hon. Friend said, reduce accidents, will he ask our right hon. Friend to do a little propaganda to this effect instead of sending out circulars to local authorities telling them, in rather an anti-speed limit tone, to review the speed limits?
    Mr. Hay: I do not accept the interpretation which my hon. Friend places on the circular which the Ministry has recently issued. We have neglected no opportunity of drawing the attention of all road users to the importance of keeping to speed limits because of their road safety value.

    Road Accidents (Alcoholic Beverages)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Transport whether he has studied the relationship between the increased volume of advertising of alcoholic beverages in the month preceding Christmas, 1961, and the number of road accidents during this period; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hay: I doubt very much whether such a study would produce any useful results.
    We take every opportunity both at Christmas and at other times of warning people of the dangers of drinking and driving. New proposals for strengthening the law about drinking and driving are an important feature of the Road Traffic Bill now before this House.
    Mr. Edelman: But is it not the case that last Christmas the average number of road deaths per day rose by 25 per cent.? In these circumstances, and despite the efforts of the Ministry, is it not absolutely useless for the Minister of Transport to appear on television announcing that he has just had a glass of sherry but that his wife has been driving him while at the same time powerful vested interests are concerned
    426
    with the promotion of the sales of alcohol, thus making sure that the number of drivers affected by alcohol is increased at a time of such significance in regard to road casualty rates?
    Mr. Hay: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, but I have answered the Question which he tabled. We frequently take the opportunities that present themselves to warn people about the dangers of drinking and driving, and we have now brought before the House a Bill which will strengthen our hands in this respect.
    Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I had some Ministerial responsibility for road safety we persuaded the brewers to put up in very many of their premises posters pointing out the danger to road safety in drinking too much? Will he consider whether some further steps in this direction might not be feasible?
    Mr. Hay: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that quite recently a number of brewers have been doing this again. In addition, there have been certain advertisements by the manufacturers of alcoholic drink drawing attention to the danger of drinking and driving.
    Mr. Edelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  ROADS

    Epping New Road, Buckhurst Hill (Lay-bys)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Transport when he expects the projected lay-bys to be made on the Epping New Road in Buckhurst Hill.
    Mr. Hay: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to various proposed sites for lay-bys between Woodford Green and Warren Hill. Further consideration of these has been postponed until a decision has been reached on the sites proposed further North where the road passes through Epping Forest.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are much concerned about safety on this road? While it is highly desirable to

    427
    preserve to the full the amenities of Epping Forest, would he see whether, if he comes to the conclusion that lay-bys would interfere with the amenities, a clearway might not be expedient?
    Mr. Hay: We are always prepared to consider proposals for clearways where the design characteristics of the road are suitable. We are at the moment seeing whether something can be done to provide clearway conditions and lay-bys along the whole length of this road. Discussions are continuing with the Epping Conservators.

  SHIPBUILDING

    Orders
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport how many shipbuilding orders, and of what total tonnage, were placed in British yards during 1961; and how this compares with 1959 and 1960.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): In 1961 183 vessels of 887,000 gross tons were ordered from United Kingdom shipyards, and orders for 18 vessels of 198,000 gross tons were cancelled. In 1960, 232 vessels were ordered totalling 558,000 gross tons and orders for 24 vessels of 228,000 gross tons were cancelled. In 1959 there were orders for 185 vessels of 319,000 gross tons and orders for 21 vessels of 314,000 gross tons were cancelled.

    Launchings
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Transport what was the total tonnage of shipping launched from British yards during 1961; how this compares with 1959 and 1960: and what is the potential capacity of British yards.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: In 1961 1,190,000 gross tons of merchant ships were launched in United Kingdom yards. The figure for 1960 was 1,330,000, and for 1959 1,370,000 gross tons. The industry estimated last year that potential annual output was some 1,600,000 gross tons, apart from new naval construction.
    Mr. Williams: I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for those figures. Can he confirm, or otherwise, to the House that the importance of the figures is that they show that there is at the moment a decline in the shipbuilding industry? Does not this heighten the need for an urgent and immediate debate on the matter in the House of Commons? Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that it is not quite good enough for him to tell me in a few seconds' time that this is not his responsibility? Surely it is his responsibility to press this on the Leader of the House. The House deserves a debate on this matter, and very soon indeed.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the improvement since 1959 is encouraging, but at the same time a considerably greater volume of orders would be necessary to keep the industry fully occupied. The net orders last year represented less than half the capacity. As to the matter of a debate, I live in hope, as my hon. Friend does.
    Dr. King: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that one very important factor in the obtaining of orders for shipbuilding is the amount of credit facilities which the Government are willing to provide for the shipbuilders who seek to obtain contracts abroad? Will he give very grave consideration to this important aspect?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, Sir, but I am quite confident that the new arrangements for export credits which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 23rd January will be of great assistance to our shipbuilders in obtaining foreign orders.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. and gallant Friend give the percentage of those figures applying to Scotland and say whether the position shows any improvement?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I cannot give the percentage without notice, but, speaking from memory, I think it is fair to say that Clydeside had a very good year, especially in the latter half of 1961.
    Mr. Mellish: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is a problem with which the unions and the employers are gravely concerned, and that it is one which we ought to be discussing in the House as a matter of urgency? Will he please see to it that we have such a debate, so that we may have an indication of what the Government are proposing to do? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to Clydeside, but will he also remember that Belfast is in a very serious position? What has he to offer Belfast, which is supposed to be part of the United Kingdom?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I certainly look forward to a debate as much as does the hon. Gentleman, and we live in hope. I agree that the situation in the Belfast yards is serious.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 6th February].
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL

    Clause 4.—(OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION.)
    3.31 p.m.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, to leave out subsection (2).
    Clause 4 does something——
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order, Sir William. Has your attention been drawn to the very bad conduct of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who is taunting hon. Members on this side about a lapse of manners which he had yesterday, which caused a commotion in the House and a slander to be uttered against my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin)?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order——
    The Chairman: It is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), if he is referring to an incident at all, is referring to what happened in the House. We are now in Committee.
    Mr. Manuel: I am sorry if I said "House", Sir William. I should have said "Committee". The incident happened after the House had gone into Committee and after the Mace had been placed below the Table. It was that incident to which I was drawing your attention.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member of his explanation, but I think that we should get on with our work now.
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Fast asleep, again.
    Mr. John Rankin: Liar.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Clause 4 does something which is, I think, new in our legislation. It imposes penalties under the criminal law on British subjects for entering the United Kingdom. I think that the Committee will probably agree with me in the view that, if we are to have this extension of our criminal law, the extension ought to be meticulously examined and ought not to go beyond the necessities of the case—if the case, indeed, has any necessities—and ought not to impose an unreasonable burden on the ordinary citizens of this country.
    There were a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper which sought to define or limit the actual offences committed by overseas British subjects in a criminal desire to come and visit the national homeland, but these have not been selected. Subsection 2 is not a provision which imposes any criminal liability on the unfortunate British subject from overseas who has managed to evade, or did not know about, or got in without, a proper certificate or voucher or authority, or without compliance with some instructions which the Home Secretary some day is to give to immigration officers. But it applies to all of us who are here already and who are made subject to a penal code—unless all 50 million of us constitute ourselves into a wide network of espionage and stooging generally on behalf of the immigration officers.
    In asking the Committe to leave out subsection (2), I invite the Committee to consider carefully what it does. I invite the Home Secretary, even if he thinks my description of the Clause exaggerated and unfair, nevertheless to look at the subsection and consider whether he really wants to have it in the Bill.
    "If any person knowingly harbours any person…"
    The rest of the subsection directs attention to something wrongful that "any person" may have done, but the "knowingly", as I read the subsection, does not refer to that, but only to the harbouring of a person.
    Thus, if one has harboured a person who has committed, or who has rendered himself, as it were, liable under
    432
    subsection (2), even though one did not know of it or had no reasonable ground for believing it to be the case, one is liable, with the word "knowingly" placed as it is in this subsection.
    What kind of person is it that one must not harbour?
    "…any person who he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing to have committed an offence under subsection (1) of this section, being an offence committed by entering or remaining within the United Kingdom, he shall be guilty of an offence."
    So, if someone comes and wants to rent a room in one's house one must presumably inquire who he is and how he comes to be in the country.
    That one must do first, because otherwise one will not be able to say, if one harbours an offending person, that one had no reasonable ground for believing that he was such a person, and, in order to be able to say that one had no reasonable ground, presumably one must make reasonable inquiries. If one has made no inquiries, then the defence of not having any reasonable ground will not avail one, because one will be told that a reasonable man would have asked, knowing the law, whether this was a visitor from overseas and whether he had entered legally or illegally.
    First, one must ask him who he is, where he comes from, and, if he is from a Commonwealth country, whether he has a voucher and whether he has had permission to land. One must ask all these questions in order to begin to establish for oneself the case that, if he turns out to be a "wrong 'un", one had no reasonable ground for suspecting it and that one therefore did not know.
    What is the offence which he may have committed? It is if he
    "enters or remains within the United Kingdom, otherwise than in accordance with the directions…of an immigration officer…"
    One must not only inquire whether the immigration officer allowed him to land, but what directions the immigration officer gave him, and what he has been doing in the meantime, and how long he has been here, and whether during all that time he has complied with the directions.
    The end of the subsection says:
    "…any offence under this subsection, being an offence committed by entering or remaining in the United Kingdom, shall be deemed

    433
    to continue throughout any period during which the offender is in the United Kingdom thereafter."
    It is a continuing offence which goes on throughout the whole of the remainder of his stay in this country.
    One hon. and learned Member yesterday told us that it was obvious that people covered by the Bill and its penalties were people coming here to become permanently resident—I think that he used the word "settle". Such a person might come as a child or young person. He might not have had authority. He might have been here for five, ten, twenty or twenty-five years thereafter, but his offence is a continuing offence and anyone who harbours him, when either knowing it or having reasonable grounds for supposing it, would be guilty of an offence under subsection (2).
    It may well be that the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will say that they do not mean anything of that kind, do not mean to be oppressive, or meticulous, or to take small points against people, and that they will not harry anybody or worry anybody unnecessarily. But it is one thing to say that in support of the Bill and quite another to make sure that nobody, in fact, will be harrassed, or distressed, or oppressed, as a result of the Bill. In a Bill of this kind there is no need to extend the bounds of the penal law anything like so far as is sought by subsection (2).
    No doubt it has been included because a perfectionist in the Home Office, or in the Attorney-General's Department, has sought round to inquire with great diligence to see what kind of offence might some day be committed by somebody, and to make sure that no loophole was left and that every door was slammed tight and that even keyholes were blocked up. That is no doubt necessary with some kinds of legislation. If one were talking about bringing noxious drugs into the country, one would be at great pains to see that every possible loophole was blocked up. One can conceive of a number of circumstances in which great particularity would be justified in seeing not merely that no offence was committed, but that no possibility of an offence remained.
    434
    That does not apply to this Bill. Is great moral obloquy involved if a reputable citizen of a Commonwealth country gets into this country without having the leave of an immigration officer, or, subject to a direction, with which he complies for a time but which becomes irksome and burdensome or unnecessary, departs from without taking the proper steps to get the direction removed or modified? No doubt an offence is committed, but is it really necessary to go to the lengths involved in this Clause? On what possible grounds is it suggested that one is justified in going beyond that and saying that anyone who rents him a room, or does him a kindness, or anybody with whom he spends a weekend shall himself be guilty of an offence if it turns out that many years ago the immigrant committed an offence which remains a continuing offence by reason of subsection (1)?
    3.45 p.m.
    There will be created an atmosphere which the Home Secretary, I am sure, does not want. I said yesterday, and I now repeat, that the only kind of sense which the Bill makes is that it is in essence a colour-bar Bill. I do not believe that there is anyone who has followed these discussions who does not believe, as I put it yesterday, that if all immigrants from our Commonwealth countries were white, the Bill would never have been heard of.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that subsection (2), which makes it an offence to harbour people who may have committed an offence under the Bill, will apply to anywhere but those districts where there is a large coloured population? Will the Bill produce an atmosphere which will encourage people to regard their fellow citizens as equal with themselves, whatever their colour and whatever their origin? Of course it will not. There will be produced an atmosphere in which people will be afraid to afford any kind of hospitality, to offer help, to offer reasonable lodgings, to look after people, in case it should turn out that they themselves are committing the offence of harbouring under subsection (2).
    The Bill is a monstrosity, anyhow, and might almost be a parody of parts of the New Testament. In this the Pharisee

    435
    will not walk past on the other side, but will call the police force to take the injured person back to Egypt. That is the kind of thing the Government are legislating for. That is the kind of atmosphere they will produce by bringing in the criminal law in this way and applying it in remote cases to people who may be at risk for many years without really knowing what they are at risk about. I urge the Minister to look at this subsection again and consider whether the Bill would not be just a little better without subsection (2) of Clause 4.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I would like briefly to support the Amendment. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary do not desire to make the Bill an occasion for an extensive superfluous addition to the penal provisions in our law. Having regard to the points put so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I hope that they will make the gesture—not a very expansive gesture in all the circumstances, but very welcome—of accepting the Amendment.
    What is gained by having this subsection in the Bill? If a person enters or remains within the United Kingdom otherwise than in accordance with the direction, or under the authority, of an immigration officer, it is right that there should be available, given the principle of the Bill, some sanction or machinery to bear against him. But, having done that, he is, as my hon. Friend said, harboured out of kindness, out of charity, by someone.
    When the executive authority goes to the house of the person who has harboured the unlawful immigrant, one of two things will have happened, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be good enough to have regard to this. Either the immigrant will be there in the house being harboured, in which case he can be apprehended for an offence under the Bill. What, on that hypothesis, can be gained by also making the harbourer subject to a penal provision in the Statute? What in the world is gained, even granted the principle upon which the Bill is founded,
    436
    by also making the man who is giving the unlawful immigrant shelter guilty of an offence? If the illegal immigrant is in the house and the authorities get him, surely in that way they have satisfied their legitimate purposes.
    Alternatively, the illegal immigrant will have left the house. What, on this hypothesis, is gained by apprehending and making subject to penalty the man who has given him shelter, who let him into the stable, and the police have come along when the stable door has been left open for too long and too wide? There is nothing gained for the effective purposes of this legislation by making it an offence on the part of the person who has harboured the unlawful immigrant. What the authorities are legitimately after, granted the principle of the Bill, is the apprehension of, and penalty for, the illegal immigrant.
    I suggest to the Committee and to the Government that very little indeed is gained by this superfluous provision that the person who has harboured the unlawful immigrant should be made subject to penalty. I hope that, having regard to considerations of that kind, and to what I admitted at the beginning, and wish to repeat now, my acceptance of the point that the Government do not desire to build on the Bill an unnecessary edifice of penal legislation, the Amendment will be accepted.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I rise now because it might be to the convenience of the Committee to deal now with the points raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine).
    I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that it is a necessary corollary of the proposal to control immigration that those who enter illegally, or those who remain longer than they are permitted to under a condition which may be imposed—and, I said yesterday, this is not likely to be imposed in many cases—should be liable to criminal prosecution if they do. This is on the basis, which many hon. Members do not accept, that the control of immigration has to be carried out.
    The question arises whether it is necessary to have this provision creating an

    437
    offence which has been referred to as harbouring, but, with respect to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, the version he gave the Committee of what the offence is was slightly misleading. He created the impression that anyone who harboured, in the sense of taking into his premises, or renting a room to, an illegal immigrant, or to one who had remained beyond his permitted time, would be put on inquiry to ask a whole series of questions at any time before he could lawfully permit him inside.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman advise him not to?
    The Attorney-General: The subsection does not provide anything of the sort. I want to make this clear, because this is a fundamental misconception. It is not an offence just to harbour what, to save time, I might call an illegal immigrant. The offence, and the burden of proving this rests on the prosecution, is knowingly harbouring the illegal immigrant, when the owner of the premises knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that the person is an illegal immigrant.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Having regard to the words
    "or has reasonable grounds for believing",
    if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were called upon professionally to advise the keeper of a lodging house in the East End of London about the letting of his rooms to a coloured immigrant, would he advise him not to ask any of these questions?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that he is under an obligation to ask any of them. It has to be proved that the lodging-house keeper either had actual knowledge that the person was an illegal immigrant, or had reasonable grounds for believing it. If the illegal immigrant says nothing about where he has come from, or what he is doing, and if the lodging-house keeper asks him no questions, I fail to see how the person harbouring can possibly be liable to conviction. I might not carry the hon. Gentleman with me, but I think that his fears are not justified, and I do not think that this provision can have, or could be expected to have, the consequences he foresaw.
    438
    We have considered this carefully, and we believe that this is a necessary ancillary proposal to the creation of the criminal offence of illegally entering or illegally remaining in this country. I think that it is reasonable that people who are prepared to help others to escape the notice of the authorities, knowing that they are illegal immigrants, and to help them to remain here, should themselves be liable to a penalty.
    I regard this provision as a necessary deterrent to those who might be tempted to set up a system to assist those who come into the country in breach of the law as it will be if the Bill is passed, or to remain here in breach of the conditions lawfully imposed under the Bill.
    This is a necessary provision, though I doubt very much whether there will be any prosecutions under it, because the difficulties of proving that a particular individual has reasonable grounds for believing the man to be an illegal immigrant, or that he knows it, are not likely to lead to many prosecutions. At the same time, it is desirable that we should have this in the Bill so that if need be, in appropriate cases, a prosecution can be brought, and as a deterrent to those who might otherwise participate in the evasions of the provisions of the Bill.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I am quite unconvinced by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. At the moment, we have the advantage of having with us the Leader of the House, whose principal article of faith is the brotherhood of man. History shows how that doctrine has compelled people, through the ages, to commit just the kind of thing, on the basis of religion, against which the subsection is directed. The song "John Brown's Body" commemorates a man who believed that where people were oppressed, in the way that this Bill oppresses people, it was a virtue and not a crime to help them. How many miles have some of us marched singing in memory of him!
    If there is ever a prosecution under this subsection of the Bill, members of the Society of Friends—whose record in this kind of thing is very honourable—will feel not that they see a black man,

    439
    but one who was the inspirer of their faith, and who said:
    "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me…Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman may contemplate with equanimity the prospect of prosecuting people who, in this case, will be inspired not by any sordid motive or desire to flout the law, but by the belief that it is part of a Christian's duty to see that no man is oppressed when they can prevent it.
    Mr. Michael Foot: It is hardly possible to add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). This is a most intolerable proposal of the Government, and I wish to make only a few comments on what was said by the Attorney-General. In mitigation of the horror of this subsection, and in response to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), he said that the best advice he could give lodging-house keepers was not to ask any questions, because then they would not be in any difficulty. I do not know whether he would like to make that quite clear, but he apparently agrees that if lodging-house keepers do not ask any questions they cannot get into any trouble.
    That is the advice of the Attorney-General; it is not what the Clause says. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may easily mislead many people by giving such advice. I submit that that is not what the Clause says, and it would be most extraordinary for the Attorney-General of England to be able to say that if people wanted to get round a provision demanding that they should have reasonable grounds for believing that an offence had been committed they could do so merely by not asking any questions. We know that this will work exactly the other way round in practice.
    One of the problems in some of the areas to which immigrants go when they arrive in this country—and one of the problems which is designed to be dealt with by the Bill on racial discrimination which is now before the House, and which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr.
    440
    Brockway)—is that lodging-house keepers, hotel keepers, or other people who provide housing facilities, already operate racial discrimination.
    Despite what the Attorney-General says, the Bill is a direct provocation to hotel and lodging-house keepers to exercise racial discrimination, because if they do so they will be safe, and cannot be prosecuted under the subsection. An immigrant may say, "I am in the clear. I have a voucher", or "I came in under the other Clause under which immigrants are allowed in." The lodging-house keeper may then say, "That may be so, but I have to play safe; I had someone last week who told me that he had a voucher when he did not have one." He is safer if he exercises racial discrimination than if he does not.
    The Clause, therefore, clearly encourages certain people to engage in forms of racial discrimination which the Government say that they are against, although they refuse to comply with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough to help pass his Bill to make it an offence. And the same Government which refuse to make racial discrimination an offence proceed, at exactly the same time, to introduce a provision in a Bill which will encourage the application of racial discrimination.
    There is only one defence for the step which the Government are taking, and the action which the Attorney-General has defended—and it is a poor one. Assuming that we accept that this kind of Bill is necessary, and that the Government are determined to have it, the only possible excuse that the Home Secretary can make for inserting this provision is that the Bill is inoperable without it. If the Government say that—and the Attorney-General did not go so far in his defence of it—that is a major argument. But if that is their argument it means that the provision will have a very wide application.
    The only possible defence for this provision is that if it is not inserted in the Bill it will be possible to drive a coach and horses through it, but the Attorney-General did not say that; he said that it was a necessary ancillary proposal, or a needed deterrent. He did not claim that it was essential. If he meant to claim that, it is clear that this provision

    441
    will be applied over a wide area, and that will make its offensiveness all the greater. If, on the other hand, as the Attorney-General appeared to indicate, this subsection will be applied only very rarely—and I think that at one point he said that there would be no prosecutions under it——
    The Attorney-General: I said that there would not be many.
    Mr. Foot: First, he said that there would be no prosecutions at all, and a moment or two later he said that there would not be many. He can check that in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Let us suppose that there are no prosecutions, or not many—in other words, that this provision is not very important to the Bill. If that is the case, why should not the Government have the generosity to delete it? The provision will affect not merely the persons to whom its terms will be found eventually to apply; it will give a wonderful handle to some people who have been the mast passionate supporters of the Bill but whose support the Government have repudiated.
    We know that some organisations in this country are attempting to stir up racial discrimination, especially in areas where great numbers of coloured immigrants are living, and we know that they are trying to intimidate lodging-house keepers and others not to take in coloured immigrants.
    Does the Attorney-General believe that these evil organisations will not use this provision in their attempts to persuade lodging-house keepers? Does not he think that they will say, "You now have a perfect excuse for not taking coloured people into your house." Does he think that that kind of thing will not be done? What the Government appear to be saying is that it does not matter whether or not they have the provision, but they mean to insist on it, even with all its evil consequences.
    On many occasions the Home Secretary has claimed that he was extremely reluctant to introduce the Bill, that he hates it, has fought against its introduction, and greatly desired not to have to introduce it. If he wishes to show his sincerity in making that claim he should say that he will drop this provision, at any rate. That would be a proof of his
    442
    sincerity. But if he is not even prepared to drop this provision—which his own Attorney-General says will involve very few prosecutions, and is merely a necessary ancillary proposal—very few of us will attach any credit to his claim that he was reluctant to introduce the Bill.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Hon. Members opposite have spoken as though this provision were an astonishing novelty, something being introduced into our law for the first time. Over the years many people have sought to enter this country and have been subject to a code of law which, in many respects, is similar to what we are proposing today to enact. Hon. Members who have spoken did not in this respect draw any distinction which
    I have heard between British citizens and Italians or others. What they have said would have been equally applicable to any person coming to this country——
    Mr. S. Silverman: I referred to British subjects.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member's comments were in no sense limited to British subjects. He was not making a patriotic speech——
    Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Baronet is mistaken. It may be that I did not make myself clear. But I began by saying that for the first time a criminal sanction was being applied against British subjects entering the homeland.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not applying a criminal sanction against British subjects entering this country.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Of course it is.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Amendment with which we are concerned applies to British subjects who are here. It applies to those who are harbouring them.
    The language used in the Aliens Order of 1953 has a great similarity to the words in this Bill. In Article 25 (2) of that Order it states:
    "If any person aids or abets any person in the commission of an offence under this Order, or knowingly harbours any person whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing to have committed such an offence, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Order…"
    Those words are very nearly identical. They were put into that Order, which is

    443
    a consolidating Order, and they appear in Orders which were in force when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman operated those words without difficulty, and I venture to suppose that the words in the Bill can be operated equally effectively and justly under the present legislation.
    Miss Jennie Lee: When listening to the Attorney-General I had the feeling that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was taken by surprise, that he was considering the subsection for the first time. I assume that the Attorney-General is a reasonable man. It must have been evident that if we allow this subsection to remain in the Bill we shall favour the artful dodger and the good liar, and cause trouble to all kinds of simple people.
    This provision will apply to coloured people, to very poor people. We have to be especially on our guard to protect them. There may be a case involving someone who has taken in a lodger. It may be that a woman is involved who may become confused. She may have heard something or she might say something. It is the simple people who could be easily trapped. An accomplished liar or a more sophisticated person would not be caught.
    This subsection will bring the law into disrepute. This is a subsection which the Attorney-General himself says he does not think will be operated often. But it seems to me clear that so far as it may be operated, it will operate against the simpler and more honest type of citizen. The more serious delinquent will know how to escape this very wide net.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. David Weitzman: The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) suggested that there was no novelty about these words. There is not. Of course we have provisions of the same kind applicable in other branches of the law. That is not the point. There is a difference in its application in that, for the first time, a British citizen is concerned in this connection. But that is not the point.
    I have listened time and again to the Horn Secretary protesting about how
    444
    sorry he was that the Bill was necessary and how much he regretted that an enactment of this kind had to be placed on the Statute Book. If that be so—I accept, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman was sincerely expressing that opinion—surely the Home Secretary will endeavour to make the Measure as innocuous and harmless as possible. Here we have taken one great step. For the first time we are prohibiting British citizens from coming freely and having the right of free entry to this country. Is it necessary to go further? Is it necessary to make this part of a penal code in the way advocated?
    I am wondering how the matter will be dealt with. I accept the position in law as it was so clearly set out by the Attorney-General. I agree that the words in the Bill are "knowingly harbours", and that a person, to be guilty of the offence, has to know, or have reasonable grounds for believing, that an offence has been committed. But how are we to prove an offence? Are we to send a police officer to the house to cross-examine the person concerned and obtain evidence in that way? Shall we seize the person concerned and submit him to a cross-examination?
    Just think of the words used by the Attorney-General—I accept them as being absolutely correct—that this Measure will not be used at all, or may be used only on a few occasions. If that be so, why is it necessary to create this offence? I take this opportunity to beg the Home Secretary to think again about this matter. I plead with the Minister not to inflict a criminal offence of this kind by legislation which may not be used, or which is unnecessary. I say frankly that the very fact that we propose to impose a Measure of this kind will create a great deal of mistrust and do a great deal of harm and suspicion. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give in to us on this point. Surely he can look again at this provision and do something about its exclusion.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: I wish to endorse the pleas which have been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and to ask the Government to reconsider their views. The Attorney-General told us that because of difficulties of law it was unlikely that there

    445
    would be any prosecutions and that, certainly, any prosecutions there were would be very few. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), at one point the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would be no prosecution and then he qualified that statement slightly. In any case, it seems likely that this Clause will not be used frequently. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they cannot consider the deterrent effect of the subsection as being out of all proportion to the damage which it will do.
    After all, the provisions of the Bill as a whole are not directed against criminal activities. It is turning the traditionally free movement of Commonwealth citizens into this country into an illegal act. This subsection will carry that a step further. It is saying that anyone who knowingly harbours somebody guilty of an illegal act is himself liable to exactly the same penalties. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who said that this could easily involve questions of conscience of great importance to the citizens of this country or, alternatively, to Commonwealth citizens coming to this country perfectly legally.
    Some of us in this Committee have on occasions given shelter, comfort and consolation to citizens of the Commonwealth or citizens of our Colonies who live in this country because if they had gone back to the Colonies they would have been subject to arrest. People who are giving shelter to such people in those circumstances might very well find themselves in a grave conflict of conscience.
    I make this final plea to the Government. As they know, there is sitting at this moment a constitutional conference of immense importance concerning the future of Jamaica. Hon. Members of both sides of this Committee have had the privilege of hearing the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Mr. Norman Manley, speaking to them in this building during the last few days. What struck most of us who heard him was the singular lack of bitterness in making his views known about this Bill, and his magnanimity towards the people and the Government of this country, despite——
    The Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go further from
    446
    the point of this Amendment. It is a very narrow Amendment.
    Mr. Thomson: I was about to finish, Sir William.
    I was wanting to say that the phrases which the Prime Minister of Jamaica used indicated that he feels sure that the Government will operate the Bill in a benign way when it becomes an Act. The Government have the opportunity here of showing that they are willing to operate the Bill in a benign way by agreeing to take this subsection out of the Clause. If it remains in, it seems to me to be unnecessarily vindictive. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I apologise to the Committee for intervening again in our very limited time, but we have not heard a word from the Home Secretary on this matter. We have had a speech from the learned Attorney-General, which dealt with the legal side of the question raised here, but it is not the legal side of this matter that is the most important. It is a question of policy.
    What is the Government's policy about this? It has been pointed out to the Home Secretary, who has not said a word, that we are here doing a very revolutionary thing, in that, for the first time, we are making it a criminal offence for a British subject to enter the United Kingdom. We have to look at that very carefully, and we want to know what is the Home Secretary's view on the point of policy involved.
    Two offences are contemplated here. One is that if a person knows, he can be convicted of an offence under this subsection. If he does not know, he can be convicted of an offence under this subsection if the authority or the court decides that though he did not know, he ought to have known. That is what "reasonable grounds for believing" means. How are we to find out? Are we to have a system of search warrants in order to find out whether there were "reasonable grounds for believing" or not? I will not press that further. What has been said demands a reply from the Home Secretary, and I appeal to him to make it.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have no hesitation in making a short

    447
    reply, but I cannot add to the words pronounced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
    We did give this very serious consideration, not only on its merits, but also because we wished to be as reasonable over this, at this stage of the Committee proceedings of the Bill, as we could, as I attempted to do yesterday in the discussion on a variety of Amendments. I am advised by my advisers that in the light of the administration of the Aliens Order, there have been cases in which this power in Section 25 (2) has been necessary. I would be very glad to give way and not include this power in the Bill, but I am advised that it is necessary to include it. I am sorry that that is the case, but it is only after mature reflection that I must stick to
    my opinion. In the circumstances, I hope that we may be able to make progress, in view of the limited amount of time at our disposal.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: We on this side of the Committee are most disappointed with the reply of the Home Secretary. We regard this provision in the Bill as unnecessary, and as an indication that the Government are not being sincere in their desire to operate the Bill in as benign and sympathetic a way as possible. We shall show our resistance to this subsection by dividing the Committee against it.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 271, Noes 183.

    Division No. 69.]

    AYES

    [4.25 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hay, John

    Aitken, W. T.

    Cordeaux., Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Allason, James

    Costain, A. P.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Coulson, Michael

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Hiley, Joseph

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Critchley, Julian

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Barber, Anthony

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Crowder, F. P.

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

    Barter, John

    Curran, Charles

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Batsford, Brian

    Dance, James

    Hobson, John

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Deedes, W. F.

    Holland, Philip

    Bell, Ronald

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Hollingworth, John

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Biffen, John

    Doughty, Charles

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bingham, R. M.

    du Cann, Edward

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Duncan, Sir James

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

    Jackson, John

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Eden, John

    James, David

    Bossom, Clive

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Bourne-Arton, A.

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

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Box, Donald

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Braine, Bernard

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Brewis, John

    Farr, John

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Fell, Anthony

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Brooman-White, R.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kirk, Peter

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Bryan, Paul

    Freeth, Denzil

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Buck, Antony

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Bullard, Denys

    Gammans, Lady

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Gardner, Edward

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Burden, F. A.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Godber, J. B.

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R,

    Longden, Gilbert

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Green, Alan

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Chataway, Christopher

    Gurden, Harold

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    McAdden, Stephen

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

    Cole, Norman

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Collard, Richard

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Cooke, Robert

    Hastings, Stephen

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Maitland, Sir John

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Pym, Francis

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Ramsden, James

    Turner, Colin

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Marshall, Douglas

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Marten, Neil

    Rees, Hugh

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Renton, David

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Mawby, Ray

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

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

    Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Walder, David

    Mills, Stratton

    Roots, William

    Walker, Peter

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Wall, Patrick

    Morrison, John

    Russell, Ronald

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Sharples, Richard

    Webster, David

    Neave, Airey

    Shaw, M.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Shepherd, William

    Whitelaw, William

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Smith, Dudley (Br'mf'd & Chiswick)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Wise, A. R.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Speir, Rupert

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Peel, John

    Stodart, J. A.

    Woollam, John

    Peyton, John

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Worsley, Marcus

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Tapsell, Peter

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Pitman, Sir James

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Mr. Chichester-Clark and

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Teeling, Sir William

    Mr. McLaren.

    Pott, Percivall

    Temple, John M.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Fletcher, Eric

    Kelley, Richard

    Ainsley, William

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Albu, Austen

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Forman, J. C.

    King, Dr. Horace

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamliton)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Awbery, Stan

    Ginsburg, David

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Lipton, Marcus

    Beaney, Alan

    Grey, Charles

    Loughlin, Charles

    Bence, Cyril

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    MacColl, James

    Benson, Sir George

    Grimond, Rt. Hon, J.

    Mclnnes, James

    Blackburn, F.

    Gunter, Ray

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Blyton, William

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Boardman, H.

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

    Hannan, William

    Manuel, A. C,

    Bowles, Frank

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Mapp, Charles

    Boyden, James

    Hayman, F. H.

    Marsh, Richard

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Healey, Denis

    Mason, Roy

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Mellish, R. J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Callaghan, James

    Hilton, A. V.

    Millan, Bruce

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Holman, Percy

    Milne, Edward

    Chapman, Donald

    Holt, Arthur

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Hoy, James H.

    Monslow, Walter

    Crosland, Anthony

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Moody, A. S.

    Darling, George

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Morris, John

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Mort, D. L.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Moyle, Arthur

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Neal, Harold

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

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

    Deer, George

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Oliver, C. H.

    Diamond, John

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Oram, A. E.

    Dodds, Norman

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Owen, Will

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Jeger, George

    Paget, R. T.

    Driberg, Tom

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Parker, John

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

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

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Evans, Albert

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Peart, Frederick

    Finch, Harold

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pentland, Norman

    Fitch, Alan

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    450

    451

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Small, William

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Prentice, R. E.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Warbey, William

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Snow, Julian

    Watkins, Tudor

    Probert, Arthur

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Weitzman, David

    Randall, Harry

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Rankin, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Whitlock, William

    Redhead, E. C.

    Steele, Thomas

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Reid, William

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Willey, Frederick

    Rhodes, H.

    Stones, William

    Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

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

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Swain, Thomas

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Woodburn, Rt Hon. A.

    Ross, William

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Woof, Robert

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon, E.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Short, Edward

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

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Zilliacus, K.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Timmons, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Wade, Donald

    Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.

    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, at the beginning to insert "knowingly".
    My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), when moving the earlier Amendment, said that we regard some of the powers, offences and penalties in the Bill as too sweeping, and some of the rights of search, and so on, as being too sweeping. We shall be debating that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and also when we come to the Schedules.
    This small Amendment is another example of an attempt to prevent the powers and definitions of the penalties in the Clause from being too sweeping. This subsection says that a person who makes any false statement, false return, or false representation to an immigration officer under the Act shall be guilty of an offence.
    This Amendment would provide that he would have to be proved to be knowingly making such a statement before he would be committing an offence. The sort of example I have in mind is that of a man who comes from the West Indies and says that he is coming here and is admitted because he has a particular skill which is required here. That is one of the definitions which allow him entry. When he defines his skill in the West Indies it may mean something quite different from what it means over here.
    A man who calls himself a mason in the West Indies probably has very elementary experience of the building trade, but that description is used there. "Mason", or some
    452
    such word which has a skilled connotation here, may be used there differently and he would not know that he was committing an offence. There may be cases of an unintentional offence being committed. I hope that in the circumstances the Attorney-General will accept the Amendment.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that it would be right to put "knowingly" in that particular position because it is difficult to conceive of a person making or causing something to be made to an immigration officer, a particular return, representation or statement, without knowing it.
    The point which I think is in the mind of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is that he wants to be satisfied that a person will not be liable to a conviction for an offence under this subsection unless he knows that the statement is, in fact, false, which is a slightly different thing. I think that it could be argued in some of the decisions in the cases that the word "knowingly" would be implied to cover that, but I am inclined to think that it would be better not to leave it at that.
    I ask the hon. Member to be good enough to withdraw his Amendment on my undertaking to consider the inclusion of words on Report to make it clear that the person must have knowledge that the return is false, that the statement is false, or the representation is false before he can be convicted. There are various forms of words which are used to make that clear beyond doubt. I do not want to pin myself to any particular form at the present time. One may want words rather similar to the

    453
    words we discussed when we were talking about "reasonable grounds" as a whole.
    There is a formula in Section 1 of the Perjury Act which would cover this point. I will undertake to give it careful consideration between now and Report to make clear beyond any doubt what is intended. If the hon. Member will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment I will insert words which, I think, will satisfactorily meet the point which he wants to be met.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, after "document" to insert "in his possession".
    The Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in line 27, at the end to insert "in his possession".
    Mr. Fletcher: This is another example of a case in which it seems to us that the language of the Clause, introducing new offences into our criminal law, has been drawn in a way which is unnecessarily harsh and offensive. Subsection (3, b) makes it an offence for anybody to refuse to produce any document to an immigration officer
    "or to furnish him with any information".
    It becomes an offence if there is a refusal to produce any document whatever or to give any information whatever.
    Surely there must be some limitation to those words. The Amendment is designed to provide that it is an offence only if there is a refusal by the person to produce a document which is in his possession or to give some information which is in his possession. Surely it is unnecessary for the Act to go further than that. I hope that the Attorney-General will regard these as reasonable Amendments which he can accept as an improvement to the Bill.
    The Attorney-General: It is certainly not the Government's intention to make
    454
    the Bill harsh or unduly onerous. It is our intention to make it fair. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) thought fit to use those expressions. As an indication of our intentions, I will tell him that we think that there is ground to limit the documents concerned in the sense which he suggested, but that we do not think it wide enough to say, "in his possession", because the person might pass the relevant document to his wife and then refuse to produce it. We want to think of the right words. The hon. Member is familiar with the wording in another context "possession or power", and we believe that something of that sort is the right formula.
    We agree that it would suffice, in respect of information, to make the position clear by including the words "in his possession".
    I will ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment and not to move the second Amendment, so that the draftsmen have scope to reconsider this provision with the object of going a little wider in relation to documents than "documents in possession" but going no wider than "information in his possession". We hope to table such proposals on Report.
    Mr. Fletcher: I willingly respond to that suggestion. Indeed, I welcome any sign that the Government are prepared to accept reasonable Amendments to the Bill. That is something which we should like to encourage at all stages. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.45 p.m.
    The Chairman: I understand that it is not desired to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), in page 4, line 27, after "document", to insert:
    "relevant to his admission to the United Kingdom under this Act"
    I therefore do not propose to call that Amendment, but this will not prejudice the possibility of considering at a later stage the following Amendments: In Schedule page 15, line 25, after "documents", to insert:
    "relevant to his admission to the United Kingdom under this Act".

    455
    In page 15, line 26, after "any", to insert "such".
    In page 15, line 30, at the end to insert "such".
    Mr. Chapman: I am obliged to you, Sir William.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(DURATION OF PART I.)
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, in page 5, line 1, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 12 and to insert:
    "continue in force until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-three, and shall then expire unless Parliament otherwise determines."
    The Chairman: It is in order to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: In page 5, line 1, to leave out from "expire" to end of the Clause and to insert:
    "on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-two, unless continued by an Expiring Laws Continuance Act".
    In page 5, line 1, to leave out from "expire" to the end of the Clause and to insert:
    "on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and sixty-three".

    In page 5, line 2, to leave out "five years" and to insert "one year".

    In page 5, line 2, to leave out "five" and to insert "three".

    In page 5, line 2, to leave out "five years" and to insert "twelve months".

    In page 5, line 3, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 4.

    In page 5, line 5, to leave out subsection (2).

    In page 5, line 5, to leave out subsections (2) and (3).

    In page 5, line 7, to leave out "five years" and to insert "one year".

    In page 5, line 7, to leave out "five years" and to insert "twelve months".

    In page 5, line 9, to leave out subsection (3).

    Mr. Butler: It will be seen that the Amendment which I have moved meets the aim of all the Amendments. Perhaps I might be permitted to run over them.
    The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) would
    456
    continue this part of the Act until the end of 1962. In the Government's view that is too short a period. After all, when the Bill receives Royal Assent there must be an interval in order to make the necessary arrangements to bring the controls into operation and to give adequate notice to intending immigrants of the date from which the port controls and voucher systems are to operate.
    The Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) would continue this part of the Act for only twelve months, but that would bring us only to the middle of 1963, and our proposal is that this part of the Act should continue to the end of 1963. If we are to have an annual debate on immigration policy it seems better to have it at the same time as the debate on the continuance of the Aliens Restrictions Acts.
    The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) would continue this part of the Act for three years, which is perhaps rather longer than would accord with the general sentiments of the House. We therefore propose, in our Amendment, to continue this part of the Act to the last day of 1963. This would mean that if it is to be continued thereafter, it can be renewed, if Parliament so determines, by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which annually passes through the House during November.
    By November, 1963, the House will have had an opportunity, after rather more than a year's working of the new controls, to judge whether they are being satisfactorily operated and whether they ought to be continued. At that date the Government will endeavour to give the House the latest information which, as I said yesterday, we might then have on a variety of subjects. The House will then have fuller information to consider whether this part of the Act should be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
    I trust that the Committee will accept the fact that, in view of the many Amendments on the Notice Paper, the Government have put down an entirely

    457
    reasonable Amendment which meets the spirit of all the Amendments on this subject.
    Mr. Denis Healey: We on this side of the Committee are grateful that the Home Secretary has thought fit to curtail the duration of the Act from five years to two years but we still maintain that the Act should come to an end on 1st January, 1963. It is already evident from the discussions that we have had in Committee and on Second Reading that this is a ramshackle contraption which was put together hugger-mugger and rammed through the Parliamentary machine without any proper opportunity for discussion.
    The Government and those responsible for drafting the Bill put it together without being in possession of the facts which were necessary to meet the problems which they claim that the Bill is intended to meet and without the administrative forethought which would enable them to operate the Bill fairly and successfully, if it is to fulfil its purpose. I believe that by the end of this year right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee will wish to have a chance to look at the whole problem again.
    It has been very clear from the debates so far that the Bill was not originally designed to cope with the problem of Commonwealth immigration, but was simply a panic improvisation to appease racial pressures inside the Conservative Party at the conference which took place last year. That is absolutely true.
    I regret that the guillotine procedure farces us to bring the debate to an end at 5 p.m., and I do not propose to prevent my hon. Friends and others who wish to speak from having the chance to say a few words. There is no doubt at all that this is a panic improvisation put before the House without even those responsible being in possession of the facts. Even the facts about the number of people entering and leaving the country are still under dispute. The Home Secretary admitted not being in possession of the relevant facts when the Bill was first published.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The hon. Member is taking part in our debates for the first time. He might at least adhere to
    458
    the facts, then we can attach importance to what he says. I gave the full facts yesterday and I have throughout given the figures, which have been exactly the same throughout.
    Mr. Healey: The Home Secretary will recall that when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading he said that he was not in possession of the facts. The facts which he gave to the Committee yesterday were published only during December. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that when the Bill was drafted and first presented to the House the Government or the Home Secretary were in possession of the figures of immigration which were quoted yesterday.
    We have had the extraordinary situation of Ireland first being put in, then taken out and then put in again, although the Home Secretary yesterday admitted that he did not know whether it was desirable for the Irish to be included in the operation of the Bill and he doubted very much whether it was possible for them to be included even if it was desirable.
    The question of health has been introduced as a second fig leaf to cover the Home Secretary's nakedness. Some hon. Members opposite have made a great deal of the fact that there is a smallpox epidemic in parts of the country and that this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has made a great deal of the point, although it has been clear from the Answers to Questions that all the powers that the Government need for preventing entry to this country of people suffering from diseases are already possessed under previous legislation and that the powers given to the Government in the Bill are less extensive than those which they already possess.
    Nobody knows, either in the Government or outside it, precisely how the voucher system is to work and, in particular, how the first come, first served, part of it will work. The Prime Minister of Jamaica has told me recently that nobody in Jamaica knows whether this will be operated in Jamaica or here, although if a young man in Jamaica wants to come to this country he must risk his whole livelihood to get the money for the fare and then he may

    459
    find at the last moment, when he gets here, that he is being excluded. We simply do not know how this part of the Bill will operate. Nobody has told us.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Had the hon. Member been here yesterday, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary undertake to put in a provision to deal with exactly that point. The hon. Member was not here yesterday and he has no right to make these statements.
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Member is incorrect. I was here yesterday and heard that said, but I still say that we do not know how the problem will be dealt with. The hon. Member has just confirmed what I said. All we know is that the Government have at last found that there is a problem and they propose to introduce legislation to try to deal with it at a later stage. This simply emphasises that the Bill as presented to the House is a ramshackle contraption which has not been fully thought out and which is not appropriate even for the purpose, which we do not support, for which it is supposed to be intended.
    I appeal to the Home Secretary seriously to consider giving the House the opportunity to examine this whole business again at the beginning of next year. Perhaps the moral cowardice which led the Government to introduce the Bill in the way and at the time they did may be a less powerful factor in determining Government policy by the end of the year than it is today. In any event, it is conceivable that there may be another Government.
    It may well be that by the beginning of next year, the country may have taken the decision to enter the Common Market. In that case, the country will be committed to work towards a situation in which Sicilians and Greeks will be able to come here more freely than New Zealanders, Canadians and Australians. In such a situation, a great number of right hon. and hon. Members opposite would want an opportunity to look again at the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, as it will then be, to ensure at least that Commonwealth subjects are not treated worse than citizens of coun
    460
    tries with which we are associated in the Common Market.
    There is the further possibility that by the beginning of next year we may find that we shall not be able to get into the Common Market on acceptable terms. I hope that in such a situation right hon. and hon. Members opposite will have recovered their faith in the potential of the Commonwealth and will realise that if we are to make anything of the Commonwealth in future one of the first steps to be taken is to remove the unfair discrimination against Commonwealth citizens which is contained in the Bill.
    For all these reasons, I appeal to the Home Secretary, at a later stage—I understand that I cannot move our Amendment now, although I may discuss it—to consider introducing a further Amendment that would enable us to look at the whole question again at the beginning of 1963.
    Mr. Nigel Fisher: This is an Amendment of some importance and I welcome it, because there is absolutely no reason why the aliens legislation, which is renewable every year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, should be more favourable to foreigners than the Bill should be to Commonwealth citizens. This must be very much in the mind of the Government, as it is in the minds of all of us, and it should be our wish to do exactly the opposite.
    Quite apart from the principle, it should be desirable in practice to look at this matter again and to limit it to a year, two years or whatever the period may be, because we are breaking a principle and a long tradition when we embark on the Bill. The Irish problem is by no means resolved, but is merely shelved. We have no idea, whatever, even approximately, how many Commonwealth immigrants will be admitted in any normal year under the Bill. It is left very much to the discretion of the Government, as a great deal is left to them in the Bill.
    In these circumstances, I regard it as essential to limit the duration of the Bill and to review it at the end of a fairly short period. In the ordinary way, I should have been inclined to make its

    461
    duration one year to bring it into line, if for no other reason, with the aliens legislation. It may be, however, that we shall not have sufficient evidence to look at the matter again comprehensibly and clearly as early as a year after its enactment.
    I would, therefore, be content if, in the first instance, we review the working of the Bill at the end of 1963, as the Government suggest, on the understanding that thereafter, if it is renewed, it will be renewed on the same basis as the aliens legislation.
    Mr. Frank Bowles: I should like to enter a caveat. The Home Secretary spoke about the Bill being included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which continues other Acts of Parliament in force. My recollection is that the Chair rules strictly on the administration of Acts which the House of Commons seeks to extend and that it would be found impossible to discuss at length the working of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, as it will then be, in Committee on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    I enter that reservation because the argument which the Home Secretary, no doubt in good faith, used might have misled the House if he thought that we could have a general discussion on the administration of the Act when we deal with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Perhaps you, Sir William, or the Home Secretary will consider this important point.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Perhaps I have time for just a sentence or two. If we adopt the procedure recommended by the Home Secretary we will not have any opportunity whatever for reviewing the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act. If we use the machinery of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill we can accept the Act as it stands and extend or repeal it altogether, but we cannot amend it. It is the opportunity to review and to amend that we require at an early date.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(APPLICATION OF PART II.)
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out "whose father" and to insert "one of whose parents".
    The provisions of Part II of the Bill, which deals with deportation, have so far been treated as being less controversial than the rest. None the less they need watching, and this Amendment is designed to make a small but not unimportant increase in the number of exemptions from the effects of Part II. Although, as I say, the provisions with which we are now concerned have given rise to less controversy than the rest, it would be very undesirable if, as a result of this Measure being passed, there were wholesale recommendations for deportations by magistrates; and it is widely felt that there is a risk of that happening.
    The Amendment aims at extending only very slightly the numbers of Commonwealth citizens who will be exempt from Part II. If it were accepted, there would be no power for a court to recommend for deportation a Commonwealth citizen whose father or mother was horn in the United Kingdom. The proposition that one cannot deport X because his father was born in the United Kingdom but can deport Y although his mother was born in the United Kingdom is not easy to defend. I do not see any logic in it, and it seems to reveal a kind of anti-feminist disposition which the Minister of State will find somewhat difficult to defend. It might even be regarded as being out of character.
    I suppose that the reasoning behind the exemptions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) is that it is felt that when a man is convicted of an offence, and has certain close connections with the United Kingdom, to deport him might involve disproportionate hardship, and might, in certain cases, put an obstacle in the way of his rehabilitation and of the best treatment of him as a prisoner.
    There is a good deal of sense in that reasoning. If one has a conviction, but has close connections and family ties in the United Kingdom, to be made subject to a deportation order might obviously

    463
    have the most undesirable anti-social consequences but, if that is the reasoning, I believe that the Minister would be very hard put to it to persuade the Committee that having a father born in the United Kingdom brings a relevant factor into play but that having a mother born in the United Kingdom does not. With those considerations in mind, I recommend the Amendment to the Committee.
    Mr. John Diamond: I ask the Government, when replying to the Amendment so forcefully moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), to explain, at the same time, why more importance is attached to ordinary residence than to birth.
    In the very next line of paragraph (a) there are the words:
    "…or whose parents (or either of them) were ordinarily resident…"
    I have always regarded "British born" as two proud words, and have always thought that one can normally rely on a British-born person to carry out the British way of life and to be loyal to his or her country.
    Under the Bill as it stands, if the father was ordinarily resident, that is an exception, and if the mother was ordinarily resident, that is an exception. How does it arise that for a mother to be ordinarily resident is an exception, but for a mother to be British born is no exception at all and does not have the same validity?
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): As the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) pointed out, the deportation provisions of the Bill are less controversial than the earlier ones, but it is, nevertheless, right that we should make sure that those deportation provisions, the essence of which are, I think, the exemptions which they contain, are as they should be. The Clause, of course, must be considered in conjunction with Clause 7 (2), which provides for exemptions from deportation after five years' residence in this country.
    The purpose of Clause 6 is to define the people who may be regarded as belonging to the United Kingdom, and who are, therefore, not to be put in peril of deportation even though they commit
    464
    criminal offences. The Amendment would exempt a person from liability to deportation if either of the parents were born in the United Kingdom, whereas, as drafted, the Bill exempts those whose father was born here but not those whose mother was born here. I am invited to defend that proposition.
    We have done this because the United Kingdom is in a special position, in that many people born in the Commonwealth have fathers born in the United Kingdom. Those people born in the Commonwealth of fathers born in the United Kingdom very frequently remain closely connected with the United Kingdom, and regard it as home. There is, therefore, no question but that we should exempt them from deportation. I might say that in exempting them we have followed the analogy of the law of citizenship, under which a person born abroad of a father born in the United Kingdom inherits the father's citizenship, while a person whose mother was born here does not inherit the mother's citizenship.
    Perhaps I may be allowed to give an example. If an Englishman takes a post in Canada and his son is born there and returns to the United Kingdom, he is likely to have retained such a close connection with the United Kingdom as to regard it as his family's home. But this is surely not so likely to happen in the case of an English woman who goes to Canada and marries a Canadian. Their son, born in Canada, is more likely to regard Canada as his home and if he comes here he will not, naturally and obviously——
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Why?
    Mr. Renton: I am just explaining what we believe to be the most general experience.
    It is a matter of experience and common sense. If the son is born in Canada to an English woman who has gone there to marry a Canadian, he is more likely to regard that as his home and if he comes here we do not think that he will naturally fall into the category of those who belong to the United Kingdom.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) pointed out that under the Clause we have exempted

    465
    a person either of whose parents were ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, even though he was not born in the United Kingdom. This exemption is on a different footing from the one we are discussing now, because if either of the parents was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the time of his birth then, whether he was born in the Commonwealth or in a foreign country, he can properly be regarded as belonging to the United Kingdom. It means, in effect, that he was born abroad when his mother—a United Kingdom resident—was temporarily abroad. We feel that it is right, in such a case, that he should have the benefit of this exemption.
    In general, we feel that it is right, in the Clause, to follow our nationality law and be consistent with it by granting exemption to those whose fathers were born here and to acknowledge the principle that children of those ordinarily resident here should also be exempted. For reasons I have given, however, we feel that if only the mother was born here and was not ordinarily resident here at the time of the birth of the person concerned, then no entitlement to exemption should arise.
    If those who may still, in spite of that explanation, feel uneasy about this point I would mention two facts. First, as I mentioned earlier, under Clause 7 (2)—when we come to discuss that—anyone who has been ordinarily resident here for five years will, in any case, get exemption under that provision. Secondly, no court is bound to recommend deportation—even though the person would qualify for it—and even if the court recommends deportation it is still within the discretion of the Home Secretary as to whether or not a deportation order should be made.
    Thus, if in any case of a person whose mother was born here there would seem to be great hardship involved in carrying out the deportation order, the Home Secretary is at liberty to decide that it shall not be carried out.
    Mr. Diamond rose——
    Mr. Renton: The Bill as drafted is right in principle and is consistent with our nationality law. In practice, no hardship is likely to arise, for the reasons I have given.
    Mr. Diamond: I wish to question the hon. and learned Gentleman about the earlier part of his speech—not the latter part where he gave reasons for accepting the Amendment—in which he attempted to reject the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman advanced the proposition that this was a rather general matter of experience, that one would have loyalty towards one's country despite the fact that one's father had moved to another country but that the same argument could not apply in the case of one's mother.
    Even assuming that the hon. and learned Gentleman has any evidence for that—and I deny that he has—and even assuming that in two-thirds of the cases that might be so, is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously arguing that we should put, as part of our permanent statutory law, that the other one-third of the cases should suffer injustice because it is a patriarchy and not a matriarchy that we are subscribing to?
    Mr. Renton: Nothing I have said was intended to be in support of the Amendment. The provision in the Clause is based, as I mentioned, and as are many of our other laws, on the husband being the head of the family. That is why the children normally follow the husband's nationality. It is on that basis—and a basis which I think is accepted in most countries of the Commonwealth—that we have framed this provision.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Minister has completely failed to give the Committee an adequate explanation for rejecting the Amendment. All he has done is to argue a precedent in relation to the nationality laws. It is well known that those laws discriminate unfairly as between husband and wife. Because they do—and because of this legal fiction that the husband is the head of the family—that does not seem to be any justification for arguing, in the circumstances of a Bill in which we are making a breach with Commonwealth tradition, that the person whose mother was born in Britain and whose father was not should be discriminated against.
    I should have thought that evidence could have been brought to suggest that someone whose mother was born in Britain—and I am using the fictitious

    467
    person adduced by the Minister whose father had gone to Canada—could be regarded just as enthusiastically as a citizen of this country—as much as if the case were the other way round and the father had been born in the United Kingdom.
    5.15 p.m.
    It is often through the mother that the greatest emotion is attached to the country of origin. As I say, this provision is discriminatory. It is unjust as between husband and wife and the Minister has done nothing more than adduce some legal precedents to qualify what he has said. Apart from that, his whole philosophy has been based on the philosophy of St. Paul.
    Mr. B. T. Parkin: While congratulating the Minister on his ingenious speculations on what might be the primary loyalties of ladies living in Canada, I also congratulate him on being perfectly frank in giving us the real motive for the Government's resistance to the Amendment—the fact that they still support that utterly outdated principle of the nationality law which lays down that a woman cannot give hey nationality to her child.
    It is extremely interesting to note that the party opposite—which resisted feminine emancipation over the years on the ground that women were second-rate citizens—should, by the Bill, set up the principle of second-rate citizenship. It represents their outrageous and outdated attitude of renewing something which should have been taken off the Statute Book long ago, and I hope that my hon. Friends will press the Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. W. Griffiths: In resisting the Amendment the Minister made an astonishing statement, not about the nationality laws but about what he called their "general experience". Presumably the Home Office—by its common sense or otherwise—was persuaded that a woman born in this country and married to a man who was not a United Kingdom citizen was less likely to retain her ties with this country than had the case been reversed.
    The Minister did not advance a scrap of evidence to support that astonishing and rather insulting assumption. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman made that
    468
    statement after working on the grossly offensive assumption that women who marry men from outside these shores do not retain very close ties with their relatives and friends in this country. In its treatment of Commonwealth citizens in the past, the Home Office has worked not in a commonsense way but in a nonsensical fashion.
    I recall approaching the Home Office once about whether it would agree to admitting a man who was born in Gibraltar and who had married a Spanish girl. The answer I got was, "Yes, they can live in the United Kingdom." But the Home Office did not consider that the same treatment would apply had the circumstances been reversed. A girl born in Gibraltar, and marrying a Spaniard, would be refused admission. The Minister of State's speech does not seem to me to be remotely connected with common sense. It is as nonsensical as the way the Government have treated people who have sought to come here in the past in circumstances which I have related earlier in the debate.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment. This is a very harsh Bill which discriminates against certain people belonging to the United Kingdom. The Government ought to ease as much as possible the effect of the Bill on such people.
    I am surprised that the Minister of State has not accepted the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) on this issue. Why should a woman not be considered equal in the marriage partnership? Why should offspring be discriminated against because one parent happened to be born in this country and the other born somewhere else in the Commonwealth? Reference has been made to Canada, but I am not satisfied that that is the problem country. I think it is the African countries, the coloured countries, which are behind the objection to this Amendment. Had only the white races been involved, I do not think we should have had objections from the Government on such an issue.
    If an English woman marries someone from the Continent of Europe and they

    469
    go to live in one of our Commonwealth countries where they both die, the child of the marriage may well wish to come to this country where the mother was born, and yet will be refused admission to this country. It is all very well the Minister saying that the Government will have the right to allow such persons to come here, but I feel certain that that right will not always be exercised and that the Government will not always allow such people to stay in this country.
    The Minister did not say anything about the natural parents. I should like to know whether a person who is born in another country of a natural parent of this country, will be allowed to come here.
    The Government ought to take another look at this Clause. If they cannot accept the Amendment, they ought at least to take it into consideration and to rewrite the subsection to conform with what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Ede: The Minister of State quoted the British Nationality Act. I would remind him that there is a great difference between that Act and this Bill. That Act was the result of prolonged negotiations with every one of the countries which obtained the right of separate citizenship under it. This Bill, so far as we know, has not such a basis and we have had to accept some things that we did not like very much.
    I am astounded that the Minister of State should advance the proposition which he has. It reminds me of the somewhat amusing incident in another place when Lord Woolton once said in the course of a debate that maternity was certain but paternity was often doubtful. My noble Friend, who was alive in those days, the first, and I sincerely hope the last, Viscount Stansgate, said that it was an astounding doctrine to announce in an hereditary House.
    This is not an hereditary House, but we are entitled to take account of the ordinary customs of the people, and surely it is the recollection of everybody in the House who served in the British Army in either of the great wars that the person given as the next of kin in every case where the mother survives is the mother. I do not believe that
    470
    women born in this country who marry members of the Dominions or members of other countries in the Commonwealth which have recently attained nationhood are less likely to leave a love of this country in the minds of their offspring than the fathers are.
    Mr. Renton: Naturally one is interested, as one always is, in the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who introduced the British Nationality Act, 1948. So far as I recollect, when we introduced the British Nationality Act, 1958, which made certain amendments and extensions to the 1948 Act and filled in one or two gaps in it, there was no suggestion that we should alter Section 5 of the 1948 Act which reads:
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth."
    We have also had prolonged consultations on this Bill, and, although we have received numerous representations about various parts of it, we have not received any suggestions that this Clause should be any different from what it is.
    The right hon. Member for South Shields made an entertaining allusion to the certainty of maternity and the uncertainty of paternity. I do not know what inference we are to draw from that. His statement is a defence of the ancient custom of Borough English which was contrary to the law of primogeniture. It was also, I think, a justification for the view that, if anything, it is only descent from the mother that should be acknowledged in the Bill.
    We have preferred to follow the provision put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in 1948 and carried by the House, to the effect that citizenship status should follow the father, and we feel that in the context of this provision that is the right thing to do.
    There is no Amendment before us to amend the British Natonality Act. Indeed, I think that would be a most highly controversial thing to do. We have stuck to the right hon. Gentleman's Statute and, in those circumstances, I feel that this provision is as it should be.

    471
    May I conclude by reminding the Committee that although this undoubtedly seems to be the right provision from the legal and constitutional point of view, there is this safeguard against any hardship, that a person who has been ordinarily resident here for five years will in any event get exemption under Clause 7, and both the courts and the Home Secretary have a discretion
    to exercise in these matters which they will exercise, bearing in mind all the circumstances, including such circumstances as may arise from the fact that the mother of the accused was born in the United Kingdom.
    Question put, That "whose father" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 272, Noes 192.

    Division No. 70.]

    AYES

    [5.30 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Aitken, W. T.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Allason, James

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Doughty, Charles

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Arbuthnot, John

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    du Cann, Edward

    Kirk, Peter

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Barber, Anthony

    Eden, John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Barlow, Sir John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Barter, John

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

    Leavey, J. A.

    Batsford, Brian

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Bell, Ronald

    Farr, John

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Fisher, Nigel

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Longden, Gilbert

    Biffen, John

    Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Bingham, R. M.

    Freeth, Denzil

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    McAdden, Stephen

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gammans, Lady

    MacArthur, Ian

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Gardner, Edward

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Bossom, Clive

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

    Box, Donald

    Godber, J. B.

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Macleod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Goodhew, Victor

    McMatter, Stanley R.

    Braine, Bernard

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)

    Brewis, John

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.- Col. Sir Walter

    Green, Alan

    Maddan, Martin

    Brooman-White, R.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Gurden, Harold

    Maitland, Sir John

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bryan, Paul

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Buck, Antony

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Bullard, Denys

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Marten, Neil

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

    Burden, F. A.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

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

    Hastings, Stephen

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

    Hay, John

    Mawby, Ray

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray A Nairn)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Hendry, Forbes

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

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Mills, Stratton

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hiley, Joseph

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Chataway, Christopher

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Morrison, John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Hobson, John

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Neave, Airey

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Holland, Philip

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Hollingworth, John

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Cole, Norman

    Hornby, R. P.

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Collard, Richard

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Cooke, Robert

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Corfield, F. V.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Costain, A. P.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Partridge, E.

    Coulson, Michael

    James, David

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pee, John

    Critchley, Julian

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Peyton, John

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Crowder, F. P.

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Dance, James

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Pott, Percivall

    Sheet, T. H. H.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Walder, David

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Speir, Rupert

    Walker, Peter

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Stanley, Hon. Richard

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Pym, Francis

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Wall, Patrick

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Stodart, J, A.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Ramsden, James

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Webster, David

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Rees, Hugh

    Tapsell, Peter

    Whitelaw, William

    Rees-Davies, W. R,

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Renton, David

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Teeling, Sir William

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Temple, John M.

    Wise, A. R.

    Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Ropnor, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Woollam, John

    Russell, Ronald

    Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

    Worsley, Marcus

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Turner, Colin

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Sharples, Richard

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Shaw, M.

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mr. J. E. B. Hill and

    Shepherd, William

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Mr. McLaren.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Millan, Bruce

    Ainsley, William

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Milne, Edward

    Albu, Austen

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Gunter, Ray

    Monslow, Walter

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Awbery, Stan

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Morris, John

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Mort, D. L.

    Beaney, Alan

    Hannan, William

    Moyle, Arthur

    Bence, Cyril

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Neal, Harold

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Benson, Sir George

    Healey, Denis

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

    Blackburn, F.

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Oliver, G. H.

    Blyton, William

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Oram, A. E.

    Boardman, H.

    Hilton, A. V.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

    Holman, Percy

    Owen, Will

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Holt, Arthur

    Padley, W. E.

    Bowles, Frank

    Hoy, James H.

    Paget, R. T.

    Boyden, James

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Parker, John

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Hunter, A. E.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Peart, Frederick

    Callaghan, James

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Pentland, Norman

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Chapman, Donald

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jeger, George

    Prentice, R. E.

    Cronin, John

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Crosland, Anthony

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Darling, George

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

    Proctor, W. T.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Randall, Harry

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Reld, William

    Deer, George

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Diamond, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Dodds, Norman

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    King, Dr. Horace

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Driberg, Tom

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Ross, William

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Short, Edward

    Evans, Albert

    Loughlin, Charles

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Finch, Harold

    McCann, John

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Fitch, Alan

    MacColl, James

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    McInnes, James

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Small, William

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Snow, Julian

    Forman, J. C.

    Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mapp, Charles

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marsh, Richard

    Steele, Thomas

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Mason, Roy

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Stones, William

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mellish, R. J.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Grey, Charles

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Swain, Thomas

    474

    475

    Symonds, J. B.

    Wainwright, Edwin

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

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Warbey, William

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Watkins, Tudor

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Woof, Robert

    Thornton, Ernest

    Whitlock, William

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Timmons, John

    Willey, Frederick

    Zilliacus, K.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wade, Donald

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.

    Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, at the end to insert:
    (b) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
    This Amendment was put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself largely in order that we might ventilate the whole question of the principle of deportation and the extent to which it ought to be allowed to go in the Bill. It will, of course, be appreciated that deportation really has nothing whatever to do with the control of immigration at all. It is an entirely separate subject. We can have complete control of immigration without having any provisions in the Bill about deportation. If we merely want to prevent the people coming here who will be excluded by the Bill, we do that by Part I of the Bill. We do not want any of the provisions of Part II with regard to deportation for that purpose. In other words, we should be quite clear that the provisions about deportation are no necessary corollary of what we are doing to control immigration. It does not mean that they cannot be justified, but they have to be justified separately and independently of any reason given for the control of immigration.
    Deportation is a penalty. Until comparatively recently it was unknown in our penal code. Even aliens, as far as I recall, could not be deported before the Aliens Act of 1914. They might have been liable to extradition under some of the extradition treaties, but that is a separate matter. We are now introducing this principle of deportation of Commonwealth citizens, and I think it is pertinent to remind the Committee of what the Home Secretary said on this part of the subject when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, because it rather supports what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was saying earlier about the pressures to which the Government were subjected by the Conservative conference which led them to introduce this Bill at all. In
    476
    fact, the Home Secretary admitted as much, because on Second Reading he said:
    "I should like now to deal shortly with Part II of the Bill…we have long been pressed to introduce measures to authorise the deportation of immigrants from the Commonwealth who offend against our laws…"—[OFFICIAL RETORT 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 702.]
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that, in the ordinary way, the Government would not have introduced any measures to deport immigrants from the Commonwealth, but that as they were going to introduce a Bill to control immigration they thought it would be convenient at the same time to ask for powers to deport offenders. That being so, we have to consider what, if any, classes of people should be subject to deportation.
    It is conceded in the Bill as it stands that certain classes or categories of Commonwealth citizens should not be liable to deportation in any circumstance. The object of this Amendment is also to exclude from the penalty and terror of deportation any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It will be observed, of course, that the provisions with regard to deportation do not apply merely to new immigrants who will come into the country after the Bill becomes an Act. They will operate as soon as the Bill is passed on immigrants already here. I am not sure that that is a principle that can be defended.
    Deportation will result from conviction for some criminal offence, and it will be part of the punishment, but it will, of course, be particularly severe in many cases, a particularly savage form of punishment, and it has to be justified as such. Advocates of the most modern system of penology and criminal reform take the view, quite rightly I think, that one of the chief objects of the criminal law should be to reform an offender. Various different types of prisons and places of detention have been introduced

    477
    in recent years in order to provide a variety of methods of dealing with criminal offenders.
    5.45 p.m.
    It will be observed that if we deport an offender it puts out of our power any possibility of reforming him after he quits the country. Deportation, therefore, is analogous to transportation. The Attorney-General laughs, but surely if an Australian citizen comes to this country and commits an offence and is recommended for deportation, he might well regard it as transportation. I should have thought that it was only a question of the use of words. However, be that as it may, deportation removes the person deported from any reforming element in the criminal law. The reason why we think that citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies should be exempted from deportation is that, as we argued on Clause 1, we think that they are in a special category.
    Be it observed that since the Act of 1948, for which my right hon. Friend was responsible, citizens of the Colonies have for numerous purposes, if not all, been equated with citizens of the United Kingdom. They are distinguished from all other British subjects who may be citizens of a self-governing dominion or of a nation which has attained self-government. They are distinguished from all these British subjects because they either live in the United Kingdom or in a part of the Commonwealth which has not attained self-government and for which this Parliament has supreme ultimate responsibility, including, I should have thought, the responsibility, if they be criminals, to use the resources of the criminal law for reforming them. That is a responsibility which cannot be discharged if we deport them.
    I should have thought, therefore, that on that ground alone this Amendment had substance. But I think that it has even greater substance, because we are still anxious in the Bill, with all the inroads that it is making into the stability and coherence of the Commonwealth and with all these limitations, to preserve as much as we can of the fabric of the Commonwealth and to identify with the Motherland those British subjects from overseas who are not members of any self-governing community and who, therefore, have special ties with
    478
    the United Kingdom. For all these reasons, and, I have no doubt, for those which my hon. Friends may advance, I very much hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I recognise that in the next following Clause there are limitations upon the right of deportation which take away some of the more extreme disadvantages of the Clause we are now considering. I recognise also that, when we come to that Clause, there may be an opportunity to amend it so as to remove some categories out of the ambit of the right to deport. Nevertheless, I think that the Committee should be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and those who acted with him in putting down this Amendment as a challenge to the whole principle of applying deportation even for criminal offences to members of the family. That is really the effect of it.
    If one were to concede the case for the Bill at all, and I certainly do not do that, it would be a case for limiting and controlling immigration. Once a person has been exempted from that restriction, however, once it has been decided that his right as a British subject is not to be limited as the rights of other British subjects are limited by the general operation of the Bill, then, I suggest, it is wrong in principle, once the person is here, once we have let him in not as an alien but as a British citizen, to impose upon him criminal sanctions which are not applied to his fellow citizens.
    People may take more liberal or progressive views even about aliens than are commonly accepted. Nevertheless, I think it would be universally conceded that the question is quite different when one is dealing with aliens who never had under our laws the right to come at all. In this Bill we are not dealing with aliens. A great deal of the discussion on some of the Amendments has been bedevilled and perverted by a tacit assumption—which I invite the Committee not to make—that whatever has been considered proper in respect of aliens one is entitled to do also in respect of British subjects. That is not a principle which anyone accepts. For those who are born here or are citizens of the United Kingdom here, it is a long

    479
    time since we exercised the right to expel, exile or, as my hon. Friend said, transport them for criminal offences. We do not do it any more. The question raised by the Amendment is whether we should apply to British subjects whose right to come here and live among us we have accepted, even under the limitations of the Bill, a power of exile which we do not exercise in respect of other citizens.
    I feel certain that this is one of the provisions of the Bill which are there only because of the hasty and ill-considered manner in which it was put together and presented to the House. Under the Amendment which the Committee has just accepted, on the recommendation of the Home Secretary, unless the House otherwise determines all these powers will come to an end about 18 months from the time when the Bill becomes operative as a Statute. Is it worth while for 18 months to introduce so fundamental a discrimination between one British subject and another both of whom have the right to come here?
    Mr. Fletcher: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I think that the position is rather worse than he fancies. As I understand it, it is only Part I of the Bill which, by virtue of the Amendment to Clause 5 we have just passed, will come to an end next year. Part II will be permanent.
    Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that. I was wrong, and my error might have led me into ignoring or making light of what is one of the most serious aspects of the Clause as it stands, namely, that it will apply to Commonwealth citizens already here before the Bill was thought of. This seems to be a very serious extension, and it adds reinforcement to the argument I was addressing to the Committee.
    I do not want to take a great deal of time on this. It is the sort of question on which people make up their minds almost instinctively when the proposition is put to them. There is the kind of mind which would instinctively say, "Here is someone who has done something wrong, who has offended us, who has hurt us or damaged us, someone who
    480
    has abused our hospitality. Let us consider what revenge we may exercise upon him". To that type of mind the provision which we seek to amend will not seem very harmful. There is another type of mind which goes instinctively the other way, "Here is someone who belongs to us, someone like us, living within the ambit not merely of our laws but of our way of life, our social circumstances, our conditions, our housing, our education, our employment and our economic surroundings, who has found himself in conflict with the law". I think that most of us would feel that it would be quite wrong in those cases to discriminate between one British subject and other so as to apply a further and rather cruel penalty in addition to the penalties which he already has incurred and which have rightly been exacted from him merely because he is a British subject who derives his citizenship in a way other than the way in which the rest of us have done.
    I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter again very carefully. Do we really want this provision? Do we want to reintroduce this power of transportation in respect of one limited class of potential offenders? By retaining it, will not the Government declare again that they are willing to slip further and further down a slippery slope the end of which will be the undermining of all the things which have made British citizenship something uniquely valuable in the world?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): I feel that I should claim the indulgence of the Committee on this my first attempt at the Box on the Bill.
    I understand that the purpose of the Amendment is to include among those who are defined—or whose definition as such is attempted—by subsection (2) as belonging to the United Kingdom all those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This, of course, would be an extremely wide extension. The Amendment would make it impossible for any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be deported however recently he had come to this country and whatever crime he might have committed.

    481
    At an earlier stage of our discussions, an attempt was made, but was rejected by the Committee, to draw a distinction between the treatment of those who came from the self-governing Dominions and those who came from the Colonies. The distinction was rejected. This is another attempt to introduce it.
    6.0 p.m.
    The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) attempts to get away from that decision by saying that Part II has nothing to do with Part I. That is not true, because it is possible for a conviction and subsequent deportation to take place under Part II for offences committed under Part I. There is, therefore, no dichotomy between the two parts such as the hon. Gentleman and, I think, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) attempted to draw. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, "Once you have let a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in, you should not be able to deport him". But, among other examples, there are those who have been let in subject to conditions. If they break those conditions—the Committee has already pronounced on the conditions—that is a breach of Part I and an offence which might subsequently lead to a conviction and a recommendation for deportation. Furthermore, from the practical point of view, if we exclude from deportation all those who have been admitted, it would inevitably follow, I fear, that in cases of doubt fewer people would be admitted than we hoped to see admitted because there would subsequently be no power to deport them.
    We have no intention in the Bill to disturb the arrangement that there is a common citizenship between the United Kingdom and the Colonies. But the effect of subsection (2) is that those who belong to the United Kingdom by birth, parentage, naturalisation or marriage cannot be deported. and we cannot discriminate between those who come from the Colonies and those who come from self-governing Dominions if only because there comes a time when those who are here from what were Colonies find themselves, while they are here or even in passage to this country, coming from Colonies which have meanwhile achieved independence.
    482
    As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, among others, said, there are tremendous safeguards under Clause 7 against deportation. It is to be used only in the most extreme circumstances. It is subject to all sorts of safeguards and discretions, and, of course, no one who has been here for five years can be deported. We are, therefore, dealing only with people who have fairly recently arrived and with those who have abused our hospitality by committing serious criminal offences.
    The power to deport has been taken by most of the Colonies. They take and retain the power to deport citizens of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies. Our measures are, if anything, more liberal than theirs in many cases. They are certainly more liberal than those of some Colonies dealing with aliens. It will not be possible to deport a Commonwealth citizen except on the recommendation of a court; and there is the five years exemption. The powers of Colonies in relation to aliens are much wider than the ones we propose.
    I must deal with a point which was made by the hon. Member for Islington, East. This is not transportation. Transportation is sending an offender to a country where he has never lived before. It is a question of sending him to a wild, inhospitable and hostile environment with which he has had no connection. Deportation is a matter of sending an offender back to his own people where he has at least as good a chance of reformation as he has here.
    Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I wish to touch on two points arising out of the argument of the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
    The first thing that he said which I found somewhat fantastic was this. The constitutional theory which he put forward was that it would not be possible to differentiate between people who come from the Colonies and people who come from the Commonwealth on the ground that some constitutional change might take place after they arrive. This is a problem which, I think, has been rather unnaturally inflated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, rather as if a Colony will achieve independence while an immigrant is on the high seas or is in transit to this country. I should have thought that it followed that the status of a person would change if he were in

    483
    this country in the same way that the diplomatic status of a Colony changes on the grant of independence. Colonial development and welfare loans and many other Acts of Parliament passed by the House of Commons are such that their operation alters when and in so far as a territory achieves independence.
    The point of the Amendment is that, while those people have colonial status, we have a special responsibility for them in the economic sense. Therefore, they should have greater rights in earning their livelihood in this country than those who belong to the independent Commonwealth. It is ludicrous for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to say that it is impossible to make a distinction between the two. There is a vesting date on which a country achieves independence. That means that it ceases to be represented at the Colonial Office, ceases to qualify for colonial development and welfare loans, and its people cease to qualify for exemption under this Clause if the Amendment is passed. To say that this change can operate for at least nine statutory purposes but not for the purpose of this Bill is very difficult to swallow.
    I found somewhat sinister the Joint Under-Secretary of State's suggestion that, if the Amendment were carried, fewer people would probably come into this country——
    Mr. S. Silverman: Be allowed into this country.
    Mr. Thorpe: Yes, be allowed into this country, by the immigration officers. The implication was that the Home Office and, in the hon. and learned Member's view, the immigration officers are likely to regard this Clause as a useful safety measure for repairing their errors of judgment as applied to intending immigrants That is a recognition of the fallibility of human judgment, and it therefore makes it all the more difficult to accept the Attorney-General's argument that no appeal is needed save to the Home Office. That was an extremely sinister implication in the argument.
    I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to think again about this idea that it is constitutionally impossible to differentiate between colonial people and people who are members of the independent Commonwealth. We have succeeded in doing that in at least nine Acts of Parliament, and I do not see why this difference should cause any difficulty at all.
    Mr. Fletcher: Apart from the reasons given by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), another serious objection to the Bill as drafted is its retrospective character. I appreciate that there are safeguards in Clause 7, but we always find members of the Conservative Party holding up their hands in horror at any thought of retrospective legislation. But this is retrospective legislation of the worst kind, because it is in a Bill dealing with criminal matters. Retrospective legislation may be justified in connection with fiscal matters and has been justified in fiscal legislation introduced by both parties. But legislation of a retrospective character in a criminal sense has always been abhorrent in our jurisprudence. That is what the Bill as drafted is, and that is why we want to limit its effect.
    As has been pointed out, immigrants who have been here for even up to five years will still be liable to deportation under the Bill. They came here under a system of jurisprudence, a system of criminal law, which they understood and which they thought was the system of a civilised country. They knew that we had certain criminal laws and a certain system of punishment. They knew that people could be sent to prison. But there was no provision for deportation. People who have lived here for five years will under the Bill become retrospectively liable to these sanctions. This is another reason why I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 179, Noes, 246.

    Division No. 71.]

    AYES

    [6.10 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Ainsley, William

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bence, Cyril

    Albu, Aust n

    Awbery, Stan

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Benson, Sir George

    Holt, Arthur

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Blackburn, F.

    Hoy, James H.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Blyton, William

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Boardman, H.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Randall, Harry

    Bowles, Frank

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Rankin, John

    Boyden, James

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Jeger, George

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Callaghan, James

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Ross, William

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Chapman, Donald

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Short, Edward

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Cronin, John

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Crosland, Anthony

    King, Dr. Horace

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Darling, George

    Lawson, George

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Small, William

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Deer, George

    McCann, John

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Diamond, John

    MacColl, James

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dodds, Norman

    Mclnnes, James

    Steele, Thomas

    Donnelly, Desmond

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Evans, Albert

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Swain, Thomas

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

    Symonds, J. B.

    Finch, Harold

    Manuel, A. C.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Fitch, Alan

    Mapp, Charles

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Marsh, Richard

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

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mason, Roy

    Thornton, Ernest

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Forman, J. C.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Timmons, John

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Millan, Bruce

    Wade, Donald

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Monslow Walter

    Warbey, William

    Ginsburg, David

    Moody, A. S.

    Weitzman, David

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morris, John

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Grey, Charles

    Mart, D. L.

    Whitlock, William

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Neal, Harold

    Willey, Frederick

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Gunter, Ray

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

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Oram, A. E.

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Hannan, William

    Oswald, Thomas

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Padley, W. E.

    Woof, Robert

    Hayman, F. H.

    Paget, R. T.

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Healey, Denis

    Parker, John

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hilton, A. V.

    Peart, Frederick

    Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead

    Holman, Percy

    Pentland, Norman

    NOES

    Allason, James

    Brooman-White, R.

    Corfield, F. V.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Arbuthnot, John

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Critchley, Julian

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Bryan, Paul

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Buck, Antony

    Cumin, Charles

    Barlow, Sir John

    Billiard, Denys

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Batsford, Brian

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Burden, F. A.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

    Donaldson Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Bell, Ronald

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Doughty, Charles

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Duncan, Sir James

    Biffen, John

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Eden, John

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Chataway, Christopher

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-uponTyne, N.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Emery, Peter

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Bossom, dive

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Box, Donald

    Cole, Norman

    Farr, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Collard, Richard

    Finlay, Graeme

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Cooke, Robert

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Brewis, John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    486

    487

    Freeth, Denzil

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Renton, David

    Gammans, Lady

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Gardner, Edward

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Gilmour, Sir John

    McAdden, Stephen

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    MacArthur, Ian

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Goodhart, Philip

    McLaren, Martin

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Gough, Frederick

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Russell, Ronald

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

    Seymour, Leslie

    Green, Alan

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Sharples, Richard

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Macleod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Shaw, M.

    Gurden, Harold

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Maddan, Martin

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

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Speir, Rupert

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Stodart, J. A.

    Heard, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel

    Marshall, Douglas

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Hendry, Forbes

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Mawby, Ray

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Mills, Stratton

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

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

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Teeling, Sir William

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Temple, John M.

    Hobson, John

    Morrison, John

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Holland, Philip

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Hollingworth, John

    Neave, Airey

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Turner, Colin

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Jackson, John

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    James, David

    Partridge, E.

    Walder, David

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Walker, Peter

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Peel, John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Peyton, John

    Wall, Patrick

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Pitman, Sir James

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Webster, David

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Pott, Percivall

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Price, David (Eastlcigh)

    Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Kirk, Peter

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Wise, A. R.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Leavey, J. A.

    Pym, Francis

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Ramsden, James

    Worsley, Marcus

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lindsay, Sir Martin

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Mr. Whitelaw and

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Rees, Hugh

    Mr. Gordon Campbell.

    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): With the next Amendment, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), we can also discuss, although it will not be called for a Division, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 5, line 37, at the end to insert:
    (d) a person who was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.
    Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
    488
    (c) a person who was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one: or
    (d) a spouse or child, stepchild, or adopted child under the age of twenty-one years, of a person of a description specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection.
    I move this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my other right hon. and hon. Friends, and I shall do so very briefly because whatever may be said or done about it depends upon the answer forthcoming from the Government.
    By subsection (2) of this Clause certain persons are exempt from this liability to

    489
    deportation. They include, for example, a person born in the United Kingdom or a person whose father was born in the United Kingdom, and there are others who are exempt from the liability. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the exemption to a person who was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on 1st November, 1961, and to the spouse, child, stepchild or adopted child under the age of 21 of anyone who is exempt under this subsection.
    Let me give an example. An immigrant may come into this country with his wife and family; if one of his children were to commit an offence for which he would be liable to imprisonment, such child might be deported unless this Amendment were introduced. I am, of course, aware that by Clause 7 he would not be liable to be deported if under the age of 17, but I suggest that to take a child between the age of 17 and 21 away from his family and deport him would be unduly hard, and that unless a provision such as this is inserted in the Bill that might take place.
    On Clause 1, I moved an Amendment to clarify the definition of those who would be entitled to come into the country; that was When we were discussing immigration into the country. I advocated the inclusion of the wife, the spouse and children. At that time the Minister of State objected to the wording of my Amendment. He did me the courtesy of writing to me afterwards explaining. He undertook to introduce an Amendment on Clause 2. In due course that Amendment was introduced, defining more clearly those persons who are entitled to come in with an immigrant, in particular his wife and family.
    When moving that Government Amendment yesterday the Home Secretary used these words:
    "A desire has been expressed, on both sides of the Committee, that our intentions in these matters should be made clear in the terms of the Bill and should not be left to be framed in administrative instructions to immigration officers. Although it was not our original idea in drafting the Bill, the Amendments have been put down with a view to meeting the wishes of the Committee in our previous discussions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 318.]
    In due course, that Amendment was approved.
    490
    I recognise that there is some difference between the wording of that Government Amendment to Clause 2 and the wording of the Amendment that I am now moving, but in substance they are the same, and I suggest to the Committee that if we are to have a definition in Clause 2 of those who may come into the country, we should have a somewhat similar definition in this Clause dealing with those who are liable to be deported. If it is true, as the Home Secretary said, that we should have this incorporated in the Bill, and not left to instructions to immigration officers, it seems to me that there is an almost stronger case for writing into the Bill some clarification of the class of persons liable to deportation under this Clause.
    I should like to make it clear that I am not opposed to deportation in all circumstances. My own view is that the principle contained in subsection (1) is not in itself objectionable. I am well aware that there is a small minority of immigrants who come into this country who act in such a way that they deserve punishment and do very great harm to the great majority of their fellow citizens, and I believe there are circumstances in which the proper course is to deport, but I think we should exercise great care in deciding to what classes this new provision should apply.
    It may be that the Government have a satisfactory answer; I hope so. I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment if the Government intend to introduce an Amendment similar to that which was introduced to Clause 2; but, if not, it will be necessary to press this further. However, I shall not pursue my argument at the moment, because I am anxious to know the intentions of the Government.
    Mr. J. Grimond: I want very briefly to support what has been so eloquently said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). I do not want to go over again all that he has said, but I want to emphasise this point, that it is quite obviously vital, if we are to have these provisions for deportation of a class of people which has not been liable to it before, that we really should define it and confine it as strictly as we possibly can. Like my hon. Friend, I do not entirely rule out the possibility

    491
    that in certain limited cases it may be desirable, but again, like, I am certain, hon. Members who spoke on the previous Amendment, I am personally very much biassed in favour of trying to retain these people in the community, even though they may have transgressed against our laws. That being so, I would urge the Government to think very carefully about the position of children, even if over 17, and certainly of a spouse.
    Further, there is in our Amendment the question of the person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on 1st November, 1961, and the reason for that, I think, is very obvious and must, I should have thought, commend itself widely in the Committee. It is simply that we do not want retrospective legislation. We do not want to put people already in the country when this Bill was first introduced into a new position before the law. I cannot think that any great damage would be done to the wellbeing of the country by accepting this Amendment, and I should have thought that the reasons for the Amendment would have commended themselves to the Government.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I understand very well the purposes of the Liberal Amendment. The effect of the first part of it would be that no one who was ordinarily resident here on 1st November, 1961, could be deported. If the deportation provisions of the Bill are acceptable in principle, as I understand they are, at least to the Liberal Party, then it is hard to see why anyone should be exempt from them merely because he arrived here before the Bill was introduced. The element of retrospection surely applies only if the conviction was before the Bill received the Royal Assent. And he can be recommended for deportation only if convicted after Part II of the Bill has come into force.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Fletcher: What about the element of retrospection if the offence were committed before the Bill was introduced?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. That, with respect, is a much more powerful argument than that merely of arrival in this
    492
    country. Although there are always two opinions about what is or what is not retrospection, whether in fiscal or other matters, nevertheless, it is undesirable in penal matters in case of doubt to come down on the wrong side of wherever the line should be drawn.
    I should like to look at that point again because if the crime was committed—not the question of residence or of coming into the country which I do not regard as retrospection, but the actual commission of the crime before the Bill has become an Act—I concede that that case might be looked at as retrospection, and I will look at the point again.
    Mr. S. Silverman: While not dissenting in the least from what has been said about offences committed before, is there not a great deal more in the other point than the Under-Secretary has conceded? Is there not an anomaly in drawing this distinction which, if the hon. Gentleman does not accept something like the spirit of the Amendment, he will be drawing? We should be saying that whereas we will not seek to exclude from entering into the country certain persons in certain situations, nevertheless we will enact the right to deport them if they are already here. Is it possible to justify that kind of distinction?
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I think it is. Once the Bill is law, if they subsequently commit a crime and are convicted they are in peril of deportation. I do not regard that as retrospection, but if they have already committed a crime, whether before or after the introduction of the Bill, it is arguable that that is retrospection. I go no further, though I think that is going a long way.
    I am afraid that I cannot give satisfaction on the second part of the Amendment. The proposal to include the new paragraph (d) would exempt from deportation wives, husbands, or children under 21 of persons already exempt, and without the Amendment the Bill already gives the possibility of exemption from deportation to wives and to children under 17 inasmuch as no-one under 17 can be recommended for deportation under Clause 7 (1).
    Exemption for wives is in accordance with the general expectation that she will acquire her husband's domicile, but

    493
    it seems unreasonable that a man who does not belong to the United Kingdom, which is the test applied, should be totally exempt from deportation merely because he married a woman born in the United Kingdom, or whose father was born here, and who might never have been in the United Kingdom except at birth, or who was only a "belonger" because her father was born here. In deciding whether there should be deportation or there should be an order, the court or the Home Secretary would have regard to the hardship that might be caused to the wife if her husband were deported in certain types of cases. But where, for example, the partners are estranged it seems unreasonable that a deportation order should not be made against the husband.
    As for the children, there is a dispute about the age between 17 and 21. If the family are all living here it is most unlikely that if the parents are exempt the children in practice would not be. In such an unlikely case of children not being exempted by discretion of the Home Secretary he would be very reluctant to make a deportation order. But the Amendment says nothing about the domicile of the parents and to take an extreme case there might well be young persons between 17 and 21 who, in the terms of the Amendment were children of such persons as are in the earlier subsections, but those parents might not be here at all.
    To take another extreme case, an immigrant born in Canada of a mother born in the United Kingdom leaves Canada and comes here at the age of 18 and commits a serious crime. It would seem absurd to be able to exempt him from deportation merely because his mother happened to have been born here but had gone to Canada many years ago. I ask the Committee to rely on the Home Secretary's discretion that where there is a genuine close family tie he would be obviously very reluctant to break that tie, even though the offender, and it would have to be a serious offence, who was over 17, was otherwise liable to deportation. But where the offender is on his own and has committed a serious crime and his only claim to exemption is his parenthood, I do not see why he should be exempt and
    494
    for these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Fletcher: The debate has had one desirable result. We have extracted from the Government an assurance that they will consider the point which has emerged about retrospection. It seems to me clear that it would be retrospective legislation of the worst character if anybody in respect of an offence committed before the Bill was enacted should in any circumstance become liable to be deported, because that, in effect, would be imposing a sanction or penalty of a totally different order from that recognised by the law of the land at the time when the offence was committed. That is retrospective legislation of a penal kind of the worst character.
    As I understand, we have had an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the Bill will be redrafted in order that it cannot be open to any possibility of construction that would permit such a retrospective result.
    So far so good. I fully support the arguments advanced from the Liberal benches. I thought that the Under-Secretary's reply to the main subject was disappointing, and I hope that the Amendment will be supported in the Lobby.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am a little shocked to see that representatives of the Home Office are apparently incapable of appreciating what an anomalous situation they are creating by means of the Clause and by their quite incomprehensibly rigid reaction to the argument presented by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and others. I should have thought it anomalous to the point of being ridiculous to say that a man already established here before this monstrosity was conceived should have less rights than if he were an intending immigrant after the Bill became law.
    That is the effect of the Amendment which the Home Secretary moved. If it is limited to Part I of the Measure, and if one refuses to make the same limitation or provide the same safeguard when dealing with Part II, it means that the established British citizen who is a resident here can be deported when in precisely the same circumstances, or very nearly so, he would be admitted under Part I.
    I cannot understand, except on the assumption that nobody has taken any

    495
    real trouble to examine this, why the Home Office commits itself to so utterly ridiculous a situation.
    Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 240, Noes 177.

    Division No. 72.]

    AYES

    [6.41 p.m.

    Allason, James

    Gibson-Watt, David

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

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Mills, Stratton

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Goodhart, Philip

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Goodhew, Victor

    Morgan, William

    Batsford, Brian

    Gough, Frederick

    Morrison, John

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Bell, Ronald

    Green, Alan

    Neave, Airey

    Berkeley, Humphry

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Gurden, Harold

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Biffen, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Bingham, R. M.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hay, John

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Bossom, Clive

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Partridge, E.

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Box, Donald

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Peel, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Peyton, John

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Brewis, John

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

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Bromley, Davenport, Lt-Col. Sir Walter

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pitman, Sir James

    Brooman-White, R.

    Hobson, John

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Pott, Percivall

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Holland, Philip

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hollingworth, John

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Buck, Antony

    Hopkins Alan

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Bullard, Denys

    Hornby, R. P.

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Burden, F. A.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Pym, Francis

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

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ramsden, James

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Jackson, John

    Rees, Hugh

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    James, David

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Renton, David

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)

    Cole, Norman

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Collard, Richard

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Cooke, Robert

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cooper, A. E.

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kirk, Peter

    Russell, Ronald

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Critchley, Julian

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Leavey, J. A.

    Sharples, Richard

    Curran, Charles

    Leburn Gilmour

    Shaw, M.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

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

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Speir, Rupert

    Drayson, G. B.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Duncan, Sir James

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Stodart, J. A.

    Eden, John

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McAdden, Stephen

    Studholme, Sir Henry

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

    Mac Arthur, Ian

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Emery, Peter

    McLaren, Martin

    Tapsell, Peter

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Taylor Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

    Temple, John M.

    Farr, John

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Fell, Anthony

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maginnis, John E.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maitland, Sir John

    Turner, Colin

    Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Freeth, Denzil

    Marshall, Douglas

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Gammans, Lady

    Mawby, Ray

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Gardner, Edward

    Maxwell-Hyslop, B. J.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Webster, David

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Walder, David

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Walker, Peter

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Wall, Patrick

    Wise, A. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Ward, Darne Irene

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Mr. Whitelaw and

    Mr. Michael Hamilton.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Hayman, F. H.

    Parker, John

    Ainsley, William

    Healey, Denis

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Albu, Austen

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Peart, Frederick

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Pentland, Norman

    Awbery, Stan

    Hilton, A. V.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Holman, Percy

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Bence, Cyril

    Holt, Arthur

    Prentice, R. E.

    Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hoy, James H.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Blackburn, r.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Blyton, William

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Randall, Harry

    Boardman, H,

    Hunter, A. E,

    Rankin, John

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Rhodes, H.

    Bowles, Frank

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Boyden, James

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Jeger, George

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Ross, William

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Short, Edward

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Chapman, Donald

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Cronin, John

    King, Dr. Horace

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Crosland, Anthony

    Lawson, George

    Small, William

    Darling, George

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies Ifor (Gower)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McCann, John

    Steele, Thomas

    Deer, George

    MacColl, James

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Diamond, John

    Mclnnes, James

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    Dodds, Norman

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

    Swain, Thomas

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Symonds, J. B.

    Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Evans, Albert

    Manuel, A. C.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mapp, Charles

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

    Finch, Harold

    Marsh, Richard

    Thornton, Ernest

    Fitch, Alan

    Mason, Roy

    Timmons, John

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    Mendelson, J. J,

    Warbey, William

    Forman, J. C.

    Millan, Bruce

    Weitzman, David

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Milne, Edward

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Mitchlson, G. R.

    Whitlock, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Monslow, Walter

    Wilkins, W. A.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Moody, A. S.

    Willey, Frederick

    Ginsburg, David

    Morris, John

    Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Grey, Charles

    Moyle, Arthur

    Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Neal, Harold

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Woof, Robert

    Gunter, Ray

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Oram, A. E.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Hannan, William

    Padley, W. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Paget, R. T.

    Mr. Wade and Mr. Thorpe.

    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. It will be possible to discuss with it the Amendment in page 6, line 1, to leave out subsection (4), which stands in the name of the hon. Member
    for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) but which has not been selected.
    Mr. Diamond: I beg, to move, in page 6, line 2, to leave out "him" and to insert "the Crown".
    The Amendment stands in the names of a number of my most senior right hon. Friends, and, unless they have been

    499
    as deeply deceived as I may have been, the Amendment hardly needs arguing but only stating. It does not need arguing because there is no onus of proof on us. The onus is on the Government to substantiate subsection (4).
    It appears to me that subsection (4) is a complete breach in the normal principles of law and justice. I am no lawyer. I am simply making a simple proposition. I am in favour of justice and against injustice. It is as simple as that. As the Clause stands, if any question arises as to whether the person is a Commonwealth citizen for whom the court could recommend deportation,
    "…it shall lie on him"—
    the Commonwealth citizen—
    "to prove that he is not such a citizen."
    The Amendment would place the onus on the Crown to prove that the person concerned was not a Commonwealth citizen or that he was a Commonwealth citizen capable of being deported on the recommendation of the court.
    Having said that, it is hardly necessary to say much more about such a simple principle, which is so easily comprehended by all of us that one can almost hope that the learned Attorney-General will get up and accept it. The only reason that I can think of for his not accepting it is that it is beyond my memory to recall anything that he has ever accepted. However, I live in hope, as we all do on this side of the Committee, and we hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the Amendment on this occasion.
    The Minister of State said earlier that matters like this are left to the discretion of the court. But this subsection removes that discretion completely. As far as I can see, if the subsection were omitted it would probably have the same effect as that of the Amendment I am moving, namely, that the ordinary principle would apply and the Crown would have to demonstrate that the person concerned was subject not only to the penalty of his offence but to deportation in addition.
    We are not concerned here with the deportation of aliens but with the deportation of Commonwealth citizens, some of whom may have been resident for three or four years in this country.
    500
    An offence is committed and the question of deportation can then arise. I want to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has pointed out—that now we are dealing with Part II of the Bill and, therefore, with permanent legislation, not with a temporary measure subject to review, however inadequate, in a period of time by the House of Commons. Once we pass Part II it will remain on the Statute Book for a long time.
    I see no reason why we should depart from the normal principle. This power to deport arises in the case of an offence having been committed, but that offence has to be proved. The citizen will not have to prove that he has not committed the offence. The prosecution will have to prove that he did commit it. In other words, in the trial for the offence, the normal process of our law will apply. Justice will be seen to be taking place. Of course, it would be reasonable, in the circumstances of a case like that, to require a Commonwealth citizen to explain that he was a Commonwealth citizen of the kind which exempted him from the powers of the court to recommend deportation, but to require an explanation is a very different matter from putting upon him the onus of proof.
    Recognising as I do that I am a layman in these matters and that I am surrounded on all sides by distinguished and eminent lawyers, I move the Amendment in the full and earnest hope that we have correctly understood subsection (4) as it stands. If that is so, then it is a grave breach of the principles of British law and should be removed.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) that the proposition he is advancing is, or at least ought to be, self-evident. But it evidently is not. The contrary is in the Bill, and there has been no indication so far of any change of mind or heart by the Government. I am at a loss to know why. The proposition contained in subection (4) is in conflict with the whole spirit of our penal law. It has been put in deliberately so that in a case where the Government are applying a sanction to one class of British subject which they

    501
    do not claim to apply, and should not apply, to another class, it will be incumbent upon the man concerned to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he is not a person to whom the sanction can apply.
    This is not a matter of the Home Secertary's discretion, although I know that there is
    a discretion in the background. The Home Secretary is not bound to accept the recommendation of the court for deportation. The position is a little better, as it should be, than it is in the case of aliens. In their case, the Home Secretary has a discretion about deportation, but it is, subject to an advisory opinion by Bow Street, an absolute discretion. There is no prior condition which has to be fulfilled before he has the right to make an order of deportation. That is not the case with Commonwealth citizens.
    7.0 p.m.
    The Bill specifically provides that the Home Secretary has no power to deport unless and until an offence has been committed, unless and until a man has been convicted of that offence and unless and until a court of law has decided that there shall be this recommendation to the Home Secretary to add this penalty to any other. It is therefore part of the matter which the court has to try and is not something extraneous or something which happens as an administrative consequence of what the court has to try.
    There is no more reason why the onus of proof, which lies on the prosecution to prove every other matter involved in the question which the court has to try, should not lie on the prosecution in this aspect of the matter as well. Presumably, the court will not make a recommendation for deportation on its own initiative. It will have to be invited by the prosecution to do it and presumably, therefore, the prosecution will know all the facts as to whether the man is subject to this part of the Bill and whether he is or is not a Commonwealth citizen within the meaning of this Clause. Why should the prosecution be excused from discharging the onus of proof on that issue when it lies upon it in every other part of the case?
    It is possible to explain this total reversal of a basic principle of the British
    502
    criminal law only by supposing that the whole scheme has not been considered at all, or has been considered in a spirit of utter malice and vindictiveness. If there is a question as to whether the man before the court is a man who comes under this part of the Bill, the onus of proving that he is such a person ought to lie upon those who assert it, as it does in respect of every other part of the case. To make an exemption on so fundamental a principle in a matter which may be fundamental to the whole future of the man concerned is something which most people, even the Attorney-General in his calmer and more professional moments, would find utterly and completely incomprehensible.
    I hope that we are being unjust to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not like hoping that one is being unjust to him, but on this occasion I hope that we are. I hope that he is waiting patiently through all our indictments to say, "What is the excitement about? I always intended to accept this Amendment". Somehow, I do not think that that will happen. He would have been only too anxious to say it earlier if he was to say it at all.
    The Committee is not bound to support the Government on every part of the Bill and I hope that hon. Members will make up their own minds, independently of party considerations, or loyalities, or anything of that kind. There are some hon. Members who, to their credit, have taken the responsibility of voting against their own Front Bench more than once on various questions.
    Mr. A. R. Wise: And who have been thrown out for it.
    Mr. Silverman: I hope that they will do it again. There is no part of the Bill which would justify them more completely in such opposition to their nominal leaders than that which we are now discussing.
    The Attorney-General: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I must admit, with some degree of astonishment when I heard that this subsection was a complete breach of our normal principles of law—the words of the hon. Member for

    503
    Gloucester—and when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that it was in conflict with the whole spirit of our penal law. I shall seek to establish, I hope to the satisfaction of the Committee, that that is not the case.
    However, I want, first, to point out that the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would be that there would be no guidance in the Bill to show on whom the burden of proof would lie.
    Mr. S. Silverman: It would not be needed.
    The Attorney-General: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member, and I think that, if there were no specific reference, under ordinary law it would still lie on the defence. The effect of the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition is to put the burden clearly on the Crown.
    No recommendation for deportation
    can be made by any court without notice first being served on the accused person under Clause 8. That notice must tell him in respect of what classes of person a recommendation can be made and must give him notice that if he wishes to assert that he is not a Commonwealth citizen to whom this part of the Bill applies it will be for him to prove it.
    Mr. Diamond: Within three days.
    The Attorney-General: It is not less than three days and in many cases it will be more, and if he wants an adjournment I have no doubt that he would be able to get it. I appreciate that that is not the subject of the challenge, but I thought it right to draw attention to the fact that notice is required to be given as a preliminary step in any proceedings for deportation.
    It will be recognised that in every case the facts in relation to an application of this kind will be peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. He will know whether he is a Commonwealth citizen and whether he comes within one of the three exempted categories.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will not the prosecution know?
    The Attorney-General: He will know that positively.
    Mr. Diamond: That is reasonable.
    The Attorney-General: I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Gloucester say that it is reasonable to require an explanation from him.
    That being the position, I am surprised
    by the statement of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that the subsection makes a radical departure from the usual rule. Before coming to the authorities on what is the usual rule in these matters, I want to say that if the burden of proof lay on the Crown it would be for the Crown to prove a whole series of negative averments. If we had to prove in each case that the accused was not born in the United Kingdom, that his father was not born in the United Kingdom, that neither of his parents was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, the prosecution would have to prove each of the three categories.
    If before making these statements the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had turned to Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, page 375 of the 34th edition, he would have seen this said about negative averments:
    "The present rule upon the subject appears to be, that in cases where the subject of such averment relates to the prisoner personally, or is peculiarly within his knowledge, the negative is not to be proved by the prosecutor, but, on the contrary, the affirmative must be proved by the prisoner, as a matter of defence…"
    That is dealing with ordinary criminal prosecutions where there is a negative averment. That is why I said that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne were accepted, and that statement of the law is right, the burden of proof would not be altered.
    The House of Commons has on more than one occasion acted on that principle. I quote two recent statutes, and I am sure that there are others. Section 81 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, says:
    "Where the defendant to an information or complaint relies for his defence on any exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification, whether or not it accompanies the description of the offence or matter of complaint in the enactment creating the offence or on which the complaint is founded, the burden of proving the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification shall be on him; and this not withstanding that the information or complaint contains an allegation negativing the exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification."

    505
    Section 47 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956, says:
    "Where in any of the foregoing sections the description of an offence is expressed to be subject to exemptions mentioned in the section, proof of the exception is to lie on the person relying on it."
    Subsection (2) clearly deals with exceptions, and when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne talked about this proposal being completely in conflict with the whole spirit of our penal law he must, I fear, have ignored, if he had not forgotten, the fact that under our ordinary criminal law when one is proving an offence where there is an exception the onus, as I have shown from the passage in Archbold, rests on the defence.
    If that is the principle with regard to the proof of ordinary criminal offences, if that is the principle recognised in this House in the passing of the Magistrates' Courts Act and the Sexual Offences Act——
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: What about the deportation of aliens under the Aliens Order?
    The Attorney-General: I have not that Order with me, but I do not think that that alters the principle. I will refresh my memory on it. I am dealing with the general principle which I think is well established with regard to the burden of proof.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Do not pump it up too much.
    The Attorney-General: I do not want to pump it up too much, or hit the hon. Gentleman too hard, because I know that if I do he will interrupt me.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, as he always does, put his case forcefully, but in this instance I submit that his case is unfounded, because, so far from being a departure from the general rule, it is an application of the general rule to these particular circumstances. Notice will not be given to any person who is accused that an application will be made for a recommendation for deportation unless there is ground for believing that he is a person to whom the Act applies. But it is one thing for the Crown to have grounds for believing that and another for the Crown to discharge the heavy burden
    506
    of proof that lies on it in proving any matter when that matter is so particularly and peculiarly within the accused's personal knowledge.
    In every case, of course, the burden of proof on the Crown differs from the burden which rests on the defence—that is clearly established—and all that the defence would have to prove under this subsection to avoid the operation of this part of the Act would be the probability of what it is called on to prove, not absolute proof to the satisfaction of the court, which is what the prosecution would have to establish. All that the defence would have to do would be to establish the probability either that the person concerned was not a Commonwealth citizen at all, or that he was within one of the excepted classes.
    7.15 p.m.
    To sum up this part of my submission to the Committee, I do not think that there is any departure from our normal principles. I think that this is in accordance with them, and I should like the Committee to consider what would be the position if the burden rested on the Crown to prove this series of negatives in every case. I think that it would be an impossible burden, and it would mean that Part II of the Act would be incapable of operation.
    I have risen now because I think it is right that the Committee should raise every time any proposal in a Bill which puts the onus on the defence and seek to have it justified. I think that the Committee and the House would be failing in their duty if they did not raise this question, but we have on many occasions recognised in our statutes that that is not an invariable rule, and with regard to exceptions such as this, the rule is as I have stated, and as I have cited from Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice.
    I hope I have satisfied the Committee, or at least some Members of it, that there is a strong case for keeping the Bill in its present form. I submit that it is in accordance with the usual rule and, with common sense, that the accused person who is given notice that an application will be made for his deportation should be required to establish the probability of facts peculiarly within his knowledge if he wishes to assert that Part II of the Act does not apply to him.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I think that I must, if only out of deference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, offer him a word in reply. I should have thought, and I say this with extreme diffidence, that what the Attorney-General has said, so far from proving that my hon. Friend is wrong, has proved conclusively that he is right.
    What did the Attorney-General say? He said that the basic principle of our law is that the onus of proving a negative should not lie on those who, as it were, assert the negative; that the principle is that the onus of proving a thing shall lie on him who asserts it, not on him who denies it, and that we must not put the onus on anybody of proving a negative.
    Subsection (4) says:
    "If any question arises whether a person is a Commonwealth citizen to whom this section applies, it shall lie on him to prove that he is not such a citizen."
    In other words, this subsection puts upon the defendant the burden of proving a negative, which is precisely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was telling the Committee was wrong.
    I agree with the Attorney-General that it is wrong. I agree that the onus of proof cannot be placed on the proving of a negative. It must lie on those who assert something; not on those who deny it. The Attorney-General knows—he drew our attention to it—that a notice has to be served on the defendant. A notice about what? A notice which asserts, among other things, that he is a person to whom this part of the Act applies. Why then should not the person serving the notice have to prove it? It is very difficult to understand.
    Let me draw the Attorney-General's attention to one or two parallel cases under our criminal law. A man may make himself liable to a period of corrective training or to a period of detention. To be liable to it, he must have committed a certain number of a certain kind of offences within a certain period. As in this case, the prosecution has to serve a notice upon the defendant that it is doing that and the notice has to set out what the previous convictions are. It does not call upon the defendant to prove that the convictions never hap
    508
    pened. The defendant may deny them. If he does, the onus of proving them lies upon the prosecution, as it ought to do.
    Every word that the Attorney-General said established the proposition contended by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) in moving the Amendment, and I suggest in all humility that the Attorney-General has not given his mind to the matter in the way that he ought to have done.
    The Attorney-General: I should like to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and also to answer the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) about the Aliens Act. The provision of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, is very similar to this and it runs as follows:
    "If any question arises on any proceedings under any such Order, or with reference to anything done or proposed to be done under any such Order, whether any person is an alien or not, or is an alien of a particular class or not, the onus of proving that that person is not an alien, or, as the case may be, is not an alien of that class, shall lie upon that person."
    That is in line with the provision in this case.
    The hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne skilfully sought to suggest that because of the form of words in subsection (4), particularly
    "it shall lie on him to prove that he is not such a citizen",
    it would be for him to prove a negative. But what has he to prove? For this, one is taken back to subsection (2). To take the
    most simple example, he has to prove that he was
    "a person born in the United Kingdom".
    That is a fact which would be within his knowledge. He would have to prove one of the positive matters within paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2). If the burden was on the Crown, the Crown would have to prove the negative of each of those propositions. That is why I put it in that way.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I followed the Attorney-General's reasoning, but I am a little puzzled by the way in which he presented the case in his first speech. I followed the argument on subsection (2) about negative averments. The whole

    509
    of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case, as I understand it, is based on the existence of the negative averments in subsection (2). That leaves the positive averment in subsection (1). Therefore, the position in subsection (1) is that the Crown has to prove that a person is a Commonwealth citizen and then, under subsection (2), by reason of the exceptions and the negative averments, the accused person—the potential deportee—has to establish that he is the kind of Commonwealth citizen who is excepted by subsection (2). That leaves on the Crown the burden of the positive averment under subsection (1).
    In subsection (4), however, one sees that
    "If any question arises whether a person is a Commonwealth citizen to whom this section applies, it shall lie on him to prove that he is not such a citizen."
    That would indicate that the burden of proof is upon him, not only in respect of the negative averments under subsection (2), on which the Attorney-General based his whole case, but also in respect of the positive averment under subsection (1) that he is a Commonwealth citizen at all. Therefore, the Attorney-General's reasoning in his first speech completely failed to meet the point made by my hon. Friend.
    I accept the Attorney-General's argument on negative averments referable to subsection (2); but for the very reason that I accept those arguments with regard to subsection (2), they are utterly contrary to accepting that the burden of proof should be on the potential deportee with regard to his being a Commonwealth citizen at all. That is exactly what subsection (4) does.
    Therefore, I hope that if the Attorney-General does not accept the precise Amendment brought forward by my hon. Friend, he will at least, on his own reasoning, say that he will introduce an Amendment to limit the burden of proof on the potential deportee to the establishment of the facts within subsection (2) but not the facts within subsection (1).
    Mr. Chapman: I hesitate to step in when all the lawyers have been having a good time——
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Then do not do so.
    Mr. Chapman:—but perhaps we might bring in a little common sense when they sit down. For the first time on the Bill, I agree with the Attorney-General. As I see it, the Amendment does not do what my hon. Friends intended. They wanted to say in the Amendment that if there was doubt whether a person was a Commonwealth citizen liable to be deported the Crown must prove that he is a Commonwealth citizen liable to be deported. That is what my hon. Friends want to establish by their Amendment, but the Amendment does not do that. It would make the Clause state that
    "it shall lie on the Crown to prove that he is not such a citizen"
    who is liable to be deported.
    The Amendment not only should alter "him" to "the Crown", but should have altered the subsection to a positive statement. The last words of the subsection should have been made to read that
    "it shall lie on the Crown to prove that he is a Commonwealth citizen".
    Therefore, unfortunately, the Amendment does not do what my hon. Friends intend. That is why we have had all these long arguments about negative averments, which I do not understand, which could have been demolished from the beginning by pointing out that the Amendment does not do what it is intended to do.
    Nevertheless, I return to the point that it would not have been a bad thing to have an Amendment of the kind intended by my hon. Friends. It would have been a good thing if we could have had a gesture of generosity in this legislation to say that, as these are difficult matters, when doubts arise as to whether a person is liable to be deported there should be onus on the Crown to prove that he is liable to be deported.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Chapman: May I finish? I am trying to come halfway towards what my hon. and learned Friend was saying. The Amendment is wrong, but I am trying to agree with its spirit.
    It would have been a good thing if we could have had in this legislation an indication that in cases like this there would be a burden on the Crown to

    511
    prove that the person is liable to deportation under the Clause. I say this because a lot of the people who may be involved may well be poor people, who would not go through to the higher parts of our system of justice where they would get skilled legal advice, and it may be difficult for them in the lower ranks of the judicial system to prove their position if they are partly illiterate or, at least, not well educated. I would like to see a gesture of generosity in that respect in this legislation.
    The Attorney-General: The Committee is grateful for what one might call the light shown by the layman on our discussion, particularly when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) took the technical point concerning the drafting of the Amendment, which appeared in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I had not sought to rely on that technicality, although it had not escaped my notice, but had endeavoured to meet the spirit of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). I have endeavoured to cover the whole field shortly because of the work that lies before us.
    The hon. and learned Member for Leicestershire, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has raised a point which I do not think was raised in the moving or seconding of the Amendment. Most of the attention then was focussed on subsection (2). The hon. and learned Member was quite right in saying that I devoted most of my reply to subsection (2). Technically, he has force in his argument that subsection (1) does not contain a negative averment. In my speech, however, I drew attention to the emphasis which is properly laid on matters which are peculiarly personal to and within the knowledge of the person concerned.
    7.30 p.m.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Northfield, I would say that however illiterate, however uneducated or however poor people may be, they usually have no doubt at all as to whether they are British, Canadian or anything else of that kind. I can assure the hon. Member and the Committee of one thing, and it is this. With legal aid so readily available in these days, if
    512
    notice that deportation is to be recommended is served upon someone I do not doubt that every inquiry will be made to find out whether there it any support for, say, his assertion that he comes within one of the exceptions, or that he is not a Commonwealth citizen at all.
    I do not think that this provision will work at all in the way of hardship. Nobody, and no court, wants to make a recommendation to deport anyone unless it is absolutely certain that it is the right course to follow. The precedents of the Aliens
    Act has, as I have pointed out, been followed out in this case. I have not heard any complaints about how that Act has worked, and I do not believe that when this Measure is on the Statute Book we shall find any complaint about how its machinery operates.
    Mr. Diamond: I know that I do not have to apologise to the Committee for raising what seemed to many of us to be a principle of simple justice. Indeed, the Attorney-General was good enough to say that he thought it right that whenever a matter like this occurred in legislation it should be raised. I said before the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke that I recognised immediately the need for explanation; not being a lawyer, I took it that there was a considerable difference between making an explanation and having the onus of proof resting on one with regard to an allegation that one was not covered by the Clause.
    We have heard the learned Attorney-General's explanation. On him rests the supreme responsibility of being satisfied that this provision is in direct conformity with our normal principles of seeing that justice is done. He is satisfied about that, and it is his responsibility to advise the Committee that this is so. In that sense, I accept his advice and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Chapman: I have spoken only very briefly in my various interventions and I propose to continue that practice, but it is important that some of us who have been heavily involved in the Bill should say one or two things on

    513
    this main matter of deportation. It is a fact, and I do not complain about it, that there is considerable support in the country for the Bill. In opposing it, we do not deny that, but we do not think that the popularity of a Measure is necessarily an indicator of its justice. It is on those grounds, when we judge the Bill's rightness in principle, that we have to oppose it.
    At the same time, some of us who have been heavily criticised—and we do not grumble about that—want to make it clear that we have no objection to this part of the Bill. It is right, if the procedure is proper, that people who commit crimes as defined here, and the people who are defined here, should be deported, and I am glad to note, that, amongst others, the Prime Minister of Jamaica has said that Commonwealth people accept that.
    To that extent, this part of the Bill is satisfactory, but there are one or two other things that ought to be said about its effects. I hope that something can be done, particularly now that this Measure is being passed, to make it clear to our people, or to get people to make it clear, that there is no reason to believe that there is a huge crime wave amongst coloured people in the United Kingdom. It is really monstrous to keep saying that there are thousands of coloured people who ought to be deported because they are continually indulging in crime. That is not true. It is a gross slander of many of them, but it is continually repeated.
    There was a letter in The Times of 25th November about this aspect of the Bill. It was written, I think, by a Birmingham stipendiary magistrate in these terms, "While you are all talking about this business, we are busy trying cases in the court. My colleague and I this morning tried 47 cases, and this was the score: West Indians—none; Wales—2; Scotland—three; England—10; Ireland—32." I do not draw any conclusions from that, but I repeat that it is monstrous to keep on visiting the sins of a few of them on the 300,000 West Indians living here. People should stop saying that thousands of coloured people come here to commit crime, and should be deported.
    I have another piece of evidence, in the form of a report by the Birmingham
    514
    Co-ordinating Committee for Coloured People, which states:
    "On the contrary, one probation officer, working an area of the city where many immigrants live, finds that the 70 cases on his list are West Indian, 2; African, 1; Irish, 17; ordinary Birmingham citizens, 50."
    Let us keep this matter in proportion. I do not say that the absolute opposite extreme is the case, and that none of these people indulges in crime and ought not to be deported, but let us keep this in balance, and stop pretending there are so many coloured people indulging in criminal activities.
    I am reminded that in the northern States of America, it is now general newspaper practice never to mention the colour of a man about whom a report is written. If a man is an American citizen his name is given as, say, "John Brown", and the code amongst newspapers is not to say that he is a negro citizen of the United States.
    I wish that we could get that practice accepted here. What do we find in the Birmingham newspapers, for instance? We get things like, "Jamaican caught with knife in hand"; "Jamaican attacks another". They do not speak of an Irishman or an Englishman doing that. The fact is that the minority of cases involving coloured people is exaggerated in the minds of the public because colour is screamed at them in the headlines. Amongst all the other criminal activity going on, people remember that case because it was headlined with colour in it.
    I hope that when the Bill is enacted, and when Part II comes into practice, the Home Secretary will support a campaign to get the newspapers to stop labelling with their colour people who are British citizens and who are as equal to me as any white man is equal to me inside this country.
    Mr. Leonard Cleaver: I entirely agree that we do not want to prejudice the coloured people, or put out wrong information about them. If, during the whole of 1961, immigrants had been liable to deportation as aliens, just over 220 cases would have had to be considered in Birmingham. To make the other point, the figure for Irishmen was just over 530. I think that we should be clear about that.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I think that it is only right that I should, having heard the remarks of hon. Members, say a few words on this part of the Bill, which is rather technical. This is a most important Clause. It introduces, for the first time, the power to deport Commonwealth citizens from this country. It is a new power and we considered it very carefully before putting it in the Bill.
    We think that there is a strong case for having this power and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and other hon. Members have acknowledged that, subject to the criticism they made of the Clause, they consider that taking the power is legitimate. It only remains for me to say that the power will be exercised with the utmost care and reticence.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), as usual, spotted the difference between this and the power for aliens. The Clause makes it clear that the power can be operated only on the recommendation of a court following conviction of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment. It is, therefore, carefully hedged about and much more carefully phrased than in the case of the aliens legislation. I can give an undertaking to the Committee that there will not be a great number of cases involved. There are not a large number of alien deportation cases. Deportation will be carefully considered and carried out under the Secretary of State's personal signature. It can only be done on the recommendation of a court subject to some of the observations which were made by the Attorney-General in his intervention earlier on points of law.
    On the question of retrospection, I listened with interest to the remarks that were made on the previous Amendment and I endorse what was said by the Under-Secretary. I think that there was something in the Bill, as drawn, which hon. Members considered undesirable—the question of the commission of an offence before the Act comes into force. We have decided to look at this before the Report stage to bring it more into
    516
    line with other legislation which does not permit retrospection in this sphere. I hope that I have shown that we intend to interpret the Clause in as reasonable a manner as we can.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I support the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), because in one case during my Home Secretaryship, a strike was organised by the Longshoreman's Union in Canada, a branch of a union which is really domiciled in the United States. Some Canadians came here and organised a strike in the London docks and I could not deal with any of them. Then, for some reason or other, the United States branch of the union did not think that the Canadians were prosecuting the strike vigorously enough and they sent two American officers of the union over. They were deported on the day they landed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, there was no nonsense when I was Secretary of State. There was no being subservient to the United States.
    I regret that the Home Secretary considers the Bill to be necessary, but I will not go over all the arguments against it again. When people are our guests, however, and they abuse the position in the kind of way I have indicated—the Canadians in question—the Home Secretary should have the power to treat them as we would treat disorderly guests in our own home. He should have the power to say that if they wish to conduct themselves in such a manner they should do so in the place where they were brought up.
    I understand that under the Clause as now drawn the most distinguished Canadian in this country, who does so much to control opinion here, is not liable to deportation. In any case, when I listened to the Home Secretary I thought that whereas a conjurer relies on the principle that the quickness of the hand will deceive the eye, the right hon. Gentleman considers that the quickness of the tongue will deceive the ear.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7.—(POWER OF COURT TO RECOMMEND FOR DEPORTATION.)
    Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out "seventeen" and to insert "twenty-five".
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I think that it will be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in page 6, line 25, to leave out subsection (3).
    Mr. Silverman: The effect of the Amendment would be to exempt from the liability to deportation persons up to the age of 25 instead of as the Bill is now drafted up to the age of 17. I hope to have the sympathetic hearing and, possibly, the support of the Home Office for this Amendment, because it seems that, apart from any legal arguments, the argument in support of it is in line with what has always been plain public policy.
    To be liable to be deported one has, first of all, to be convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment. The key word is "punishable" and not "punished". In other words, it is not necessary, in order to render oneself liable under the Clause to deportation, to be sentenced to imprisonment. It is sufficient if one is convicted of an offence for which one might, if the court thought fit, be sentenced to imprisonment—even though the court decides in the particular case that the offence committed, though carrying such a statutory liability, is not such as to deserve it.
    In other words, all that is required here is that the offence itself, in general, should carry with it a possible sentence of imprisonment but not necessarily an actual sentence of imprisonment for the particular case. To see the effect of that, one should look at Clause 7 (3), which states:
    "In this section 'offence punishable with imprisonment' includes an offence which would be so punishable apart from any enactment restricting the imprisonment of young offenders or of first offenders…"
    That is particularly pertinent in the case of the Amendment because not merely is it public policy, but statutory, that a court in this country should not send anyone to prison under the age of 17—that is not pertinent here because 17 is the word in the Clause now—but that between the ages of 17 and 21 no court
    518
    can send an offender to prison unless there is really, in all the circumstances of the case, nothing else that can reasonably be done with him.
    Therefore, if this Clause remains unamended we have the situation that a young person whom the court is forbidden from sending to prison may nevertheless be recommended for deportation. I suggest in all seriousness to the Home Secretary that this is an anomaly which he does not need, and which he could easily remove.
    Of course, there are some exceptions to the rule about not sending young people to prison between the ages of 17 and 21. An opponent of nuclear strategy who, for that reason, commits offences against the highways Acts lays himself open to a fine up to a maximum of 40s. If the fine is not paid, apparently public policy does not prevent young persons of that kind being sent to prison, and a great many of them have been sent to prison in recent months.
    Also if one is not a criminal at all, even in that technical sense, if no charge has been and can be brought, but nevertheless under a 600 years old Statute whose meaning nobody quite knows one is called upon to enter into certain recognisances and refuses to do so, then apparently, whatever one's age, one can still be sent to prison. Even the 17 years of age limitation does not apply.
    However, we are not dealing with that kind of case. We are dealing with the case of the ordinary criminal, as to whom this House has said that it is better not to send such people to prison unless there is no other course open, but to deal with them in some other way, because one ought not to regard it as axiomatic that a prison sentence is the most useful or most desirable form of punishment for a person under the age of 21. Other methods are open which ought to be tried—ways of reform, probation, perhaps fines, some other kind of penalty that will keep a young person out of this kind of contact and out of prison.
    If we take so much trouble to do that, is it not wrong that we should nevertheless subject people to the possibility of deportation at the age of 17 or a year or two beyond it, in cases where a penalty of imprisonment would be

    519
    regarded as inappropriate? If the imprisonment is inappropriate, then the deportation is a fortiori inappropriate.
    I conceive that it does not necessarily follow that if 17 is the wrong age 25 is the right one. There may well be a case for saying that I have put the age too high, and that on my own argument the age of 21 would be more appropriate than 25. I shall not pursue that part of the argument, although something can be said in favour of the age of 25. What I am saying is that 17 is too young.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is obviously a matter of judgment, and a difficult matter of judgment, where to fix the age at which persons must be considered fully responsible for their acts. In the criminal law of this country the age of 17, although not the only dividing line, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, is a very considerable dividing line. At the age of 17 a person ceases to be subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and the provisions of the law which put children and young persons in a special and protected position cease to apply to them. By this age, therefore, the law generally recognises that a young person is to a large extent his own master.
    When one realises that by the age of 17 one can marry—and a lot of young persons are already married at that age, and many of them from the age of 17 onwards are the fathers and mothers of families—then it seems that probably the age of 17 in present circumstances is as good an age as one can find for visiting not the full responsibility but a great deal of criminal responsibility upon the subject.
    Crime at present is unfortunately preponderantly an activity of the young. The number of males per 100,000 of the population found guilty of indictable offences in 1960 was as follows, in certain age groups: from 17 to 21–2,189; 21 to 25–1,531; 25 to 30–1,012; 30 to 40–594. Therefore, the 17 to 21 age group unfortunately is a large group in which a great many indictable offences are to be found.
    For this reason and for others it is not possible for the Executive to remove from its power the possibility of deporting such people. I am sure that it will
    520
    only be exercised in very serious cases, but it seems right that in a proper case of someone over this age who, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), completely abuses the hospitality of this country there should be power to deport him.
    Of course, the Secretary of State is not bound to act on a court's recommendation, and before making a deportation order he would certainly have regard to any compassionate plea based on such matters as age and the family ties of the offender if his family should be in this country. Therefore, he would not deport unless the offence were so serious and the circumstances of the offender made it absolutely necessary. However, I am afraid that we cannot deprive ourselves of the power to do so, because, generally speaking, under the criminal law of this country, after the age of 17 a great deal of responsibility is expected of the offender.
    It is true that it is only in rare cases that such a person is sent to prison, but, of course, there are other methods of detention which are applicable, such as borstal and detention centres which are frequently used. The dislike of sending these offenders to prison is not because it is not thought right to detain them but simply because they ought not to mix with older prisoners. But that such persons should be detained and punished from time to time is obvious from the remedies at our command, and for those persons we feel that in certain cases, which I am sure must be few, the right to deport must be preserved.
    Mr. Weitzman: I am very disappointed by the answer of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He has not dealt with the main point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He referred specifically to Clause 7 (3). The Legislature has recognised clearly that persons under the age of 21 shall not be sent to prison without a court order. Why was it necessary, therefore, in this case where the words "offence punishable with imprisonment" appear in Clause 7 (1), to insert subsection (3) to include specifically persons between the ages of 17 and 21?
    I should have thought that it would have been an act of mercy and of grace

    521
    on the part of the Government to say that the age should be, if not 25 which my hon. Friend has suggested, at any rate 21. It seems extraordinary that the Government are determined to make this provision as stringent as possible, and I hope that they will think again about the matter.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. James MacColl: If I may comment on the argument of the Joint Under-Secretary about the age at which some people marry, we ought to remember that some marry at 16 and others even have legitimate families at 16. I am only relieved to think that he did not pursue the logic of his own argument and put the age of 16 into this Clause. There is not, I think, any very strong case for making it 17. I should be less worried about this if the Government had accepted the Amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) which at least would have safeguarded children who were living with their families and would have prevented them from being deported at the age of 17.
    A particular group of children who come to join their families over here and who have difficulty in settling down may commit offences while here, and we all agree with the Joint Under-Secretary that that is unfortunate, but it is inconceivable to me that in any circumstances the right treatment is to split them from their families and send them back again to a country where they may have no roots, no one to look after them and no family ties at all. That is what the Government may be doing if they have the powers under this Clause.
    The real argument against this is not whether these young people behave well or badly but whether it is right to ship them off to another country without having any control over what may happen to them in that country and without any provision to see that they have adequate supervision over there. This would seem to me to be a very hard-hearted thing to do. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is right when he says that this power will hardly ever be used. I accept that, and as long as the hon. and learned Gentleman is at the Home Office one hopes that it will not be used and that if it is used it will be used wisely and humanely. In that case I
    522
    think that it is quite unnecessary to keep it. But there is a potential danger in having it in the Bill. I hope that it will not be used, but if it is used the effects can only be thoroughly bad. I think that it would be quite wrong for youngsters to be deported from this country where they are trying to settle down and which is very often part of the problem that causes the committing of offences. It is, unfortunately, part of the business of growing up. It would be most undesirable if they could be thrown back again into what virtually may be a foreign country.
    Mr. M. Foot: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) has said, I do not think that the answer given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State was satisfactory. Of course, those of us who are opposed to the whole of the Bill are also opposed to the deportation Clauses, because we are not in favour of making distinctions between those who are, as we believe, British Commonwealth citizens. If there is to be any case for the deportation Clauses, I can see that possibly there is a case for saying that we want to have some deterrent effect in preventing, or helping to prevent, the hardened criminal, or semi-hardened criminal, from other parts of the Commonwealth coming to this country.
    I can see that there may be some case for that. One may say that by having these Clauses to deport them, even though we do not catch them coming in, it may be possible to stop them from organising their crimes here. But, clearly, that does not apply to most of the young people between the ages of 17 and 21. It is extremely improbable that it will deter a person from coming here who is a criminal in some other part of the Commonwealth because of the threat of deportation after he gets here. I would have thought that very improbable. Indeed, under the rest of the Bill they probably would not be able to get in anyhow. So we do not need that power.
    What, in fact, we shall be doing, as my hon. Friend has just said, will be to deport young people of the age of 17 to 21, or up to 25 if the Amendment is carried, who will cause a lot of trouble in the countries to which they are sent and which, after all, are Commonwealth

    523
    countries and they will be criminals who are manufactured here and sent there. That does not seem to me a very fair proceeding.
    If, in particular, the Minister said that he does not think that many people will be deported between these ages I would have thought that it would have been more generous for him to say that as only a small number will be involved we can forgo the right of being able to deport young people from this country
    between the ages of 17 and 21, at any rate. If the Government can forgo that they would not be conceeding very much. They have not really established that the Clause as applied to these young people is part of what the Government set out to do in the deportation Clauses of the Bill.
    Question put, That "seventeen" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 8.

    Division No. 73.]

    AYES

    [8.7 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Partridge, E.

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Allason, James

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Percival, Ian

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Arbuthnot, John

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Pitman, Sir James

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Barlow, Sir John

    Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

    Pott, Percival

    Batsford, Brian

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Bell, Ronald

    Hobson, John

    Pym, Francis

    Biffen, John

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Bingham, R. M.

    Hollingworth, John

    Ramsden, James

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Hornby, R. P.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Rees, Hugh

    Brewis, John

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Renton, David

    Brooman-White, R.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Buck, Antony

    Irvine, Bryant Godmart (Rye)

    Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Bullard, Denys

    James, David

    Robson Brown, Sir William

    Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Seymour, Leslie

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Sharples, Richard

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Shaw, M.

    Gary, Sir Robert

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Shepherd, William

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Chataway, Christopher

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Speir, Rupert

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Tapsell, Peter

    Cole, Norman

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Cooke, Robert

    McAdden, Stephen

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Cooper, A. E.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Critchley, Julian

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

    Thornton, Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Maddan, Martin

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Duncan, Sir James

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Eden, John

    Marlowe, Anthony

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Walder, David

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

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Walker, Peter

    Emery, Peter

    Mawby, Ray

    Wall, Patrick

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Webster, David

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Mills, Stratton

    Whitelaw, William

    Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Morrison, John

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Freeth, Denzil

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Wise, A. R.

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Clover, Sir Douglas

    Neave, Airey

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Goodhart, Philip

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Worsley, Marcus

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Green, Alan

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Mr. Finlay and Mr. McLaren.

    NOES

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    MacColl, James

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

    Weitzman, David

    Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Thorpe

    Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Mr. Weitzman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, at the end to insert: "upon indictment".
    The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment may be taken for discussion the following further Amendments:
    In page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", to insert:
    "other than an offence of a political character,".
    In page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", to insert:
    "for a term exceeding twelve months"
    In page 6, line 32, to leave out subsection (4).
    In page 6, line 33, after "shall" to insert:
    "in England be exercisable only by the High Court and".
    In Clause 8, page 7, line 9, at the end to insert:
    (3) Where a person is committed under section twenty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the Court of Quarter Sessions shall have power to make a recommendation for deportation in respect of him.
    In Clause 8, page 7, line 10, to leave out subsection (3).
    Mr. Weitzman: Under subsection (1) as it now stands, if a Commonwealth citizen who has attained the age of 17 is convicted
    "of an offence punishable with imprisonment, the court by or before which he is convicted, or any court to which his case is brought by way of appeal against conviction or sentence, may recommend that a deportation order be made in respect of him."
    As was pointed out in our discussion of the last Amendment, the words are
    "an offence punishable with imprisonment"
    There are many offences punishable with imprisonment. For a small amount involved in a charge of larceny or embezzlement, a person would be liable to imprisonment, and even for a second or subsequent offence of travelling on a railway with intent to evade payment or not paying an additional fare after prolonging the journey for which he has paid the proper fare with intent to avoid payment, he would be liable, at the discre-
    526
    tion of the court, to one month's imprisonment.
    As was pointed out during our discussion on the last Amendment, a person need not be sentenced to imprisonment. Subsection (1) says that a person
    "convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment"
    may have
    "a deportation order be made in respect of him."
    It may be a quite trivial offence for which he can be fined a small sum. We must also remember the effect of subsection (3) on persons under 21 years of age. Under the Clause as drafted, if a person is charged in a magistrates' court and is found guilty of a comparatively trivial offence,
    a recommendation for deportation may be made against him by the magistrates. Under subsection (2)
    "No recommendation…shall be made upon the conviction of an offender who satisfies the court (a) that he is or was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the date of his conviction; and (b) that he has been continuously so resident for a period of at least five years ending with that date."
    When a youth who may have lived in this country since he was 14 and who is found guilty of a trivial offence is 18 years of age he is liable to a recommendation for deportation being made against him by the magistrates. I am sure that no one will disagree that, to a person aginst whom such a recommendation is made, it is a matter of vital importance and that such a recommendation should not be made except in the most serious cases.
    I anticipate that the Attorney-General will say that that may be said to the magistrates and that the magistrates will take it into account. But I am sure that the Attorney-General, from past experience, will remember the procedure in the magistrates' courts and will remember the number of cases which are dealt with. I do not suggest that magistrates do not endeavour to do the best that they can in all cases, but the conditions under which they deal with cases are such that it is not possible to give the attention to a case which is given in a higher court. The magistrates'

    527
    court is not a proper tribunal to deal with a serious matter of this kind. Power to make such a recommendation should lay only in a superior court. That is the effect of the Amendment. Only upon indictment—that is, when the matter is dealt with at assizes or quarter sessions—should there be power to make such a recommendation and, of course, in such a case an appeal would lie from the decision to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
    The Amendment to Clause 8, in page 7, line 9, is important. Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, reads:
    "Where on the summary trial under subsection (3) of section eighteen or section nineteen of this Act of an indictable offence triable by quarter sessions a person who is not less than seventeen years old is convicted of the offence, then, if on obtaining information about his character and antecedents the court is of opinion that they are such that greater punishment should be inflicted for the offence than the court has power to inflict, the court may, instead of dealing with him in any other manner, commit him in custody to quarter sessions for sentence in accordance with the provisions of section twenty-nine of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948."
    I have sought to deal with this matter by using these words:
    "Where a person is committed under section twenty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act. 1952, the Court of Quarter Sessions shall have power to make a recommendation for deportation in respect of him."
    In other words, every case will be covered. There is the case upon indictment in which the court dealing with the matter may, in a proper case, make a recommendation for an order for deportation. Where the matter is of a serious character and where the magistrates dealing with an indictable offence triable in summary fashion are of opinion that a recommendation for deportation should be made, just as they may think, in a proper case, that a sentence greater than that which they can give should be imposed, there is power under the Amendment for the case to be sent to quarter sessions so that quarter sessions can make a recommendation for deportation. If that Amendment were accepted, my Amendment to Clause 8 in page 7, line 10, to leave out subsection (3) would follow.
    This is a matter of great importance, and I urge the Government to recognise that the power to recommend deporta
    528
    tion should be exercised only in the circumstances which I have mentioned. I hope that they will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the Amendment. It is proposed to give extremely wide powers to magistrates, powers which will be exercised in many cases by lay magistrates. I do not wish to say anything derogatory of magistrates, particularly of lay magistrates, but it is established practice to limit powers, particularly those of punishment, of the magistracy and particularly of the lay magistracy. Their powers to impose imprisonment are limited. They have power to recommend that a person should be sent to Borstal training, but they have no power to send a person to Borstal training. Yet, in the Bill, magistrates whose powers of imprisonment are limited and who have no power to order a young man to undergo Borstal training can make a recommendation for deportation.
    Mr. H. Hynd: A lay magistrate has power to recommend Borstal training.
    Mr. Bowen: Yes. That illustrates the point which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has in mind. He believes that magistrates should have power to send a case to quarter sessions with a recommendation that part of the treatment of the offender should be deportation. The argument is that their powers in respect of deportation should be precisely the same as their powers in relation to Borstal training. The final word should not be with the magistrates. It should be with a court which normally deals with offences on indictment.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Such a court would make a recommendation.
    Mr. Bowen: No. Courts of quarter sessions or assize do not recommend people for Borstal training. They order them to undergo Borstal training.
    Mr. Hynd: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the last word should be with a court of quarter sessions or assize. It would not be, because the higher court would merely make a recommendation to the Home Secretary. The Government would have the final word.
    Mr. Bowen: Certainly. It may be argued that, even if lay magistrates, or indeed any magistrates, make a mistake or their judgment is not regarded as sound, the Home Secretary can put it right. I do not think that the Government should hide behind this argument, because the last thing on earth that anybody wants is for courts to make recommendations for deportation which are not carried out. I agree that there may be exceptional cases in which the Home Secretary would think it right to intervene, but if the Home Secretary were a court of appeal from decisions by magistrates a completely wrong atmosphere would be created. I believe that it would be guile an exceptional matter for a recommendation for deportation by a court not to be carried out.
    8.30 p.m.
    It may be argued that there is another cure. A sentence by magistrates can always be appealed against. The Bill as it stands will encourage appeals. If a man is given a sentence and linked with it there is a recommendation for deportation, even though he may have no objection to the sentence he will appeal to quarter sessions to have the recommendation for deportation reviewed. Quarter sessions will then have to hear an appeal, in a case in which there is no objection to the sentence, merely so that the recommendation for deportation can be reviewed. Rather than force people to exercise their right of appeal when they do not wish to appeal, it would be far more satisfactory if the procedure contained in Section 29 of the 1952 Act were followed. Let the magistrates have the power to send the case forward with a view to a recommendation for deportation being made.
    Mr. Dingle Foot: I intervene because I have a very similar Amendment on the Notice Paper. My Amendment in page 6, line 7, proposes to delete "imprisonment" and to insert:
    "for a term exceeding twelve months".
    You have said, Mr. Thomas, that my Amendment may be discussed with the Amendment in page 6, line 6.
    My proposal is that a recommendation for deportation should not be made except in a case where the offence for
    530
    which the man is convicted caries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding twelve months. It would not matter whether the man was awarded that sentence or not. My Amendment would have very much the same effect as that proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington, and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman).
    I want, in a few sentences, to associate myself with the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North and the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). Clause 7 (1) is one of the most objectionable provisions in the Bill. It means that anyone brought before a court—whether it be a court of assize, a court of quarter sessions, or a court of summary jurisdiction—and convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment, no matter whether he is actually sentenced to imprisonment, will be liable to be recommended for deportation.
    My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington gave one example of somebody who, for the second time, travels on the railway without paying his fare. My hon. and learned Friend said that such a person would be liable to be recommended for deportation under this Clause. Of course, it does not end there. There is in this country an enormous number of petty offences punishable with one or two or three months' imprisonment, and under the provisions of this Clause, if it should become law, anyone who is convicted of any such offence is liable to be caught by the provisions of the Clause. It may not happen very often, but it is something which may happen, and, therefore, it is something which we in this Committee must take into our contemplation.
    I find myself very much in agreement with what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) a moment ago. It is true that they can only make a recommendation; it is true that the last word lies with the Home Secretary; but nothing could be worse and nothing could be more likely to bring the courts into disrespect than that we should have a large number of recommendations

    531
    which, in effect, were simply ignored by the Department concerned.
    If we have a recommendation made by a court it is a recommendation which, in the ordinary way, ought to be carried out; it is not something which ought to be simply passed over. Therefore, I support the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward, namely, that it is not a sufficient safeguard and is not a sufficient answer to say that the last word rests with the Home Secretary and that he may not act upon the recommendation of the court.
    There is another aspect of it. Suppose we leave to all the thousands of magistrates' courts in this country—and most of them, I know, carry out their duties very well, but there is a large number of them and they vary to some degree—this power of making this particular recommendation. Some of them, at any rate, will make recommendations which are not justified. Some time is bound to elapse in every case between the making of a recommendation and the decision of the Home Secretary, and that means that for the unfortunate individual concerned this matter is hanging over his head—hanging over his head and the head of his family.
    As has already been pointed out, and nobody has denied, we are dealing with something of extreme gravity to the persons concerned, and even though there may be no real prospect of the Home Secretary's acting on the recommendation, the man concerned cannot possibly know that. All he will know, for days and it may be for weeks, is that he is in peril. And so we inflict an unnecessary amount of suffering upon those concerned.
    As I said, my Amendment is to very much the same effect as that of my hon. and learned Friend's. I do not mind which of them is accepted provided that one of them is, but I respectfully suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General that nothing whatever would be lost to the Bill and a great deal would be gained if he would proceed upon the lines now proposed and, in effect, confine this power to make recommendations to courts of assize and quarter sessions.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: I want to support what my hon. and learned Friends have said about this subsection (1). I also want to draw attention to the Amendment to which I have put my name and which is in the names of two of my hon. Friends, in page 6, line 7, after "imprisonment", insert:
    "other than an offence of a political character".
    At first sight it may seem that the possibility of someone being deported under this subsection for an offence of a political character is rather remote. We may ask ourselves how many cases there would be of offences punishable by imprisonment which were of a political character. But there are certain examples which come to my mind, and one is a fairly recent one.
    We have had cases quite recently of civil disobedience in protest against the H-bomb.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Lady is referring to proceedings sub judice at the moment.
    Mrs. Castle: I am simply putting for illustration a type of offence of a political character which has led to imprisonment of certain people. I am not raising the merits or demerits of any particular incident. I am taking it as a general illustration.
    The Attorney-General: I only mention that because there is a case which has some relation to this particular matter and which is due to start on Monday. I only mention it because the hon. Lady in seeking to make this case might inadvertently say something which might affect that case.
    The Temporary Chairman: I am sure all of us will bear in mind what has been said.
    Mrs. Castle: I have no intention of referring to any particular case, and therefore I cannot err in that respect. I am taking this merely as an illustration of the type of political activity which in a large number of cases has led to imprisonment due to political convictions.
    We have cases where people have demonstrated, have been taken to court and have been fined and have, on conscientious grounds, refused to pay. They

    533
    have been imprisoned for refusing to pay a fine for an offence of a political nature, and their action has been taken on the ground of political belief and conscience. It may arise, and it may well have arisen already, that some of the individuals involved are Common, wealth citizens who would fall within the scope of the Bill. If that were so and they were to repeat these political offences after the Bill was passed then, as the Bill stands, they could not only he imprisoned for refusing to pay the fine but they could be recommended by the court at the end of that term of imprisonment for deportation as well.
    This is an illustration of the kind of situation that could arise under subsection (1) unless an Amendment similar to that in my name were accepted by the Government. It is important, therefore, that we should tighten the subsection and make clear that we do not have in mind any possibility of a person being deported because of political activities which are freely engaged in by our own nationals and people resident in this country. I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 2 (3, b). We make clear there that where the immigration officer exercises his power of refusing admission to people whom he has reason to believe have been convicted of a crime, political crimes are not included because they are not extradition crimes under the Extradition Acts. Under that subsection political activity would not count. We should make it clear also that it does not count for deportation. I therefore ask the Attorney-General to bear in mind seriously that this situation could arise and that we ought to deal with it on the lines I have suggested.
    Mr. A. E. Cooper rose——
    The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Shepherd.
    Mr. Cooper: I have been here for only twelve years, Mr. Thomas, and it is perhaps not unnatural that you should not know my name.
    The Temporary Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Member. I have been here only seventeen years.
    Mr. Cooper: I want to make a short point relating to the Extradition Act. There is unquestionably a good deal of
    534
    sympathy for the various Amendments which we are now discussing and I think that it would be thoroughly undesirable if somebody who is sent to prison for a matter of days for some quite minor offence should leave himself open to the possibility of deportation. If we are satisfied with Clause 2 (3, b), which lays down certain qualifications which would prohibit a person coming into the country, why cannot we use the same form of words as the basis of the crimes which would enable us to deport him?
    Mr. James MacColl: I intervene because the Amendment was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and he was followed by two other hon. and learned Members and I think it desirable to say that I should hope that the presence of the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and myself on the Amendment indicates that it is not in any sense an attack on or criticism of lay magistrates.
    8.45 p.m.
    What the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said is perfectly sound, that it is a basic principle that one limits the power of lower courts, however well run and however conscientious they are, in respect of the passing of grave sentences. If one did not do that one might just as well argue that magistrates' courts should be able to sentence people to death because, after all, one could appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal eventually from the sentence, and in any case the Home Secretary would never allow it to be carried out without very careful inquiry.
    That kind of approach is fundamentally vicious, that one should have the courts perhaps making bad mistakes and saying that it did not much matter because the Home Office, the Executive, would put right a stupid thing done by the judiciary. That kind of approach is a much more serious attack on the freedom and independence of our law courts than any suggestion that lay magistrates or stipendiary magistrates are not fully qualified to deal with very grave sentences. We are here discussing a very serious sentence indeed.
    My first assumption is that we want to reduce to the absolute minimum the

    535
    power of deportation of Commonwealth citizens. It is profoundly distasteful to all of us. We want it to be done only in the gravest cases.
    Secondly, in view of that, what magistrates would be accused of limiting this power in the way that my hon. and Learned Friend suggests? I hope that the Attorney-General will explain that to us. I cannot imagine the kind of cases that might slip through the net because they were not indictable offences and, 'therefore, could not be taken to a higher court for the passing of the sentence. It seems to me that in any normal kind of criminal offence of the gravest kind——
    Mr. Bowen: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that they could still go to a higher court to be dealt with on non-indictable offences.
    Mr. MacColl: Under the Magistrates' Courts Act? [Interruption.] There seems to be a slight disagreement between two Queen's Counsel, and I think that I had better keep out of that.
    It seems to me that there are two possible types of case here. One is where it is very clear from the beginning that the prosecution is of the opinion that the case is likely to go as far as deportation and it can ask for a trial on indictment in a higher court. The other type of case is that where the hearing takes place in a magistrates' court and in the course of that hearing it becomes clear from the record of the prisoner and the gravity of the case that the person concerned ought to be considered for deportation, in which case the power of the Magistrates' Courts Act can be invoked to have the case sent to quarter sessions. I should have thought that those twin powers were perfectly adequate safeguards against a grave offender escaping from deportation where that was felt to be necessary.
    As well as the general principle that one wants to keep this responsibility as narrow as possible, one does not want to spread it and regard it as a trivial routine in every case so that at the end of the case someone gets up and says, "Recommendation for deportation" and
    536
    the magistrates say "Yes" in a rather casual way. That is the danger. In order to make it perfectly clear that this is a very solemn thing and something which Parliament takes very seriously and to which it agrees only very reluctantly, I should have thought that this was a matter which ought to go to a higher court to be considered.
    Secondly, of course, one has to recognise that magistrates' courts are—and this is their quality and value—very much local courts looking at local problems locally. They are meant to be so. But it is desirable that where a wider view has to be taken and a balance held between one kind of case and another this should be done by the judge of a higher court such as a recorder or a judge of assize.
    I beg the Attorney-General to consider this matter very carefully. If he agreed to the Amendment he would be making a great gesture to what we are saying—that this is a very serious sanction, to be carried out only after very careful consideration. He would avoid the risk of appearing to elevate the discretion of the Home Secretary above the decisions of the courts, and of causing the recommendations of the courts to come to be regarded with a certain amount of indifference. He would also be securing that these matters would be considered by the kind of court which has the power to pass the more serious sentences. We do not allow magistrates' courts to pass other sentences as serious as deportation orders, which are, after all, of tremendous consequence to the persons concerned. This is not a matter which should be dealt with summarily.
    Mr. M. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has put an overwhelming case, and I hope that the Attorney-General will respond to it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will also reply to what I have to say, although it is not directly on the Amendment which has been moved. I refer to the Amendment mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) concerning the exclusion of political offences from this Clause.
    One of the factors which has held the Commonwealth together—though we are

    537
    injuring it in this Bill—is that large numbers of people, particularly students, have come here and have learned their politics with us. This factor will be injured by the general operation of the Bill, but we should at least guard against further injury by accepting an Amendment to exclude political offences.
    We know that political offences regarded as most reprehensible in one period become most honoured in the next. Therefore, a political offence is not something that should be held against a person. Many of the people who have come to this country and have then committed political offences—joining in strikes when they were regarded as political offences or in other kinds of activities—have contributed perhaps not to the liberties of their own countries but certainly to the liberties of our own.
    The Government should devise a means whereby all political offences are excluded from the Bill. We are introducing here an entirely new crime as applied to British Commonwealth citizens and are also introducing a new remedy—so-called—of deportation for some of them. I suppose that almost the last British citizens deported from this country were the Tolpuddle Martyrs. I cannot think of any others. That is not a good recommendation for retaining mere political offences in a Bill of this nature.
    In any case, on Second Reading and since, the claim by the Home Secretary and others has been that this Clause did not have anything to do with political offences but was required in order to deal with serious crimes. If that is so, then the Government should accept the Amendment on that ground, and also on the ground that only the Home Secretary can know exactly what kind of new political offences can occur. It would be absolutely outrageous if a student who came to this country, participated in the activities, say, of the Committee of 100 and was sent to prison, were to be deported on that account. It would be an advertisement of the abandonment of liberal principles by this country, and it would be a kind of propaganda exactly opposite to that which this country would wish to conduct in the rest of the world.
    538
    I hope that while recognising the serious nature of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, the Attorney-General will also recognise that there should be something in the Bill to exclude political offences.
    The Attorney-General: I will endeavour to reply to some of the points which have been made by those who have spoken in support of the Amendment and those Amendments which have been discussed with it. It is a fairly formidable task, because I want to keep what I have to say to the shortest possible compass. I propose, first, to deal with the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). That is linked to and closely associated with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot). I will then proceed to say something about the Amendment on political offences, which comes in a separate category.
    It does not advance the case one way or another to draw attention to offences of a trivial character which, in certain circumstances, could be followed by a sentence of imprisonment, because I do not believe that any court anywhere in the country would ever consider deporting someone for offences of that character. I share the view of hon. Members opposite that deportation is a serious matter and must flow from very serious misconduct. I accept those two propositions. But in approaching this argument I want to put on one side the kind of case which carries a sentence of imprisonment, but in respect of which no court would ever dream of recommending deportation. The problem is to arrive at a satisfactory machinery for dealing with serious cases which warrant deportation.
    The test which the hon. and learned
    Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North has put forward is not satisfactory. Nor is that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich. One has to leave a great deal to the discretion of the courts and I shall advance reasons to show why it is necessary to leave magistrates' courts with powers, as the Bill proposes, to make

    539
    recommendations for deportation on conviction for summary offences.
    Let us examine the yardstick which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North proposes. He first proposes that it should be possible to recommend deportation only in cases which are tried on indictment. That greatly narrows the powers of the courts to make that recommendation, but it is not a wholly satisfactory yardstick. The reason is that a fair number of these cases which are tried on
    indictment are cases where the accused has elected to go for trial. The hon. and learned Gentleman has coupled with his proposal that there should be power under Section 29, where the case is committed for sentence, for the superior court to make the recommendation. I do not think that the Amendment is necessary, because I think that that is satisfactorily covered by subsection (3) of Clause 8, and that that will happen.
    But there again, that power under Section 29 of that Act relates only to indictable offences, and I think that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) fell into error in that respect.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bowen: I agree that it deals only with indictable offences, but it deals with indictable offences which are not dealt with on indictment but which are dealt with summarily. I should like the learned Attorney-General to tell us the type of summary offences he has in mind which could be dealt with by a recommendation for deportation.
    The Attorney-General: I was about to do that, but I should like to deal with it in my own order. I should like, if I may, to make this approach. I was dealing with the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals. I do not think that his second Amendment is necessary, because I think that that is already covered in the Bill, but, as he points out, that deals only with indictable offences tried summarily.
    I think that it is certainly the case that there are summary offences, not triable on indictment, which cannot be sent forward for sentence by the superior courts in respect of which the magistrates' courts should have power to make
    540
    recommendations for deportation in the proper cases, and I give as examples of that repeated offences of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, brothel keeping and related offences of that character, repeated assaults, and, of course, under the Bill, the offence of returning to this country after deportation when admission has been refused is in itself a summary offence. If he has come back here and been convicted of that offence, it surely follows—I only say this in passing—that there should be power in a summary court to recommend deportation.
    As has been stressed, it is a recommendation. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan said that if this procedure in the Bill were followed there would be very many more appeals. There may be by those who, when a deportation order is made, think that they have a chance of reversing it on appeal. There will be appeals in those cases, but in the other cases where the case for such an order is very strong—and I believe that magistrates up and down the country will give serious consideration to it before they make any such order—it may well be that the person convicted will not wish to appeal.
    The alternative procedure suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman might well mean that in cases where it was thought right, if possible, to secure a deportation recommendation, the prosecution would ask for them to be committed for trial on indictment, when ordinarily, but for that limitation, they would have been content to have it dealt with summarily.
    Under the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals we might get a greater clogging of the judicial machinery by the committal for trial of cases which would not now be committed. One has to set that off against the possible increase in the number of appeals, but one might almost say that it is as broad as it is long. One also has to take into account that where there is a committal for trial in the case suggested by the hon. and learned Member, or an appeal, there is always an interval between the committal and the first hearing and the appeal or the ultimate trial.
    I assure the Committee that we have given considerable thought to this matter. We believe that the Bill is right

    541
    about it. It must be an offence which is punishable with imprisonment. Unless it comes within that category, there can be no recommendation by any court. I cannot think that there is any prospect of any court ever being asked to consider a recommendation unless it is a serious case by a man of bad character and I am sure that it would be carefully considered.
    There is the complete appeal machinery before the matter ever comes to the Home Secretary. There can be appeal to the superior court. It is not the case that there is an appeal straight away to the Home Secretary, thus reducing the status of the court. It is not an order of a court of summary jurisdiction, but is a recommendation.
    Bearing in mind that there are summary offences of the character to which I have referred in relation to which it might be thought desirable to make this recommendation, I believe that it is right to leave the Bill as it is. There are these safeguards of the right of appeal, which, with legal aid, can be readily exercised, and the additional safeguard that, no matter what the courts may recommend, there is the Home Secretary, who has to decide whether to act upon the recommendation. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had to decide in a different field whether to act on recommendations.
    There are those safeguards. Their existence does not make it necessary to impose the somewhat artificial restrictions which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North suggested or the suggestion put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, which is another way of arriving at the same end but would exclude from the possibility of a recommendation for deportation convictions for offences of the character which I have mentioned.
    I have dealt shortly with this matter. It is an important question and I hope that the fact that I have dealt with it fairly shortly will not lead anyone to suppose that we have not given a great deal of thought to it. I shall give great thought to it between now and Report, but I am not making any promise of alteration. We will consider all that has been said in the course of the debate.
    542
    The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was supported by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) about seeking to insert an Amendment to exclude from liability for recommendation to deportation conviction for offences of a political character. Reference was made to the Extradition Act, 1870, which provides that a person shall not be extradited for a crime of a political character or if he shows that his extradition is sought to try or to punish him for such a crime.
    There is no analogy between extradition from this country for a crime alleged to have been committed in another country and deportation from this country in relation to an offence committed against our law. In extradition cases, the crime has been committed in some other country, and it has traditionally been regarded as an important principle that where the fugitive can show that the offence with Which he is charged, or of which he has been convicted, in another country, was of a political character in the circumstances prevailing in that country, or that his surrender is sought in order to try to punish him for that crime, the country seeking his return should not be able to use the extradition procedure in order to lay hands on him.
    Under the provisions of the Bill, the deportation position is quite different. Here, the crime will have been committed in this country. If, for instance, an immigrant from the Commonwealth has been found guilty of sedition or of using violence, it is no answer under our law to say that he has done so for political ends and, in my view, there seems to be no inherent reason why, if he has committed against our law a crime of such a character as to warrant a recommendation for deportation, it should be possible for him to avoid that consequence by asserting that he committed it for political motives.
    It does not follow, of course, that by committing what is called, or may be called, a political offence here an immigrant would be obnoxious in his own country, but if, on account of such an offence, he greatly feared to go home and had no reasonable chance of obtaining admission elsewhere, he would no doubt make representations to the Home Secretary that the court's recommendation should not be implemented on that

    543
    account, and I can assure the hon. Lady that if that were so the Home Secretary would give full weight to any such representations.
    I shall not take up time in discussing the difficult question of defining precisely what is meant by "political offence"; that has been the subject of considerable discussion in various cases. I have listened with the greatest attention, and without interrupting them, to the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that there is really any case for so applying the Extradition Act yardstick of offences of a political nature to offences committed in this country against the ordinary law of the land of such a serious character as would ordinarily warrant a recommendation for deportation as to make it impossible for the courts so to recommend because of a political tinge to the offence committed.
    I think that I have now covered the points raised by hon. Members opposite. I do not for one moment expect that I have entirely satisfied them, but I hope that I have shown them that we have given serious consideration to their views, and that I have advanced reasons which they will recognise have some cogency.
    Mr. H. Hynd: I have listened to the discussion with mixed feelings. This is the first time I have taken part in the debates on the Bill, but I have been particularly interested for some time in the question of deportation. I am not against the principle of deportation. I have had the unfortunate experience with having had to deal with a few, a very few, cases in which Commonwealth and Irish citizens were involved in which I felt that, in non-indictable cases, the country would not suffer very greatly if the culprits were not living here.
    Having said that, I must add that I have been a little disturbed by the attitude of the Attorney-General in turning down all the suggestions that have been made. A fairly strong case has been made out by some of my hon. Friends for an easement in these arrangements. The Home Secretary has pointed out the technical difficulties in regard to indictable and non-indictable offences, but I should have thought that he would have been impressed at least by the suggestion that it should be possible for the
    544
    lay magistrates' court to send forward a case to quarter sessions or assize, as the case might be, in the same way as they send forward a case with a recommendation for Borstal training, leaving it to the court of quarter sessions to make the actual recommendation.
    9.15 p.m.
    I should have thought that that would have been the easiest way out of this difficulty and would commend itself to the Attorney-General. I hope that even now the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider introducing more suitable words at a later stage, perhaps in another place. He must have been impressed by the comments of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about the importance of this and the general feeling that deportation, being such a heavy punishment, should be handled in the most careful way possible.
    I should be the last to suggest that the lay magistrates' court is not qualified to reach proper decisions. I would go so far as to say that it should not be left to that court but that the court of quarter sessions should be the lowest body to make the decision. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this before the next stage of the Bill.
    Mr. Ede: When I spoke earlier I mentioned my difficulty in following the way in which the Home Secretary replies to Amendments. On occasions I have rather felt that the right hon. Gentleman's suave method of approach leaves considerable doubt in the minds of those who have been listening to him. But we never suffer from that disability when the Attorney-General is replying. However, the only sign of grace which the right hon.
    and learned Gentleman has shown on this Amendment is that he has said that he will consider the matter between now and Report. I hope that that consideration will "Bring forth fruits and meet for repentance".
    I do not know whether the Attorney-General has ever been a magistrate and has sat in a court of petty sessions. I have had long experience of that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he could not dream of courts doing some things. I have often had bad dreams after spending many hours dealing with colleagues on the bench when

    545
    they have been dealing, first, with the question of the verdict and, secondly, of the sentence.
    One of the difficulties is this. Some hon. Members will know of courts in which it all depends on which rota one finds oneself as to the decision one will get when the magistrates retire. I had to deal with clerks and not magistrates. Magistrates are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, who is a lawyer of great eminence, while the clerks are left to the Home Secretary, who may be a non-legal person. The Home Secretary is then dealing with the attitude of legal persons, and I could never discover when a clerk complained what he was complaining about. We should be quite certain that before a recommendation is made it comes before a court of sufficient eminence to entitle the recommendation to very serious consideration by the Home Secretary. I am not saying that the recommendation even of a court of quarter session or of assize is final. In this country the responsibility for deportation falls on one man alone, the Home Secretary, who has to sign personally every deportation order. I know that on occasion it is very difficult because he does not have the advantage of hearing the case. He has to judge from the paper which goes to him. I am sure the Attorney-General would agree that to hear a case is a far surer guide than reading the papers of the evidence and sometimes of the submissions of counsel.
    The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) is well worth considering from that point of view. Let us be certain that we have got the recommendation of a court likely to give a responsible decision, and not rely on the recommendation of a court which, even in the area for which it has responsibility, may vary according to the people who are sitting on a particular day.
    I fully acknowledge the conscientious work that is done by most lay magistrates; but, after all, they are only ordinary human beings who very often have to deal with very complicated and difficult cases. I should feel more happy if an Amendment on the lines of that of
    546
    my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North were included in the Bill.
    The Attorney-General: I have given the reasons why I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has chosen the correct yardstick for dividing the different types of cases. I have also said that I would certainly consider all that has been said in the course of this debate.
    This is not a party or political issue, and views have been expressed from many quarters of the Committee with great sincerity. At the moment, I do not feel convinced that an improvement can be found in what is now in the Bill. I gave the reasons why we think it necessary that there should be a power of deportation in relation to what are simply summary offences. But I take the point which has been made by many hon. Members opposite that they think that the decision whether there should be a recommendation for deportation should be made by a higher court than the magistrates' court. I will give consideration to that point.
    I am not in a position now to give any undertaking to make any change on Report, but I will undertake to give it very serious consideration before Report. I should like to make it quite clear that I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal would do; nor would the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot).
    Mr. Weitzman: I thank the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the obviously thoughtful and considerate reply that he has given. We on this side of the Committee feel that this is a very important matter, and I hope that the Attorney-General will give weight to everything that has been said from these benches. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, to leave out "five years" and to insert "twenty-four months".
    The Deputy-Chairman: With this Amendment can be discussed those in

    547
    page 6, line 18, to leave out "five" and to insert "two"; and to leave out "five" and to insert "ten" without a Division being called on the latter.
    Mr. Fletcher: Clause 7 (2) provides that no recommendation for deportation shall be made upon the conviction of any offender who satisfies the court both that he was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the date of his conviction and also that he had been continuously so resident for a period of five years ending on that date.
    The object of the Amendment is to substitute the period of two years for five years and to give complete protection against deportation to people who have been resident in this country for a period of two years. This, like all the other Amendments that we on this side have tabled, is intended as a liberalising Amendment to protect people who, in words that have become accepted, belong to this country.
    We think that if a person has established himself here as a resident for a couple of years, even though he may commit an offence for which he could be punished by imprisonment or fine like any other British subject, or, indeed, for that matter any alien or anybody resident here, he should, as a member of the Commonwealth, have the same protection against deportation as a natural-born British subject or anyone else who has made this country his home. We do not want these novel and, as we think, undesirable provisions for deportation to be any more extensive than is really necessary to meet the case in point.
    We want to eliminate as far as possible the difference between citizens of the United Kingdom who are here as a result of birth or immigration and those who are in the category of people who are differentiated against and discriminated against by the provisions of the Bill. We think that, if a person has been here two years, that it is sufficient to give him protection against deportation. We feel Mat this extreme remedy of deportation could only be justified and should only be used in extreme circumstances. It is quite obvious that this will not affect the remedy of deportation in respect of those persons who come here illicitly or illegally under the Bill—people who come here without a proper voucher or
    548
    who escape the net of the immigration officer and about whom it might be said afterwards that they had committed an offence by coming here without proper permission under Clause 2.
    Presumably, anybody of that kind would be caught within two years. Therefore, this provision will affect only those Commonwealth immigrants who have been here for some substantial time and who may, like any other citizen, commit an offence which exposes them to the treatment, remedial and reformative, of the criminal law. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find it reasonable to accept the Amendment as giving all the security and protection that is needed in the circumstances.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Pannell: Several of my hon. Friends and I put down the Amendment in page 6, line 18, to make the period ten years instead of five. This has not been selected but is debatable now. Of course, I strongly oppose any reduction in the qualifying period of residence.
    It has been said that the provisions of the Bill are very widely drawn in regard to the deportation of persons convicted of offences and sentenced to imprisonment, but clearly the purpose of the Bill is to deal with certain types of crime. It has been said, and I agree, that Commonwealth immigrants as a whole are not more likely to commit crimes than ordinary citizens of this country, but there are certain crimes which may be the subject of deportation to which immigrants are particularly prone.
    I will give the Committee certain figures in relation to the number of persons convicted of living on immoral earnings in the Metropolitan area of London in 1960. During that year, there were 130 convictions for living on immoral earnings, and of those no less than 68, more than half, were attributable to immigrants from the Commonwealth or from the Republic of Ireland. The proportion is very large having regard to the insignificant proportion which the number of immigrants bears to the total population.
    If the Amendment now proposed were accepted it would mean that any person who had been convicted already of the

    549
    crime of living on immoral earnings could be subjected only to the disadvantage of adding to the qualifying period of two years which has been suggested the period for which he has been in prison for an offence which, under the Bill, will render him subject to deportation. Even under the Clause as it now stands, a person who has during the last year come out of prison after having served a sentence of one year for a crime which would in the normal way subject him to deportation under the Bill will only have to add to the period of five years the period of one year's imprisonment which he has served. If the Clause goes through as it stands it will mean that he could come out of prison just before the coming into force of the Bill, repeat the crime within six months and be free from the penalty of deportation.
    If the Amendment moved by the Opposition were accepted the period would be further reduced. It would mean that if a person had been in prison for one year for living on immoral earnings, a crime which would subject him to deportation, that year would be added to the two suggested in the Amendment and if he had been in the country for three years altogether and committed the crime again within the next few months after the passage of the Bill he would be entirely free from the deportation provisions. I regard that as entirely wrong. I very much regret that it has not been possible to debate an Amendment which would extend the period of residence, but I most certainly ask the Committee to reject the Amendment now before it.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends not only on their good sense in putting the Amendment down, but on their ingenuity in framing it. They were in an obvious difficulty. I have put down an Amendment, one of the Amendments we are discussing now, to leave out "five", that is to say, five years, and to insert "two", that is to say, two years.
    I have the greatest possible sympathy with my right hon. and hon. Friends. They were in a dilemma. Either they could support my Amendment in the
    550
    Lobby or in debate and subject themselves to a certain—I do not know quite what, but something they appear to dislike—but do it nevertheless because they knew that the Amendment was a good one which commended itself to them, or they could oppose or fail to support an important Amendment to a Bill to which they attach great importance merely because of—again I do not know quite what, but something or other which would have inhibited them in some way.
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not know why my hon. Friend assumes that we had any knowledge of his Amendment when ours was tabled.
    Mr. Silverman: I assume it because it was tabled first. Its position on the Notice Paper supports that assumption. I also point to the rather unusual, although I admit ingenious—I congratulate my hon. Friends on their ingenuity—form in which the Amendment is framed. The Clause does not talk about months. It talks about years. If the suggestion is to delete "five years" and to substitute, not "two years", but "twenty-four months", I have sufficient respect for my right hon. and hon. Friends to believe that they must have thought that there was adequate reason for this unusual form of words. If we put the two things together, the result is irresistible, but I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is concerned to resist it.
    However, out of the respect which I have for the judgment and ingenuity of my hon. Friends, I tell them at once that the form of Amendment which they have tabled imposes no difficulty on me. I am in no dilemma. I come to the conclusion that, although there may be some difference between twenty-four months and two years, it is not a difference which will part me from my hon. Friends, although the converse of that proposition does not seem to be true. We are, therefore, on the same side.
    This is a part of the Bill on which the Government can be congratulated rather more than they can be congratulated on other parts of the Bill. It is one of the less barbarous proposals—I will not say more civilised, because I can see nothing civilised in the whole

    551
    Bill. It recognises that, if a Commonwealth citizen is of established residence in this country, then a power to deport him which might well be thought to be properly exercisable in the case of a man of a shorter period of residence ought not to be applied.
    Therefore, the only question between the two sides of the Committee, having united this side so that there are only two sides instead of three, is: what is the period of continuous residence which should be deemed sufficient to protect a man from deportation? In the opinion of the Government, the period should be five years. In the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, if he will allow me to put it in my language rather than in his, it should be two years.
    I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by repeating the arguments so forcibly and eloquently adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, but I wish to add one argument which he did not use, but which, I think, will commend itself to him, nevertheless. I tabled an Amendment in which I proposed that the minimum age for deportation should be 25 years. Some of my hon. Friends, though agreeing with me in principle, thought that 25 was too old and that 21 would be a better age. Indeed, there was much to be said for their point of view. What we all agreed about was that 17 was too young.
    If five years is retained instead of two years, in the case of young persons it increases the hardship and underlines the undesirability of deporting young persons. If a person is, shall I say, 25, and is ordinarily resident in this country on the day when he commits a punishable offence and has been ordinarily resident here for the five years ending on that day, he is absolutely protected from deportation—that is to say, if he has been in residence here from the age of 20 to the age of 25 or longer than that. However, if it is a young person aged 17½—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) made a similar point in another connection—he is not protected from deportation, unless he has lived in this country from the age of 12.
    552
    If the Ministers representing the Home Office would look at the Amendment from the point of view of young persons, I think they would see that there is a strong case for accepting it, even if they are not prepared to go further and accept the period of two years for everybody. There is a further stage of the Bill and I think I have said enough to indicate the kind of proposition I would like them to consider. I do not think that I shall improve the case by adding further arguments to it.
    Lieut. - Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I feel some diffidence in joining this battle between the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but as they now seem to have patched up their differences I want to say that I and my hon. Friends who have tabled the Amendment to page 6, line 18, to leave out "five" and to insert "ten" have no doubt that we absolutely disagree with the Amendments moved by both of them.
    Like the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), who spoke recently, this is the first time that I have spoken during the course of this Bill, but that is not my fault. However, I have listened to the Amendments which have been proposed and it has seemed to me that nearly all of those proposed in opposition to the Bill have come from the heart rather than from the head. I do not know where this Amendment has come from. I do not think that it can possibly have come from either heart or head.
    Who would benefit if the Amendment were accepted? The only people who would benefit are the small number of immigrant criminals. They are only a small number, but they have an adverse effect on the standing of their own people in this country which few hon. Members opposite appear to understand. The majority of Amendments proposed during the course of the Committee stage have obviously been proposed with the idea that they would, if accepted, strengthen the spirit of Commonwealth and benefit the immigrants now in this country and those yet to come. The Amendment, if accepted, would do the exact reverse.

    553
    I want to read an article which I have chosen quite casually from my local paper during the course of the last three weeks. It is a report which appeared in the Nottingham Guardian-Journal. It says:
    "A twenty-nine year old coloured man was drawing National Assistance and living on the immoral earnings of his wife, it was alleged in Nottingham Guildhall yesterday. He was"—
    the name is given—
    "who was charged with living wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of"—
    again a name is given—
    "between 13th July, 1961, and 4th January of this year."
    9.45 p.m.
    These cases, of course, are not all that numerous, but, nevertheless, they are, as was indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell), anything but isolated. These sort of cases are doing immeasurable harm to the general spirit of Commonwealth and race relations in the places where they occur, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen who perhaps have only a theoretical knowledge of these things that people who are Members for constituencies concerned and who also have lived in those constituencies throughout the period of immigration into this country do know just what effect they have on the population and, as I say, on race relations generally.
    The deportation of people of that sort can do only good to the vast majority of people in this country, to the immigrants now here and the immigrants who are yet to come. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), speaking just now, said, "We want to reduce to the minimum the power of deportation of Commonwealth citizens", and he spoke in a way which suggested, I think, that obviously everybody, on both sides of the Committee, agreed with him. Personally, I do not. I think that the powers of deportation need strengthening, in the way proposed in the Amendment to page 6, line 18, put down in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale and several others of us.
    I am sure that that is the view of responsible Commonwealth leaders, and in that connection I should like to quote a statement made recently by somebody
    554
    whom nobody can accuse of being wildly enthusiastic about this Bill, Mr. Manley, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, who came over here to look into things in the summer of last year. He said this, when interviewed, and I quote from the Daily Telegraph of 12th June, 1961:
    "I would have no objection to the British Government sending back home people guilty of the sort of crimes which bring good West Indians into disrepute in this country."
    He went on:
    "The Jamaican Government is refusing passports to West Indians after conviction for offences unless there is a long period of good behaviour since."
    He also said:
    "Nobody with two convictions for dishonesty can get a passport at all."
    There is no doubt what Mr. Manley thinks about this, and in that connection he is certainly very much in advance of the Irish Government. I think that that is relevant to this case, because, as hon. Members may know, it has been the practice of the Irish judiciary recently, when dealing with cases in their criminal courts, to suspend the sentences on convicted persons, citizens of the Irish Republic, provided they come to live in this country. I think that hon. Members will obviously be glad to know that in this part of the Bill the Irish are treated exactly the same as all members of the Commonwealth.
    That being so, I really cannot see what possible objection of any sort hon. Members opposite can have to this part of the Bill. I simply cannot understand why they want to weaken it. If they do, they do an undoubted disservice to the spirit of Commonwealth. The Bill does not want weakening, as this Amendment would certainly weaken it. It wants strengthening. I hope very much, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not for a moment consider—as, indeed, I am sure he will not—accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. Harold Gurden: I support what my hon. Friends have said, and particularly the last point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieutenant-Colonel Cordeaux) about the Irish judiciary deliberately exporting criminals and the undesirability of having criminals here when it would do much greater service to the

    555
    cause of the integration of immigrants if they could be deported.
    I have not yet heard anyone say that he is opposed to this deportation Clause. I certainly hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), in smiling, is not treating the matter lightly. I hope that he is with us and agrees with Mr. Manley that criminals should not be exported to Britain.
    Mr. Chapman: I agree entirely. I was smiling about something quite different.
    Mr. Gurden: I am glad to hear that. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State ought seriously to consider this period of ten years.
    Mr. Weitzman: Why not make it twenty, or why limit it at all?
    Mr. Gurden: Very well, let it be twenty years if the Committee wishes. There seems to be no sense at all in having people here who are habitual criminals. Those people who have been here for five or six years and who are habitual criminals ought not to get away with this advantage over other immigrants who have recently come here. If it is fair for one criminal to be deported it ought to apply to others. Those who have been here for some time now will certainly have a start over those who will be coming in the future.
    Mr. Weitzman: Would the hon. Member please tell the Committee why he wants to limit this period to ten years?
    Hon. Members: No answer.
    Mr. Renton: The Bill says that there shall be no deportation after five years' residence, not counting periods of six months or more spent in prison. The Opposition, both the official Opposition and the anti-party, would like the five years reduced to two years. My hon. Friends would like the period increased to ten years. It looks, therefore, as though the Government have been right to have steered a middle course between the two extremes. This is a matter of opinion and judgment, bearing in mind that we are here dealing with people who have abused our hospitality by breaking our law. I remind the
    556
    Committee that the period of five years' residence is not the only way of escaping deportation, but I need not cover points made on earlier Amendments. We have to use our judgment and discretion in the matter, in the light of such experience as has been obtained elsewhere.
    In that connection we need to bear in mind that five years is the equivalent period of residence in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I must tell my hon. Friends that it could not be more than five years because, as will be seen from Clause 12, the deportation provisions cannot be made effective against the citizens of most independent Commonwealth countries without altering the British Nationality Act, 1948, which requires only one year's residence by a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country before he is entitled to register as a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies and thereby escape deportation.
    Mr. N. Pannell: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I have put down a very sensible Amendment which will remove the objection to which he is referring.
    Mr. Renton: I am not at liberty to discuss a later Amendment which is not being called at this time, but I stress that five years is the utmost that we could possibly justify in extending that qualifying period.
    Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman was saying a few minutes ago that the Government were probably right because they had taken a middle path between the two years that we on these benches have suggested and the ten years suggested by his hon. Friends. It now appears that it was not a middle path at all. It was the furthest that the Government could go. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile that?
    Mr. Renton: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a point which is superficially telling but not fundamentally material.
    I must complete my reply to my hon. Friend, who deserves the courtesy of a reply. It follows from what I have said that the Amendment of my hon. Friends would be fully effective only against people from the Colonies and from those

    557
    few independent countries of the Commonwealth which allow dual citizenship, because other Commonwealth citizens could after five years' residence here escape deportation by registering.
    We come, therefore, to the question whether it should be two years or five years. Perhaps I might say in passing that the official Opposition, deriving inspiration from the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman), appear to agree with us in principle that there should be a longer period than one year, but they consider that two years would be long enough.
    There seems to be general support for the proposition that we should take power to deport. We feel that the power should last for longer than the first two years that anyone is here. Otherwise it is hardly worth having the power at all. I would remind those hon. Members who are worried about hard cases that the courts are not hound to recommend deportation, and when deciding whether to do so or not, they will no doubt consider, among other things, the length of time that the defendant has resided here. They will also, no doubt, consider the age of the defendant.
    There is a further safeguard in that, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out on the previous Amendment, it is the Home Secretary himself who in every single case has to take the final responsibility, and it is a personal one, before he allows a recommendation to be acted upon. Also, of course, he is answerable to the House. He would, naturally, pay regard to any compassionate features that a case might have.
    With these factors in mind, and acknowledging that this is a matter of judgment, we feel that five years is the right period. It is surely likely to be appropriate in most cases. If there are cases in which the person has been here for less than five years, and yet it would seem very hard to deport him, I think we may rely on the courts and the Home
    Secretary of the day not to take this vigorous step if it seems appropriate not to do so.
    Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to pursue this matter unduly. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, it is really a matter of judgment. The Government's judgment is that the right period is five years, and our judgment is that it should be two years. Some hon. Members opposite think that the period should be ten years. Their view is that as many criminals as possible should be deported. They think that the right cure for crime is to deport criminals. I have no doubt that they would like to deport all immigrant criminals.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) would have liked the period to be 20 years. That was the logic of his argument. The whole burden of his argument was that the best way to deal with those immigrants who commit a crime is to deport them, because one then puts an end to their career of crime. It is an easy solution to say that the more immigrant criminals one can deport the better, hut that is not the solution which commends itself to the Government or the Opposition.
    We feel that this remedy of deportation is a most extreme and serious sanction, only to be used in extreme cases, and that the House ought not to legislate to give the Government that power except where it is absolutely necessary, because in so far as the power of deportation is given as a recommendation of the courts to the Government, one introduces a further discrimination between British subjects and immigrants from the Commonwealth who have in other respect equal rights. I hope that the Committee will support our view in the Division Lobby.
    Question put, That "five years" stand part of the Clause:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 235, Noes 164.

    Division No. 74.]

    AYES

    [10.0 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Barlow, Sir John

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Aitken, W. T.

    Barter, John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Batsford, Brian

    Bishop, F. P.

    Allason, James

    Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Bossom, Clive

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bell, Ronald

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Biffen, John

    Box, Donald

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hobson, John

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Pitman, Sir James

    Brewis, John

    Hollingworth, John

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

    Hopkins, Alan

    Pott, Percivall

    Brooman-White, R.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Buck, Antony

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Bullard, Denys

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Bullus Wing Commander Eric

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Pym, Francis

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

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Iremonger, T. L,

    Ramsden, James

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Jackson, John

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Cary, Sir Robert

    James, David

    Rees, Hugh

    Channon, H. P. G.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Chataway, Christopher

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Renton, David

    Chichester-Clark, R,

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Cole, Norman

    Kerans, Cdr, J. S.

    Russell, Ronald

    Collard, Richard

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Cooke, Robert

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Sharples, Richard

    Cooper, A. E.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Shaw, M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Shepherd, William

    Coulson, Michael

    Leavey, J. A.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Critchley, Julian

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Speir, Rupert

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Curran, Charles

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Tapsell, Peter

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Donaldson Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

    Doughty, Charles

    MacArthur, Ian

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Duncan, Sir James

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Temple, John M.

    Eden, John

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs.)

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

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

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Emery, Peter

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Errington Sir Eric

    Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Farr, John

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Turner, Colin

    Finlay, Graeme

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Maginnis, John E.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maitland, Sir John

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt, Hn. Sir R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Freeth, Denzil

    Marshall, Douglas

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Gardner, Edward

    Marten, Neil

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Mawby, Ray

    Walder, David

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Walker, Peter

    Goodhart Philip

    Mills, Stratton

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Goodhew, Victor

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Wall, Patrick

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Morgan, William

    Webster, David

    Green, Alan

    Morrison, John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Whitelaw, William

    Gurden, Harold

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Neave, Airey

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N.W.)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Wise, A. R.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Hay, John

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Woollam, John

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Hiley, Joseph

    Partridge, E.

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Peel, John

    Mr. Michael Hamilton and

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

    Percival, Ian

    Mr. McLaren.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Blyton, William

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Albu, Austen

    Boardman, H.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Chapman, Donald

    Awbery, Stan

    Bowles, Frank

    Cliffe, Michael

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Boyden, James

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Bence, Cyril

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Cronin, John

    Benson, Sir George

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Crosland, Anthony

    Blackburn, F.

    Broughton, Dr. A, D. D.

    Darling, George

    560

    561

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davies, Ifor (Cower)

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Deer, George

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Diamond, John

    Kelley, Richard

    Ross, William

    Dodds, Norman

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Short, Edward

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Ede, Ht. Hon. C.

    King, Dr. Horace

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lawson, George

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Evans, Albert

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Finch, Harold

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Small, William

    Fitch, Alan

    Loughlin, Charles

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Fletcher, Eric

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Snow, Julian

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    MacColl, James

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Forman, J. C.

    McInnes, James

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Steele, Thomas

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Manuel, A. C.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

    Mapp, Charles

    Stones, William

    Ginsburg, David

    Mason, Roy

    Swain, Thomas

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Symonds, J. B.

    Grey, Charles

    Millan, Bruce

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Griffiths, w. (Exchange)

    Monslow, Walter

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

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Thornton, Ernest

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Morris, John

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Moyle, Arthur

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Hannan, William

    Neal, Harold

    Wade, Donald

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

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

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oram, A. E.

    Warbey, William

    Healey, Denis

    Oswald, Thomas

    Weitzman, David

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Padley, W. E.

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Parker, John

    Whitlock, William

    Hilton, A. V.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Holman, Percy

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Willey, Frederick

    Holt, Arthur

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Williams, w. R. (Openshaw)

    Hoy, James H.

    Pentland, Norman

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S, Ayrshire)

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Woof, Robert

    Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

    Probert, Arthur

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Randall, Harry

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rankin, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Jeger, George

    Redhead, E. C.

    Mr. Charles A. Howell and

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Mr. McCann.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8.—(PROCEDURE AND APPEALS IN RESPECT OF RECOMMENDATIONS.)
    The Chairman: With the next Amendment, in page 6, line 39, to leave out "three" and to insert "seven", the following Amendments may be discussed: In page 6, line 39, to leave out "days" and to insert "weeks".
    In page 7, line 1, to leave out subsection (2).
    Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, to leave out "three" and to insert "seven".
    The Clause deals with the question of the notice which has to be given to the subject of a detention order.
    The Chairman: Order. It is very difficult to hear what the hon. Member is saying.
    Mr, MacColl: This Clause provides that no recommendation for deportation
    562
    should be made in respect of an offender unless notice has been given to him of the intention to make the recommendation. In the Clause as drafted the period of notice is three days. The Amendment is a moderate and conciliatory one. It is perhaps too modest. It suggests merely the substitution of seven days for three days. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in his first Amendment suggests a period of three weeks.
    Like so many questions, it is one of judgment and balancing what is most convenient, and I am not quarrelling about a day or two. I am quarrelling with the proposal in the Bill that three days' notice should be given. This is much too short. This point was touched on when we were discussing the burden of proof, and the fact that the Government have rejected our attempts to shift the burden of proof from the offender on to the Crown strengthens the case for increasing the period of notice, because an offender will suddenly find himself

    563
    faced with three days' notice that the Crown is going to ask for a recommendation that he should be deported, and this, as has been said time and again during the proceedings, is an extremely serious matter.
    To decide whether or not he is to be deported, he has to establish whether he is or is not a Commonwealth citizen, and whether his period of residence in the country, and so on, excludes him from the provisions of the Bill. All this may take a considerable amount of research, to put it at its lowest. He may find that he has no birth certificate. In spite of the Attorney-General saying that no good man ever had any difficulty in establishing his nationality, I do not think that this is correct. Sometimes it can be extremely difficult for somebody quickly to find his birth certificate. It happens even in this country. A person may be fondly under the impression that he was born in the north of Scotland, but was in fact born in the south of England—ibis mother may have made a quick journey south without it being entered in the family record. A person may be under the impression that he was born in this country, but is not sure, and establishing it as a fact may involve a considerable amount of research.
    10.15 p.m.
    It also happens that people are registered under a different name from that by which they have been known. A person who has been known as Brown, for example, may find when he gets his birth certificate that his name is Jones. This means that it becomes more and more difficult to obtain the necessary facts and documents to establish whether one should be deported.
    Earlier, the Attorney-General tried to brush off this argument. He said that if three days' notice was not long enough an adjournment could be obtained to collect the evidence. It is a sloppy approach to the problem to specify a thoroughly impracticable period of three days and then to say that the procedure can be made to work because people will apply for an adjournment if they want it. We are dealing with an important issue, the liberty of the subject and the right of
    564
    a person to resist deportation. Therefore, we should lean over to give as long and as full notice as is necessary to enable people to establish their case against the recommendation for deportation.
    In many cases, particularly those dealt with at magistrates' courts, it may happen that people are not legally represented. The Attorney-General is not limiting liability to indictable offences, because he wants to catch also some trivial offences which may occur more than once. He spoke, for example, of soliciting. It is well known that in magistrates' courts ladies who are charged with soliciting frequently are not represented when they come before the court. Out of the blue, they will be liable to get a notice that they are to be threatened with deportation. Then, they must try to get legal advice on whether they are subject to the provisions of the Act. To suggest that they can do this in three days is wholly impracticable. To suggest that in three days they can even find a legal representative who will appear for them and ask for an adjournment may not always be practicable.
    If there is a question of applying for an adjournment, what is to be the position in areas where magistrates' courts do not meet every day? In my constituency, the court normally meets weekly. Therefore, if notice of intention to secure a recommendation for deportation is served on a Monday and on Tuesday the unfortunate victim obtains a solicitor and gets advice, how is the solicitor to make application for the adjournment? To whom is he to make it if the court does not sit until the following Monday? These are some of the practical difficulties which are involved in this matter and I suggest that the Government should therefore consider extending the period of notice.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was very kind to me in some remarks earlier this evening. I hope to be able to reciprocate that kindness now, but a period of three days is not as disreputable as he may think. There is a good precedent in a comparable case in the 1948 Criminal Justice Act, for which his party was largely responsible. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has made his case with his usual persuasive force, and I should

    565
    like to tell him and the Committee that, subject to some difficulty, we hope to be able to meet him on this point at the next stage of the Bill. Seven days is obviously better than three.
    There is the difficulty that in many cases it may be that if we give a minimum period of this sort offenders who do not wish to contest the issue, or something like that, will be kept waiting longer than they otherwise would. The case is, therefore, not quite so obvious as the hon. Member suggests. However, he has made his case, and I should like to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that we look upon it with great favour, and hope to meet him on this issue at the next stage of the Bill.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to detain the Committee, particularly in view of the offer that the Under-Secretary has made, but on this occasion, as when we discussed the last Amendment, there is a difference of opinion in two Amendments on the question of time. There is a much greater significance in the difference between seven days and three weeks than there was between twenty-four hours and two years, but it seems to me that my hon. Friend, who made out so powerful and unanswerable a case for the langer time, may not quite have appreciated that it was a case against seven days almost as much as against three.
    The Committee having decided to keep the onus of proof on the defendant, we do not really make the position very much better by adding four more days, and I hope that when the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at this between now and the Report stage he will look at it from that point of view as well.
    Mr. MacColl: For the second evening running I find my persuasive powers after ten o'clock seem to be greater than before ten o'clock. If it were possible for my Amendments always to be discussed after ten o'clock I might get somewhere. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12.—(QUALIFICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP BY REGISTRATION ETC.)
    Mr. N. Pannell: I beg to move, in page 9, line 16, after "Act" to insert:
    "or any person who, not having received a free pardon has been, in any country, convicted of an offence for which a sentence of imprisonment has been passed and who, for this reason, is deemed by the Home Secretary to be an undesirable immigrant".
    In the very short time at my disposal it is not possible to deploy my original argument, but I would point out that the Clause as it now stands gives the right of citizenship to any immigrant who is not actually subject to a deportation order at the time that he makes his application. If, prior to his application, he has been guilty of an offence which, under the provisions of this Measure, would make him liable to deportation he can still become a United Kingdom citizen.
    That is entirely wrong and anomalous. We take power in Clause 2 to exclude from this country immigrants believed to have committed certain crimes, yet here we give the right of United Kingdom citizenship to those immigrants convicted before the passing of the Bill of serious crimes which would make them subject to deportation. The main anomaly is that the Clause makes no provision for the qualifying period of five years to be extended by any period of imprisonment that the applicant may have served. Therefore, taking an extreme case, if he has been ordinarily resident in this country for five years and four of those years have been spent in prison for offences which under the Bill would be deemed to be offences liable to deportation, he will still be able to claim United Kingdom citizenship.
    The absurd part of this is that a person who during several years of his qualifying period has spent so many years in prison is able to claim United Kingdom citizenship and is, thereafter, exempted from the provisions of the Bill regarding deportation. That is a ridiculous anomaly and I hope that the Government will consider the matter and ensure that no person is entitled to United Kingdom citizenship if he has at any time been convicted of an offence, either in this country or in any other country, which would normally come

    567
    under the provisions of the Bill and render him liable to deportation when the Bill becomes law.
    Mr. Thorpe: I merely wish to ask one question of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). The words in the Amendment as drafted are "in any country", and I take it that the hon. Gentleman intends that for the purposes of the Bill an offence committed in another country for which the term of imprisonment has been served shall count for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case for deportation. Are we to take it, therefore, that any person who has, for example, been imprisoned under the emergency legislation in Ghana and has served four or five years in prison would, for that reason, be subject to deportation?
    Mr. N. Pannell: The answer is contained in the last few words of the Amendment, when it states:
    "…who, for this reason, is deemed by the Home Secretary to be an undesirable immigrant".
    This is a discretion placed on the Home Secretary and is similar to the other discretionary instances in the Bill.
    Mr. Renton: We cannot accept the Amendment. It would seem that my hon. Friend wishes to create a new description of person, namely, an "undesirable immigrant". I feel hound to say that the power to describe people as undesirable immigrants after they have been here for five years and have not in that period been recommended for deportation and who are free to reside here indefinitely is not a power which the Home Secretary would wish to exercise.
    At present any citizen of an independent Commonwealth country—I say Commonwealth country and not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies because that does not apply—is entitled to register as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies after 12 months ordinary residence in this country. Clause 12 (2) increases that qualifying
    period to five years but retains the entitlement to register.
    The Amendment would mean that that entitlement would be taken away in the case of those immigrants who have served a sentence of imprisonment not merely in this country but, apparently, anywhere abroad. There are, I think, two main objections to the Amendment. The first is that the scheme of the British Nationality Act gives Commonwealth citizens an entitlement to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whereas aliens have no such entitlement but must satisfy mile Secretary of State that they are suitable for naturalisation.
    The second objection is linked with this and is that any element of discretion involves inquiry, and if the procedure proposed in the Amendment were not to be totally capricious the Home Office would have to make inquiries about the record of every applicant for registration—and there are more than 600 of them a month at present—merely for the sake of refusing a very few criminals. The making of the necessary inquiries in the countries from which the people had come would greatly delay this process of obtaining registration. At present, it takes only a week or two and the work and expense would not be justified.
    It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at half-past Ten o'clock.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 13.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO DETAINED PERSONS.)
    Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 238, Noes 166.

    Division No. 75.]

    AYES

    [10.31 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Ashton, Sir Hubert

    Biffen, John

    Aitkon, W. T.

    Barlow, Sir John

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

    Barter, John

    Bingham, R. M.

    Allason, James

    Batsford, Brian

    Bishop, F. P.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Black, Sir Cyril

    Arbuthnet, John

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Bossom, clive

    Bourne-Arton, A.

    Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

    Box, Donald

    Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

    Percival, Ian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Pilkington, Sir Richard

    Brains, Bernard

    Hobson, John

    Pitman, Sir James

    Brewis, John

    Hocking, Philip N.

    Pitt, Miss Edith

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Hollingworth, John

    Pott, Percivall

    Brooman-White, R.

    Hopkins, Alan

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Browne, Percy (Torrington)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

    Buck, Antony

    Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

    Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

    Bullard, Denys

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Bullub, Wing Commander Eric

    Hughes-Young, Michael

    Pym, Francis

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

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ramsden, James

    Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Jackson, John

    Rees, Hugh

    Channon, HP. G.

    James, David

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Chataway, Christopher

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Renton, David

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

    Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

    Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Cleaver, Leonard

    Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)

    Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

    Cole, Norman

    Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

    Russell, Ronald

    Collard, Richard

    Kerby, Capt. Henry

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Cooke, Robert

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Sharples, Richard

    Cooper, A. E.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Shaw, M.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Shepherd, William

    Coulson, Michael

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

    Craddock, Sir Beresford

    Leavey, J. A.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Critchley, Julian

    Leburn, Gilmour

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Crowder, F. P.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Curran, Charles

    Linstead, Sir Hugh

    Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Litchfield, Capt. John

    Tapsell, Peter

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut' nC' dfield)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    de Ferranti, Basil

    Loveys, Walter H.

    Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss8ide)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

    Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

    Doughty, Charles

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Temple, John M.

    Duncan, Sir James

    MacArthur, Ian

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Eden, John

    McLaren, Martin

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

    Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

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

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Thornton-Kemeley, Sir Colin

    Emery, Peter

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Turner, Colin

    Farr, John

    McMaster, Stanley R.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Fisher, Nigel

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Maddan, Martin

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John.

    Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Maitland, Sir John

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Freeth, Denzil

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Gardner, Edward

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Marshall, Douglas

    Walder, David

    Gilmour, Sir John

    Marten, Neil

    Walker, Peter

    Glover, Sir Douglas

    Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mawby, Ray

    Wall, Patrick

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Grant, Rt. Hon. William

    Mills, Stratton

    Webster, David

    Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

    Montgomery, Furgus

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Green, Alan

    More, Jasper (Ludlow)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Morgan, William

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Gurden, Harold

    Mott-Radclyffs, Sir Charles

    Wise, A. R.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nabarro, Gerald

    Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

    Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

    Neave, Airey

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

    Woodhouse, C. M.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

    Woollam, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Osborn, John (Hallam)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Hay, John

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.

    Hendry, Forbes

    Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Partridge, E.

    NOES

    Ainsley, William

    Benson, Sir George

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Albu, Austen

    Blackburn, F.

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Blyton, William

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Boardman, H.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Awbery, Stan

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

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

    Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

    Castle, Mrs. Barbara

    Beaney, Alan

    Bowles, Frank

    Chapman, Donald

    Bence, Cyril

    Boyden, James

    Cliffe, Michael

    570

    571

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rhodes, H.

    Cronin, John

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Crosland, Anthony

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Darling, George

    Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Ross, William

    Deer, George

    Kelley, Richard

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Diamond, John

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Dodds, Norman

    King, Dr. Horace

    Skeffington, Arthur

    Donnelly, Desmond

    Lawson, George

    Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

    Evans, Albert

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Small, William

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Finch, Harold

    Loughlin, Charles

    Snow, Julian

    Fitch, Alan

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Fletcher, Eric

    McCann, John

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

    MacColl, James

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Forman, J. C.

    McInnes, James

    Steele, Thomas

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Stones, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Manuel, A. C.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmthn)

    Mapp, Charles

    Swain, Thomas

    Ginsburg, David

    Mason, Roy

    Symonds, J. B.

    Gourlay, Harry

    Msndelson, J. J.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Grey, Charles

    Millan, Bruce

    Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

    Griffiths, Dt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mitchison, G. R.

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

    Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

    Monslow, Walter

    Thornton, Ernest

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Thorpe, Jeremy

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Morris, John

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Hall Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Neal, Harold

    Wade, Donald

    Hamilton, William (West Fife)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hannan, William

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

    Warbey, William

    Hart, Miss Judith

    Oram, A. E.

    Weitzman, David

    Hayman, F. H.

    Oswald, Thomas

    White, Mrs. Eirene

    Healey, Denis

    Padley, W. E.

    Whitlock, William

    Herbison, Miss Margaret

    Parker, John

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hill, J. (Midlothian)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Willey, Frederick

    Hilton, A. V.

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Williams, LI (Abertillery)

    Holman, Percy

    Holt, Arthur

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

    Pentland, Norman

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

    Hoy, James H.

    Popplewell, Ernest

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Weathoughton)

    Woof, Robert

    Hunter, A. E.

    Probert, Arthur

    Wyatt, Woodrow

    Hynd, John (Atterclilfe)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

    Janner, Sir Barnett

    Randall, Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Rankin, John

    Mr. Short and Mr. Irving.

    Jeger, George

    Redhead, E. C.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  GLASGOW UNIVERSITY (LINEAR ACCELERATOR)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I am glad to have the opportunity of pursuing further the unfortunate decision of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research not to provide funds for Glasgow University to proceed with the installation of its new linear accelerator. The best way in which I can summarise this matter is by quoting from Sir Hector Hetherington's valedictory letter to the graduates of Glasgow University which was published last September. This is what he said:
  "Some four years ago the Natural Philosophy Department realised that the useful life of its synchrotron would end about 1965, and that in any case its Research School had grown to a point at which even the synchrotron could not offer sufficient experimental facilities. With the knowledge of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, they embarked with Messrs. Vickers upon the design of a new linear accelerator which would enable
  them to undertake work in an area of nuclear physics hitherto little explored anywhere and not at all in Great Britain. Four years' hard work have gone into the design: and all the proper requirements have been satisfied. Now, however, we hear that the Department, having preferred to spend its allocation on a less novel machine for Oxford, cannot until 1965 at the earliest finance this machine in Glasgow. The result is that when Glasgow (and Great Britain) might have been well ahead in this scientific enterprise, half a dozen other countries will have a handsome start, some of them with the aid of the Glasgow work."
  Before going into the details, I should like to say that I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in replying to the debate, will not bring in the fact that recently we have had approved the installation of a nuclear reactor at East Kilbride for the use of Scottish Universities and the Royal College of Science and Technology. We are very glad to get this, and there is no doubt that it will be exceedingly valuable for the purposes of radiation chemistry, medical science and, to some extent, for nuclear engineers. But it has nothing whatever to do with what we are discussing. It is quite a distinct matter
  574
  and, therefore, I hope that we shall not have it introduced. We are discussing something different, and that is the subject of nuclear physics machines.
  As I understand, the present position is this. There are four proton accelerators in this country of the Van de Graaff type. There is one at Manchester, one at Liverpool, one at Harwell and one at Aldermaston—all comparatively small ones of 12 million electron volts. The new one that was awarded to Oxford, when the decision was made to refuse the machine to Glasgow, is a larger Van de Graaff machine, a very useful and valuable machine, but not one that introduced anything very novel. That is why Sir Hector Hetherington said that this machine was less novel than the machine for Glasgow.
  In addition to that, we have one electron accelerator, and I understand that this is not a very good one. It is at Harwell and cost something like £500,000. In this sphere Great Britain is exceedingly badly off. The machine proposed to be installed by Glasgow was a 100 million electron volt machine, which was completely novel in many ways, and its purpose was to be able to experiment in an entirely new field of nuclear physics. I think most scientists have agreed, and even D.S.I.R. agreed, that it was a first-class machine. I mention this because it replies to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary for Science that, in the opinion of his noble Friend's scientific advisers on the Research Council, the Glasgow proposal, though good, was not rated as highly as the proposal which came from Oxford at the same time.
  There was nothing very new or novel about the Oxford machine. It was the larger version of the machine already existing. But the machine for Glasgow was novel and new. Since it was proposed by Glasgow University, it has been copied in Canada, Mainz in Germany, and in the United States Bureau of Standards. I understand that other electron accelerators of the same type are under consideration in the United States of America. We could have led in this field, instead of which these other countries now lead.
  There are, of course, to be two very much larger machines, one the Nimrod

  575
  machine, which is also to be at Harwell, and another one, the whereabouts of which we do not know at present. It seems to me to be clear from this that there is an undue concentration of these machines in the South, and I should have thought that the nuclear programme ought to be balanced. The programme in relation to university machines of this type should be balanced in the same way that national institute machines should fit into a balanced programme with the university machines and the international machine at Geneva. As to the availability and use of machines at universities, this seems to be unfair from a national point of view. We in Scotland have had to complain before about what we thought was the unfair distribution of research, but I understand that outside Scotland there is also great concern about this concentration in the South. From a national point of view, it does not seem to have been a good decision.
  From what I have said with regard to the scientific value of the Glasgow machine, the decision not to provide funds to proceed with it would appear not to be a good one, because where we should have led we are now going to lag behind. So, in addition to not having been a good decision nationally, it seems to have been a bad decision scientifically.
  It is a rather disastrous decision for Glasgow University and its physics department. Glasgow research students preparing their experiments already have to wait a considerable time to obtain use of the Glasgow machine, and the useful life of that machine will and in a year or two. The students will then have to take their experiments down to the National Physics Laboratory at Harwell 400 miles away. Oxford, which is to get a new machine, is about 10 miles from Harwell. Apparently, it was regarded as more inconvenient for research students at Oxford to travel 10 miles to the National Physics Laboratory than it will be for Glasgow students to travel 400 miles to the Laboratory. I cannot understand that.
  What is the effect likely to be on Glasgow University? First, it seems to me to be fairly clear that isolated re
  576
  search departments like that at Glasgow should have their own domestic resources if they are to go on working in nuclear physics, if they are to go on feeding research institutes and industry with top scientists. The men produced in these departments are the top scientists, and whatever the position may be regarding other scientists, we are desperately short of these men.
  What is likely to happen at Glasgow? Are students likely to go to Glasgow when they know that they have not got the equipment there and that if they want to carry out experimental and research work they will have to travel periodically to Harwell to the National Physics Laboratory to get it done? It must inevitably mean a decline in the number of students entering the department and also a decline in the quality of the students turned out from Glasgow University, and that is disastrous from the point of view of Glasgow University and from the point of view of the country.
  The Minister for Science some time ago expressed his very great concern that universities should extend their research work. How do we square this with what has happened at Glasgow? Here is a first-class team of men who put this country on the map in this field, who produced an idea which led the world, an idea which has since been copied by other countries, an idea which would have enabled research to be carried out in spheres at present not covered. Yet the reward to those men for having undertaken this work at Glasgow University is to have had a considerable amount of frustration ever since the proposal was made and in the end to be told that we cannot proceed with it.
  How does the Minister for Science expect to encourage research in universities if this type of treatment is to be meted out to those who show initiative, enterprise, ability, knowledge and all the other qualities that go to make up the scientist? It is not good enough.
  I could have said a lot more but I think I have given the facts. I simply say in conclusion that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at this matter and the whole programme again. It is not good enough to say, as he did in reply to Questions, that he must accept

  577
  the views of the scientists on these matters. Of course we must pay attention to them, but the Minister has an overall responsibility to ensure that we obtain the best results from what is being done. I must say that this decision has caused very considerable concern among those who are connected with this matter in Scotland. There is a feeling—to put it at its lowest—that this decision was not made on scientific grounds but for quite other reasons.
  The Minister for Science has a responsibility to see that money spent on research—money which is provided by the taxpayers—is used to the best advantage of the nation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, in view of the criticisms I have made, to look at this matter again and see whether he cannot give to Glasgow University what it thoroughly deserves—the earliest possible permission to carry on with the installation of this machine.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has done a first-class job in bringing this case before the House. I do not want to add very much to what he has said, except that the Parliamentary Secretary must be aware by now of the grave disappointment created in Scotland by the decision not to allow Glasgow University to go ahead with this work. Some months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and others of my colleagues raised this matter with the Minister for Science. He told us that what he would like to see was a considerable improvement in research in Scotland in this field.
  It is not very encouraging to find that this university, which has a first-class record in this regard, should then have had to face a decision of this kind. We are not going to have this research work carried on in Scotland if we are to be denied the right to have the very latest instruments. Not only has the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that question, but he must take the matter a little further and tell us what the Government's policy is on research. Is it to be concentrated in the South, or is the rest of the country to have a share? Scot
  578
  land will want to know what part the Minister expects us to play.
  Our record in Scotland is one that can only be described as first-class—I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will take no exception to that statement. But if we are to go ahead, we have to be equipped no less than the establishments he has been supporting in the South. We shall expect the hon. Gentleman to tell us what part he and his Department expect Scotland to play in this field in the future.
  10.59 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): The decision by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which has the full support of my noble Friend, not to make a grant to Professor Dee in response to his application for a 100 MeV linear accelerator costing approximately £600,000 has been the subject of some public comment. It is, therefore, on balance a good thing that I now have, through the courtesy of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who asked a question on this subject on 5th December last, the opportunity to put the whole matter in perspective.
  I should first like to clear the decks, so to speak, of one or two side issues which have crept into the controversy. As the House will be aware, the D.S.I.R. gives research grants to universities in response to applications made by scientists for specific projects. In the last four years the Department's expenditure in this field has increased some five-fold, and during the current financial year is expected to reach about £2½ million. This is a very steep rate of increase, and certainly disproves the allegation that the Government are not wholeheartedly behind a policy of encouraging scientific research in the universities.
  It is sometimes suggested—indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) hinted at it—that the D.S.I.R.'s support for research in universities is heavily weighted in favour of England as against Scotland. I have been fully into these criticisms. During the last two years the proportion of applications for research grants under £100,000, received from both Scottish scientists on the one hand and English and Welsh

  579
  scientists on the other, which were approved by the D.S.I.R., was virtually the same in each case, the figure being in the region of 80 per cent.
  Hon. Members will realise that grants can be made only to those who apply for them. It is no fault of the research councils that all of them have found that the proportion of applications for grants coming from Scottish Universities is low in relation to that from England and Wales. This one regrets, but the remedy does not lie in the hands of the Government.
  I mentioned the figure of £100,000 because this is at the present time the dividing line between minor and major grants. It was, of course, for a major grant that Professor Dee applied, and in considering such grants special considerations must also arise in view of their cost and importance, in addition to those which obtain with minor grants of under that figure.
  These grants are for major items of research equipment such as it would be impossible to provide for every university in the two kingdoms. It is important, therefore, to ensure that, in view of their high cost and the fact that relatively few of them can be awarded, they should be selected primarily on grounds of scientific quality and should offer the greatest possible scope for the acquisition of fresh scientific knowledge.
  At the present time D.S.I.R. is supporting five new major projects. All of them are in the field of nuclear physics, that is, the same field in which Professor Dee's project falls. At the universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Oxford three particle accelerators are being built for which the D.S.I.R. is giving total grants of over £1·5 million. In addition, two grants have been given for a bubble chamber and associated equipment far co-operative ventures by seven universities of which Glasgow is one, the grants being administered on their behalf by the Imperial College in London.
  The total of these two grants is just under £800,000. Further, the D.S.I.R. has recently announced support for three major projects on which construction will start in the near future. Two of these are in the field of radio-astronomy and total some £750,000. In
  580
  addition, a low-energy nuclear reactor—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—for both research and teaching, to be shared jointly by the four Scottish universities and the Royal College of Science and Technology at Glasgow, will cost a further £450,000.
  In deciding which major projects to support, the D.S.I.R. has to consider, first and foremost, the scientific merits of the project and the likely scientific benefits which will be obtained from it; and, secondly, the balance of its support in those fields of science for which it, by Act of Parliament, under my noble Friend, is financially responsible.
  Of course, when other types of scientific projects are under consideration, such as might substantially affect the employment situation in the area where they are placed or might have a direct impact on the industrial situation, other than purely scientific considerations must be taken into account. But for the major research project it is the scientific considerations which are paramount.
  Let me relate the history of Professor Dee's application. First, I would make it quite clear that it was an application for a machine for pure scientific research with no direct industrial application. Nor was it an application which could be regarded as teaching equipment in any generally understood sense of the term. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. It was an application formally made to the D.S.I.R.. in early 1960, and during the months that followed it was considered on no less than three occasions by the Nuclear Physics Sub-Committee of the Research Grants Committee of the Council. This subcommittee is composed of leading scientists in the discipline of nuclear physics. These eminent persons considered very thoroughly the scientific merits of Professor Dee's proposals, and whether the results which were likely to be forthcoming and the possibility of a new field of knowledge being opened justified the substantial expense which the project would entail.
  By the end of 1960 the Nuclear Physics Sub-Committee agreed to recommend to the Research Grants Committee that Professor Dee's project should be supported in principle. But

  581
  the Research Grants Committee had not only to consider Professor Dee's proposal, and other proposals in the realm of nuclear physics, but also proposals from the other fields of scientific research in the light of the balance of scientific effort in this country, and, of course, in relation to the funds that could be made available by the Department for such investment in the light of the needs for national economy.
  The House will recall that a moment or two ago I drew attention to the fact that the D.S.I.R. was already supporting five major projects in the nuclear physics field. With all these facts in mind, the Research Grants Committee recommended early last year that of further grants first priority should go to radio astronomy. During the summer, it agreed to support five major projects, of which three have recently been authorised, two in radio astronomy and one low energy nuclear reactor. The other two have, unfortunately, had to be deferred for the time being. These are the research reactors for the London and Midland Universities.
  Mr. George Lawson rose——
  Mr. Freeth: I have very little time and much to say.
  Mr. Lawson rose——
  Mr. Freeth: I cannot give way. I am going to finish this section of my speech.
  Mr. Lawson: That is not the answer.
  Mr. Freeth: If the hon. Member will sit down, he may find the answer in the remaining minutes that I have to speak.
  On 5th December, I was assailed by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) for continually repeating, as he put it, the phrase, "My noble Friend must accept the opinion of the experts". That comment was echoed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East tonight. I am, however, quite certain that I was right to emphasise and to repeat such a phrase. Scientific decisions can be taken only by scientists. Neither my noble Friend nor I is qualified to assess the scientific merits of Professor Dee's project. These must be decided by nuclear physicists—and they were. It would be quite wrong for my noble Friend to override his
  582
  scientific advisers on the scientific priorities of different applications. It would also be contrary to the spirit of the D.S.I.R. Act.
  But my noble Friend has, of course, a duty to assure himself that his scientific advisers consider every aspect of the project and give their advice in all good faith. That they have done so in this case he is completely satisfied. The fact, however, remains that the scientists on the Research Grants Committee, although accepting that Professor Dee's project was one worthy of support, did not feel able in the scientific interests of the nation to place Professor Dee's project among the five to which last July they announced support. My noble Friend can find no reason for reversing this decision, and, if it were reversed, it would have to be done on grounds quite other than those which, as Minister for Science, he is entitled to take into account.
  On 5th December, it was suggested by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that there was a choice between Glasgow University and Oxford University and that the D.S.I.R. chose Oxford rather than Glasgow. This is, of course, as I said then, quite inaccurate. Professor Wilkinson's project for a 20 MeV Tandem Van de Graaff accelerator was considered by 'the D.S.I.R. as a project on its own. Professor Wilkinson's application was received before Professor Dee's application for a grant for a machine of a rather different character, and approval in principle was given to it by the Research Council in January, 1960, whereas Professor Dee's formal application was not made until a month later. At that time it was uncertain whether D.S.I.R.'s planned expenditure would be able to finance the Oxford project and approval was delayed on this account. It was, of course, also essential fully to consider where the equipment was to be sited and what facilities should be granted for other research workers to use so expensive an item of equipment. This was why the grant to Professor Wilkinson was not announced until May, 1961.
  To some extent, therefore, consideration of these two projects has run in parallel, but it is important to emphasise that both the Nuclear Physics Sub-committee and the Research Grants Committee of the D.S.I.R. were never in any

  583
  doubt whatsoever that on scientific merit Professor Wilkinson's project was to be preferred. They differed from Sir Hector Hetherington on that account. They never had any doubts about proceeding with Professor Wilkinson's research project, or any inclinations to reject it at a late stage in order to substitute that put forward by Professor Dee.
  The future of the Nuclear Physics School at Glasgow, it has been suggested tonight, has been endangered by Professor Dee's application having been refused. However, I draw attention to the 300-MeV electron synchrotron to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred and which, I am advised, still has a useful life for several years. In addition, Glasgow will share very fully in the facilities which will be afforded by the grants given to the seven universities, which I have already mentioned, for a hydrogen bubble chamber and for film analysis equipment.
  Professor Dee has been informed that it is always open to him to resubmit his application, either for this machine or for one similar, in future years, although it is most unlikely that the D.S.I.R. will be in a position to support before the financial year 1964–65, any further major projects other than those already announced but deferred. If he does resubmit his proposal, it will be reconsidered in the light of circumstances then existing, and on its scientific merits, in conjunction with any new proposals put to the Research Council at that date.
  584
  In answer to the hon. Member for Leith, I would say that my noble Friend has naturally always pressed scientific bodies to bear in mind Scotland's needs, as do the Government in their policy for the distribution of industry, but major grants for research projects have to be awarded solely on scientific grounds. I am convinced that the decision in this case, disappointing as it must be to Professor Dee, is one that has been taken solely on scientific grounds and on the best possible advice. There is a limited sum available to the D.S.I.R., and it must allocate that sum on sound scientific principles and in the interest of the balance of the nation's scientific effort.
  Having looked into this matter very thoroughly, and having had long discussions with my noble Friend, I myself believe that we have reached a decision which, on scientific advice, is right. I also believe that it would be wrong for us to attempt to alter this decision on grounds other than scientific ones. In scientific matters, my noble Friend has to take the advice of his scientific advisers. I think that it would be very wrong of him to attempt to override them——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Rents
  Rents
  Maternity Unit, Clydebank
  Maternity Unit, Clydebank
  Herring Industry
  Herring Industry
  Monkland Canal (Coatbridge)
  Monkland Canal (Coatbridge)
  Technical Colleges, Lanarkshire
  Technical Colleges, Lanarkshire
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  Peel Hospital, Selkirkshire
  Peel Hospital, Selkirkshire
  Uncertificated Teachers
  Uncertificated Teachers
  Remand Home Staff (Salaries)
  Remand Home Staff (Salaries)
  Welfare Foods
  Welfare Foods
  Tonsil and Adenoid Operations
  Tonsil and Adenoid Operations
  Tropical Fish
  Tropical Fish
  Location of Industry
  Location of Industry
ROADS
  Junction, Cardiff (Traffic Signals)
  Junction, Cardiff (Traffic Signals)
  A.2, Dartford (Gypsies)
  A.2, Dartford (Gypsies)
  Boothferry Bridge
  Boothferry Bridge
  Lancaster-Penrith Motorway
  Lancaster-Penrith Motorway
  Baker Street and Gloucester Place
  Baker Street and Gloucester Place
  Port Talbot By-pass
  Port Talbot By-pass
  Leyton
  Leyton
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Direction Indicators)
  Motor Vehicles (Direction Indicators)
  Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limit)
  Road Accident Research
  Road Accident Research
RAILWAYS
  Wage Claims
  Wage Claims
  CYPRUS
  CYPRUS
  YEMEN (ATTACK ON CHARGE D'AFFAIRES)
  YEMEN (ATTACK ON CHARGE D'AFFAIRES)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  UNITED NATIONS BONDS
  UNITED NATIONS BONDS
  CONGO (BRITISH PROPERTY)
  CONGO (BRITISH PROPERTY)
  UNITED NATIONS (EMERGENCY FORCE)
  UNITED NATIONS (EMERGENCY FORCE)
EMPLOYMENT
  Government Training Centre, Waddon
  Government Training Centre, Waddon
  Wage Rates Information (Handbook)
  Wage Rates Information (Handbook)
  Llanelly
  Llanelly
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Drugs (Purchase)
  Drugs (Purchase)
  Troops, Germany
  Troops, Germany
ROYAL NAVY
  H.M. Dockyards (Graduate Engineers)
  H.M. Dockyards (Graduate Engineers)
  Royal Corps of Naval Constructors
  Royal Corps of Naval Constructors
BRITISH ARMY
  Land, Westward Ho! (Release)
  Land, Westward Ho! (Release)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Respiratory Diseases
  Respiratory Diseases
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
HOSPITALS
  Dental Teaching Hospitals
  Dental Teaching Hospitals
EDUCATION
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Technical Education, West Middlesex
  Technical Education, West Middlesex
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Clean Air Act (Appliances)
  Clean Air Act (Appliances)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Bank Robberies
  Bank Robberies
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Glamorgan Development Plan
  Glamorgan Development Plan
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES (REPORTS)
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES (REPORTS)

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

ASSAY OFFICES BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
ZINC CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

INDEPENDENT CHAPEL MAWDSLEY STREET BOLTON BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
2.34 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In the case of this Bill I am making a statement under Standing Order 91, because I understand that several Members of the House are interested in Bills which authorise the sale of a burial ground for possible development. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that the burial ground may be dealt with or disposed of
"for building or for any other purpose in like manner as if no part thereof had ever been used or set apart for the purpose of burial of human remains.
The effect of this is that the specific fetter on development imposed by the Disused Burial Grounds Act, 1884, is removed; but nothing in the Bill exempts the land from the general law relating to town and country planning.
There is a similar clause in the Manchester Corporation Bill which is down for Second Reading to-morrow.
62
This, again, seeks to remove the fetter on development imposed by the fact that the land is a churchyard. Here again the general law of town and country planning will apply as if the churchyard were an ordinary open space, and therefore the Bill does not of itself give authority to build. A similar question arises in the St. Peter's Church, Nottingham, Churchyard Bill which is down for Second Reading on Wednesday next. Clause 5 seeks to free part of a churchyard from the curb on development imposed by the fact that it is a churchyard. Clauses 4 and 6 of the Nottingham Bill, however, enable part of the churchyard and the site of the vestry to be used for the erection of a building for use as a vestry, parish hall and centre of religious instruction.
These last two clauses differ from the Bolton and Manchester Bills, in that they expressly authorise certain development. Should the provisions pass, they are still within the general law of town and country planning, and permission for development would have to be obtained; but the power of the local planning authority to refuse such permission would in this case be limited, because the development would fall under Class XII of the General Development Order. This means that the planning authority could not refuse permission to build unless they were satisfied (if I may summarise the position) that the design of the building would injure the amenities or that the building ought to be erected on some other part of the land.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
2.37 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, some of us, as the noble Lord has said, are a little worried about how far the provisions of this Bill go. I am glad the noble Lord has been able to give us this assurance; but this is obviously an important matter and I think some noble Lords would like to have the opportunity of considering rather more closely what the noble Lord has said. It might be convenient to give us that opportunity by postponing the Second Reading for a short period.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may intervene at once, I may say that I should be happy to adjourn considera-

63
tion of this matter, and, if it be the wish of the House, I should like to move that the debate on this Motion be now adjourned. I understand that several noble Lords would like to say something on the Bill, but I do not think it would be convenient to do it this afternoon. I therefore beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

HOUSING AND LAND PRICES
2.38 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to draw attention to the Housing situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is nearly seven years ago—to be exact, June, 1955—since the House last discussed housing on a Motion. It is true that since then there have been before the House a number of housing measures on which it has been possible to have more or less satisfactory general debate; but, as I say, this is the first time since 1955 that we have discussed housing specifically on a Motion. Therefore no one can complain that we have been precipitate in putting this Motion down. On that occasion I had the privilege of moving a similar Motion, and I remember that on the other side of the House there were two speakers, one from the Back Benches and one from the Front Bench. The Back Bench speaker was rather critical of the Government and expressed various views to the effect that they had not done all that they might have done. He probably would not make a similar speech to-day: he is the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. The other speaker was the noble Earl, Lord Munster, whose presence we greatly miss this afternoon.
On that previous occasion I gave the House the benefit of a survey I had made. I had taken some care to try to work out what our housing requirements were, and I gave the House the conclusions I had arrived at under a number of various headings, such as the increase that we might expect in population, the numbers required to clear the
64
slums, overcrowding, the need for mobility, the effect of the rising standard of living, provision for old people and so on; and the conclusion which I then came to was that we required 6 million houses to be built over the next 20 years. That was in 1955. Since then we have had built about 2 million houses, and only a week or so ago the Minister of Housing and Local Government made a public statement to the effect that we now required 6 million houses: indeed, he went a little further, because he really said that it was at least 6 million and probably more.
At the time when I made this estimate it was generally thought that I was overstating the problem. But the fact that, after seven years and the provision of 2 million houses, the official estimate is at least 6 million houses is an indication that I certainly did not over-estimate the problem at that time. Indeed, the feeling I have about the housing situation is that almost whatever estimate one makes of housing requirements is likely in the event to turn out to be an under-estimate. To-day estimates are being made in various quarters. I would mention, among others, the Alliance Building Society, which has produced a thoughtful and careful survey of the situation. They have come to the conclusion that there is a need for 8 million houses to be built over the next 20 years. If I may say so, my own view to-day would be much the same.
At the time when I made the original survey I was not, of course, aware of the results of the Census figures of 1961. When we take that and various other factors into account, I think we shall not be overstating the position if we say that we need 400,000 houses a year over the next 20 years in order to meet our housing requirements—that is, to provide every family with a self-contained house with modern amenities. That does not necessarily mean a new house, but at least every house should contain the minimum modern amenities of a private bathroom, a water closet, separate water, its own kitchen and adequate bedroom accommodation for the size of the family concerned.
Why is it that, in spite of the fact that we have built 2 million houses since 1955, the housing situation is to-day as acute as it was at that time? About that

65
there can be no doubt whatever. The difficulty of obtaining accommodation is at least as great as it was then, and, so far as the great majority of the people of this country are concerned, their hope of getting a dwelling at a reasonable rent is certainly no higher than it was in 1955. May I set out some of the reasons why in my view the position has not been improved? The first is that there has been an unanticipated increase in the population and, correspondingly, a greater increase in the number of separate families than was anticipated. I know that the Census informs us that the size of families is increasing very slightly and, therefore, the increase in the number of families is not proportionate to the increase in the population. I make the noble Earl who is to reply a present of that point. The fact remains that the increase in the number of families has been far greater than could ever have been anticipated in 1955.
Since then, there has been a considerable movement of industry which has created a demand for new houses in the new industrial areas which have not been fully provided. Then the rate of decay and the number of unfit houses has been greatly under-estimated. When we had the figures before us on an earlier occasion, we were given figures which had been provided by the separate local authorities. Standards might have been different for these authorities; some might have taken a more optimistic and some a less optimistic view of the slums that they had, and short of a national survey it is difficult to get reliable figures as to the number of houses which should be demolished. But one thing is quite certain. The actual figures before us were an under-estimate of what were our requirements.
I do not dispute that a good deal has been done by way of slum clearance; yet even to-day one family in every three in this country is living in conditions below what we should to-day regard as the minimum standards of accommodation—that is, they are either overcrowded or have not a separate water closet or separate bathroom, kitchen or supply of water. That applies to one family in every three. I do not want to paint a harassing picture of what life must be like for so many
66
families in this country under those conditions. I think we can all imagine for ourselves. But I would invite noble Lords to read the debate on Housing which took place in another place last Friday, when a considerable number of examples were given by honourable Members of conditions in their own constituency. If these conditions are even approximately correct they represent a disgrace to the civilisation of this country.
To go on with some of the causes of the housing situation in which we find ourselves I would mention the effect of decontrol. By that I mean particularly the loss of security of tenure. I know this is controversial. I myself have never taken the view that the rents of controlled houses are sacrosanct and should never be interfered with. But I feel very strongly that it was wrong, in conditions of great scarcity, to give the landlord the right to evict his tenant at will after a certain period and before the housing shortage had been made good. We can see some of the effects of it in the new problem which has arisen of the homeless families in a number of our large towns, particularly in London, where families are being separated. Husbands are not able to live with their families, and the wives and children have to be housed in old Poor Law institutions and places of that kind because nobody will take them in as tenants. If one goes back far enough, these people have been evicted from rent-controlled premises.
Although, as I have said, we have built a large number of houses since 1955—I think more than half have been built by private enterprise—they have been almost entirely for sale. Very few private enterprise houses or flats have been built to let. The fact is that only a very limited number of people can afford to pay the prices which are being asked for private dwellings or flats. It has been estimated that about 10 per cent. of the population requiring housing accommodation have not the earnings by way of wages or salary to afford to buy or even to rent, if they had been available, the dwellings which are being built by private enterprise.
This is in spite of the fact that until quite recently mortgages have been freely available—mortgages of un to 90, 95 and, in the case of local authorities,

67
even 100 per cent. But, as regards building societies, who naturally have to look to their security, they are not prepared to lend money to any person whose income is less than £20 per week. We know that the average income of an individual to-day is very substantially below that and, although in many cases the family income is well over £20 a week, the building societies—I am not saying whether they are justified or not, but this is their general practice—will not lend money unless the income of the breadwinner, of the head of the household himself, is over £20 a week. The local authorities have until recently been inhibited from lending money because of the difficulties of getting the funds and they are only now very slowly going back to lending money in respect of houses. But, even if they do, the repayments are so high that it is difficult for the ordinary wage earner, or even the average small salaried man, to afford the repayments.
Another reason why we are in this difficulty is that houses, and particularly the private enterprise houses and flats, are being built in the wrong areas so far as the needs are concerned. Building is dictated by the availability of land and the question of cost. It is certainly not necessarily related to industrial or other needs but largely takes place on the outskirts of existing towns, causing other problems such as traffic congestion and long and tiring journeys to and from work. Where there is this building, especially in the centre of the large towns, the prices of land are so prohibitive that only the exceptionally wealthy are able to live there.
There has been, as the House will be aware, a substantial reduction in recent years in the number of houses becoming available for letting by local authorities. The building of such houses and flats has in many areas come completely to an end. This is due partly to definite and direct Government policy in concentrating on slum clearance, but is also due to the repeated changes in Government policy leaving local authorities in considerable doubt and apprehension as to what will be the Government's next step. The Government's policy has been one of "Go! Stop! Go again! Change course to slum clearance! Stop again!"—and so on. There has never
68
been, certainly not in the last ten years, any continuity of policy for a period of, say, three or four years, with the result that local authorities are very apprehensive of starting a programme which they may not be able to continue. Furthermore, there is the question of the high interest rates and the credit squeeze, and since the last Housing Act there has been the right of the Government to bring subsidies which they have undertaken to pay to an end after ten years. It is, therefore, no wonder that local authorities are bewildered by lack of certainty and continuity in being able to carry on with any programme that they have begun.
Also accentuating the problem is the tendency to earlier marriages, probably due to higher earnings and the fact that it is now the normal thing for a husband and wife to continue to work after their marriage. But the result is that this all helps to create pressure on housing requirements. The combination of all these factors which I mentioned can be dealt with only by a considerable increase in the number of houses of the right quality that become available to let, and, as I have tried to indicate, the only hope of getting such houses provided under present-day conditions, having regard to the high cost of land and of buildings, is through the local authorities.
As I have said, at the most, only 10 per cent. of the general population are able to afford a house provided by private enterprise. So what is the solution? It is not easy in the course of a short speech to set out a programme and I would not wish to do so to-day, but I would put forward a number of matters which I think are worthy of consideration. First is the question of some form of control over building to ensure that we get the right priorities. There is tremendous pressure, too great a pressure, on our building industry. After all, the building industry is one which is of necessity limited in its personnel, in its facilities, in the number of architects, surveyors, and so on. There is a limit, and there is bound to be a limit, on what this country can afford in the way of carryinig out these operations. Should there not be some order of priority? Ought we not to make up our minds as to not only priority within housing itself but a general priority?
I think that we are spending too much of our resources in luxury building; that is, in building houses and flats which are too highly priced. One has only to look around in London and some of the other large cities to see What is going on. A large amount of our building resources is being diverted to what one can only regard as not necessary. I think we ought to have some kind of priority not only as between types of houses themselves but as between different forms of building, labour, materials and professional resources, and we should make some kind of choice as between houses, roads, hospitals, schools and all the other things that we so badly need. I think I would say that housing ought to have first priority. I myself would put it above anything else—housing for the kind of people whom I have been talking about.
Then I would suggest for consideration that there ought to be reasonable control of rents and prices. Free competition in housing has its virtues—I do not wish to deny that. But free competition cannot work fairly and efficiently in a time of great shortage, and we are now obviously in a time of great shortage. That is a matter which, in my view, ought to be considered.
Next there is the problem of high and increasing land costs. I am very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has a Motion down on the Paper following mine in which he to raise this question. I do not know in what form he is going to raise it, whether he will approve of the high cost of land, or whether he will say that it is inevitable, one of those things we have to accept. But that it is a factor in the housing question there can be no doubt; and it is a factor that is affecting detrimentally the number of houses we are able to provide and their availability.
Then there is the high rate of interest. My noble friend Lord Latham will be winding up this debate, and perhaps he may be able to tell us what is the effect of this high rate of interest on rents or on housing costs. But undoubtedly it is a very different thing to pay, say, 4 or 5 per cent. interest, as against 6¾, or even 7, per cent. to-day, when you are obtaining a mortgage, and pay it over a period of 25 or 30 years. It is a very considerable deterrent. I am not now
70
discussing the Government's economic policy: it may have been necessary or desirable to have a high rate of interest, but whether it was essential to have that same rate in connection with housing I do not know. I should like the Government to consider whether it is not possible to have a special interest rate in respect of housing, certainly for housing of the class of person who is to-day homeless, who is so much in need of a house and cannot get it.
Then, my Lords, we ought to try to secure greater productivity in house building. I believe that the major contractors are fairly efficient. Indeed, I was reading an article the other day in which it was stated, I think with great authority, that the labour costs as between an efficient contractor and an inefficient one varies in the ratio of one to three; that is to say, the efficient builder will spend only a third of the labour costs as compared with the inefficient one. Of course, that is taking two extremes. That seemed to me a very remarkable statement, but it was stated with great authority in an article in the Economic Review, last December, by a Professor of economics at Manchester University. If that is anything like the truth, then it is something that might well explain in many cases the high cost of building.
We ought to do everything we possibly can to create greater productivity in housebuilding and more efficiency. We should encourage the introduction of more efficient methods; we should encourage mechanisation and large-scale co-ordination of work as among different authorities. Obviously, when we find a number of small authorities each building half-a-dozen houses at a time (some of them, I notice in the latest report from the Ministry, propose not more than a dozen houses a year) such houses must obviously be far more costly than if we could secure some method of co-ordination by which they were all built together, perhaps by a single contractor, and properly phased. There are many other things, such as more prefabrication, about which the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, is keen as I am. We could secure far more prefabrication—I do not say complete prefabrication, but far more prefabrication. In this way much more of the work of building could be done in the factory and much less on

71
the site, so that we should be much less dependent on the weather than we are at the present time. I have no doubt that people like the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, will be able to make many other suggestions that would bring down very materially the cost of building in this country.
If we are to provide satisfactory homes for our people, to enable them to enjoy their greater affluence—and I hope that gradually they will secure greater affluence—we must look to the future. We must carefully consider the kind of building, the kind of home which not only is suitable to-day but will be suitable in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time. We know that many of the homes that were provided, say, in the inter-war years are already out of date and not satisfactory. We should look ahead and ensure that the same thing does not happen to-day. It is improvident to build small houses which are likely in a few years to be regarded as wholly out of accord with the standards people will be demanding.
I was glad to find that the Central Housing Advisory Committee, a Government-sponsored Committee, of which I once had the privilege of being a member, appointed a sub-committee to consider housing standards of the future. They produced a very attractive booklet, which I have here, Homes for To-day and To-morrow which I would recommend every noble Lord to read. It is most fascinating reading. It sets out the kind of homes that ought to be provided. Some of them are most interesting, and certainly quite timely. For instance, they suggest that every single house that we provide to-day should have a garage. Not only that; in that garage there should be accommodation for a motor-cycle, or possible a moped, and for a bicycle. That may sound fantastic to-day; but I am sure it will not sound fantastic even in five years' time. The Committee also say that there should be refrigeration in every house. I am sure that to-day almost every noble Lord has refrigeration, and wonders how we could exist without it. They say that there should be central heating facilities; and they set out different types of central heating—solid fuel, gas, electricity: you can make your choice. They say that there should be larger rooms; and in my view, there should be rooms
72
that will afford a certain amount of privacy for the family, a room where children can entertain their friends without having the constant company of the grown-ups.
Many other excellent features are recommended in this Report. The Chairman of the committee was Sir Parker Morris, a former Town Clerk of Westminster. The total additional cost they estimate at about £200. I would suggest that this expenditure of £200 on a house will save us, in the long run, far more than if we have to adapt our houses in the future to what the requirements will be.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question on those particular figures? Does the £200 include the cost of fitting central heating, garage and larger rooms?
LORD SILKIN: Yes. I do not think that they contemplate oil heating; but, after all, in every house to-day some sort of heating has to be provided, whether by a back-oven or something of that sort. This is the additional cost. However, if the noble Lord questions it, he had better have his argument with Sir Parker Morris, and not with me, because that is what is recommended.
My Lords, I am afraid that I have already exceeded the time I had intended to take, and there are another twenty speakers, so I forgo the luxury of saying some of the things that I had intended saying. I hope, however, that I have indicated to your Lordships my view, that I regard the solution to our housing problem as of the highest social priority. I would put it higher than anything else. We cannot regard ourselves as a really civilised nation when so large a proportion of the people of this country are badly or inadequately housed. I have always felt that a man's dignity is enhanced by the quality of the house he lives in; I would say that the reverse is the case, too. Our duty is to ensure that we enhance the dignity of our people in the shortest possible time. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government, to what extent they consider that the price of building land has been,

73
or is continuing to be, increased by restrictions on development in current town planning schemes, or by speculation; and, if any serious social consequences are arising from either of these causes, what action they propose to take; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for agreeing that my Motion should go along with his, and indeed for suggesting that that should be done. The price of building land, is, of course, only one aspect of the housing problem, but as the noble Lord himself has said, it is an important aspect and one which has latterly been attracting a good deal of attention. In fact, I can hardly imagine a debate on housing taking place to-day without some reference being made to what is frequently called the scandal of high prices.
As this is a housing debate, I should like to make clear that I am going to confine my remarks to the sort of land we usually associate with housing—namely, undeveloped land. I am quite aware that the redevelopment of built-up areas is likely to have an increasing impact on and is increasingly important to housing, but the redevelopment of built-up areas brings in a number of complications which are not specifically related to housing and I think well merit a separate debate. Meanwhile, the complications of undeveloped land seem to be quite enough for one debate.
Lord Silkin has referred to recent speeches that have been made on housing matters, and I think it would be fair to say that the Opposition Front Bench have been charging the Government that, by the removal of the development charge from the 1947 Act, they have enabled owners and speculators, and perhaps racketeers, to exploit the public, and that that is really the explanation for the high price of building land. Be that as it may, I also, in my no doubt limited experience of local government, come up against this complaint about the high price of land; but the complaint is of an entirely different nature. I hear little about racketeering and nothing at all about the development charge; but I do hear a good deal about town planning. It is the unnecessary restrictions of town planning that, I am informed, are putting up the price of
74
land, and the villains of the piece are not the racketeers but those who administer town planning—for example, such people as myself. So I have a sort of vested interest in this matter, though not, unfortunately, a financial interest, because I own no building land.
This sort of charge is not confined to builders and estate agents, though I must admit that they are pretty vocal. I noticed the other day in that not very revolutionary journal, the Sunday Times, an editorial which said:
"It is notorious that the scarcity of building permissions has driven land prices up to extreme heights in the areas of peak demand round London and the Midlands. Land at Chigwell fetches £12,000 an acre, and it is £10,000 at Solihull. At eight-to-the-acre development, that is £1,250 to £1,500 per house. The present system of local permissive planning, rather than regional constructive planning, seems bound to produce this sort of result"—
and it goes on to say, that unless some great change is made housing will be held up through lack of building sites.
I thought, perhaps over-optimistically, that in the comparatively dispassionate atmosphere of this House one might hope for some sort of scientific analysis of all these things. How far is there a public scandal? How far are there social evils being created? How far are these high prices due to speculation and profiteering? How far are they due to town planning? How far are they due to some other cause? And if it can be shown that we are confronted with a serious social problem, how can we deal with it? If there is speculation and profiteering, how can that be affected by taxing capital gains or by reimposing a development charge? If it is due to town planning restrictions, ought town planning to be administered in some other way? Above all, my Lords, I hoped that we should have some enlightening as to the facts.
I suppose we have all read the somewhat spectacular figures that have been quoted in the newspapers relating to certain particular transactions in land, but I think that if any of your Lordships tried to find out at all systematically about the price of land in different parts of the country he would find it an extremely difficult thing to do. I, as a town planner, know something about the cost of land in my own county of East Sussex. I know, for example, that within what I might call "the commuter

75
belt" the price of suitable building land with planning consent ranges from £5,000 to £7,000 an acre. I know that in the rather more distant areas along the coast which are favoured by the retired, prices range between £3,000 and £4,000 per acre; and I also know that away from those areas land may go down to £2,000, or even £1,000, an acre. So there is a considerable variation in one small county. But I have had the greatest difficulty in finding out about the prices elsewhere.
Building societies have some figures. I wrote to the Chairman of the Alliance Building Society, whose pamphlet has been quoted by Lord Silkin and has attracted a great deal of attention. I asked him whether he had any figures that would shed light on this matter, and I should like to read a paragraph from a letter I had in reply. He said:
"The difficulty of obtaining detailed information about the price of building land in different parts of the country was the first problem we faced in the preparation of our booklet. After exhaustive investigation we found that there is no source from which can be obtained reliable statistics which would enable proper comparison to be made in the price obtained for one area of land and another. There is no department or professional body engaged in the compilation of the necessary information."
That is a fairly straightforward statement, and it seems to me that we are rather inclined to pass judgment, and, indeed, to suggest quasi-scientific solutions, on evidence which I do not think any scientist would accept as being in the least adequate. However, there is one organisation with which I am connected that has been attempting to amass some knowledge about this matter. It has done it by the laborious process of analysing a large number of different transactions that have been recorded in the Estates Gazette, and using intelligent guesswork as to whether they were comparing like with like.
The picture that arises from this investigation is that everywhere the price of land tends to rise in the vicinity of large centres of population. But whereas in any area within 50 miles of London where communications are good the price of land varies between £5,000 and £12,000 an acre, with something rather similar occurring in the West Midlands, around Birmingham, there
76
are a whole range of counties—for example, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, parts of Suffolk, Devonshire and Wiltshire—where the price of land is on an entirely different scale, varying from perhaps £3,000 an acre to a little above agricultural prices. My Lords, as I have said, I cannot call this a very scientific analysis, but it is to some extent borne out in some of the more erudite articles on this subject that I have read in the professional publications. If it is a true picture, it seems to me to lead to various deductions.
The first is that this problem of land prices is largely a regional or local one. The second is that the price of land is settled by the ordinary laws of supply and demand, as determined in the auction room. The third deduction, perhaps a more controversial one, is that if that is so, no amount of taxation, or the reimposition of a development charge, whatever other merits those suggestions might have, would necessarily do anything to reduce the price of land to the consumer.
I should like to say, in passing, that in principle I have no objection whatever to the taxing of capital gains on land, provided always that some system could be devised which was not more trouble than it was worth. Indeed, if such a system could be devised, and the proceeds went to local authorities I might become quite enthusiastic about it, particularly in my own county. But I question very much whether it will have any predictable effect on the price of land to the consumer. I really think the noble Lords opposite must agree with this because, despite the tremendous castigation the Government have received for removing the development charge, I notice that nobody has suggested that it should be reimposed. Instead, the Labour Party are proposing something quite different, which is something I should like to come to in a moment.
This brings me to the general question of speculation in land. I suppose that where favourable conditions exist, any smart operator will almost always turn the circumstances to good account, but, although I am probably very simpleminded, I cannot see how any ordinary owner can profiteer in land except by

77
the process of buying it cheap and hanging on to it until it becomes dear. The other day I ask a Starred Question of the Government with the object of finding out how much land they considered was deliberately being hold off the market in spite of its having planning consent. The answer I was given was that, although the Government were quite prepared to take strong action if they knew of such cases, the plain fact was they did not really know, and did not really intend to try very hard to find out. They did not clearly regard speculation as a very large element in the price of land.
For my part I rather wish that they had conducted such a survey, as I think they would have found that quite an appreciable amount of land is being kept off the market. But I think the real explanation is partly that a large number of owners do not care to develop at the present time: that, for example, they want to avoid building development all round their house during their lifetime, and also that there are a large number of builders who are buying land, not for the purpose of profiteering, but to guarantee the continuity of their operations by having proper reserves of land.
I think we in this country get a certain thrill out of the idea of conspiracy. Our detective fiction is full of these malevolent conspiratorial groups. In my time it was the armament manufacturers, the oil magnates and the bankers who were invested with this rather sinister glamour. Nowadays I notice that in some sections of the Press a new sort of mystery name has been invented in connection with alleged racketeering in land. It is the "faceless men" who have been exploiting the public—of course with the full connivance of the Government! I do not know how a "faceless man" sets about his work, but I should have thought that if he was keeping a lot of money locked up in this way, with the bank rate as it is at the present time, he is pursuing a pretty risky game. In other words, I personally believe that the degree to which the price of land is due to to a deliberate attempt to hold it up to ransom by professional speculators is, at any rate to-day, comparatively minor. But I see no reason why this charge should not be properly analysed and examined.
This brings me to the question of town planning. How true is it that town planning restrictions are causing, or at least adding to, the high price of land? This is a very difficult question, and I do not suppose anybody could give a complete answer to it. But there seem to be some pointers to the conclusion that if there were no town planning at all there would still remain a land price problem. Quite recently I had the curiosity to look up the debate that took place on the Lloyd George proposals to tax land values in 1908 and 1909. Curiously enough, in those days they seemed to be saying very much the same as they are to-day. There was the same comparison drawn between the high price of building land and the price of agricultural land; the same complaints that certain individuals were reaping their rich harvest. But the big difference seemed to be that the roles have changed round. In those days the Government were complaining that it was the owners who were concentrating building in this way and restricting other land. In fact, the whole object of that measure, so far as I can understand, was to bring more land into the building market.
To-day, however, it is the other way round. It is the owners, or some of them, who are making exactly the same charge against the Government. The only moral I deduce from that is that in 1909, before there was any town planning, there seemed to be sufficiently serious land problems to justify the Government in bringing in some very comprehensive and very contentious legislation. Again, I think that figures from foreign and Commonwealth countries, which do not have the British system of town planning, show that there are these very big discrepancies between land in some places and land elsewhere. To my mind, all this suggests that town planning does little more than magnify or accentuate to some degree the difference in price that would in any event exist were there no town planning.
I should be the first to admit that when we come to the detailed effects of town planning we run into some extra-ordinary anomalies. I ran into a case the other day where, for the purpose of public acquisition, the estimated cost of

79
land on one side of the road was just about five times as high as the estimated cost of the land on the other side, although to the eye both parcels of land looked very much the same.
Anomalies of this sort arise from the extraordinary complexity of the law respecting values to-day, but I think they are of quite local significance. I do not really think they affect the general conclusion that I would draw—namely, that the market price is simply an indication of demand and that therefore it is clearly of little use releasing for building a lot of low-cost band in the hope that you will thereby reduce the cost of land in the high-cost areas. To reduce the price of land in what I would call high-cost areas you would have to release land which, were it not for town planning restrictions, would also be high-cost land, and you would have to do it on a large scale if you hoped to make anything but a very temporary difference.
I have little doubt, for example, that if you were to release the whole of the Green Belt around London it would have an immediate effect on the prices in all of the counties around London. I do not think any of us would wish to see that. But I do not believe that small-scale releases of land would have more than a very temporary effect indeed, if any. Ministry Circular No. 35/70, which was issued last July, now governs town planning, but, at any rate in my own area, my guess would be that it really will not have much effect, if any, on prices. So, my Lords, if action against speculators is not likely to have much effect, and if town planning can have an effect only if there is a change in a direction which few of us would like to see, what is there to be done?
Here I think it would be only right that I should refer to the Labour scheme shown in the pamphlets Signpost for the 'Sixties and Towns for Our Time. I suppose it would be thought that anything that came from these Benches in regard to those pamphlets would be necessarily tendentious, but I should like to say that there is at any rate a great deal of preliminary matter in Towns for Our Time with which I entirely agree. I agree that the only real solution to this question lies in so
80
contriving matters that the demand for land is spread much more evenly over the whole country than it is at present. This is, of course, an extremely difficult thing to provide for, but it is being done by the present Government to a certain extent by such measures as the creation of New Towns away from the big conurbations, by measures for the control of industry, and by what I hope will be measures to control office building, which I understand is now under very careful discussion. Surely these things are all in the right direction.
Although I cannot believe that any Government could work on quite the apocalyptic scale envisaged in this document, I also agree, nevertheless, that something more could be done if there were greater co-operation between local authorities and Government Departments in this task of creating new centres of population, and so creating new land values. At the present moment, if a New Town is being started all branches of the Government co-operate to make it a commercially viable town. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government give special housing grants, the Board of Trade give industrial certificates, and the Ministry of Transport not only plan the roads but actually give financial priority to enable them to be constructed. But operations on a smaller scale than New Towns seem to create quite a different attitude. The Board of Trade say, "Why do you want industrial certificates when you have no unemployment?" The Ministry of Transport say, "How can you justify priorities for money where you have no real traffic problem?"—all of which is quite reasonable if you are not deliberately setting out to create these new centres.
There seems to be some indication that the Government are taking another look at the Town Development Act, which so far has not been working very well, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will say something about this. If he does, I hope he will make it clear that, if towns are going to be selected for expansion, they will enjoy the cooperation of all Government Departments in the same way as New Towns do.
My Lords, while I agree so far with the theories in this document, I feel that

81
it can only have but a very long-term effect on land prices. It could not really be expected to produce results for years. It is when we come to their short-term proposals that I confess I find the reasoning much less convincing. It is apparently contemplated that a Land Commission should purchase all building land, presumably as soon as it is so designated in a town map. The price that they would pay for this would not be the market price by present-day standards, but a negotiated price at something less than the market value. The document says:
"If the present system were replaced by one in which all buying of development land were regulated by a single buyer, the price at which an owner would willingly part with his land would be much lower than now."
I expect that would be true, and I expect it would be true of commodities other than land. I must confess that I cannot see this working without very large-scale use of compulsory purchase.
When it comes to the disposal of land which is to be by lease, and to who is to get the leases, and at what prices they are going to get them, the document seems to be very obscure. Apparently it is contemplated that the State will make a large profit out of the disposal of land in this way, and everybody will be satisfied with the price that he has to pay for his lease. Again, my Lords, I wonder. The whole theory of this part of the document seems to be based on the supposition that the one thing that is bothering the people of this country is that they are paying a profit to private individuals, and that they would not mind paying that same profit if it went to statutory bodies. There may be people who think on those lines, but I do not happen to have met them. The people I meet in my particular part of the world want cheap land, and they do not really care from whom they buy it. The sort of argument I hear is: "Why should we, the poorer people in Sussex, have to pay £400 or £500 more for the purchase of a house, or the equivalent expressed in terms of rent, simply because of the competition from commuters and from immigrants who come to Sussex to retire?" I find that a difficult question to answer. I find it difficult to tell them that if they want cheap houses they must migrate to Lincolnshire or Wales.
The problem is a difficult one, and one which I think is likely to get worse; but I believe that it is the only really serious problem that we have. Of course local authorities, too, have to pay inflated prices for land, though they get from this immigration, some quid pro quo which the ordinary individual does not get. Nevertheless, I think that the way to deal with such cases, if it is justified, as I think it is, is by some form of open subsidy, rather than by concealed subsidy brought about by, as it were, "monkeying about" with market prices. I do not know how far the general grant, the rate-deficiency grant, special grants under the various Housing Acts, and so forth, do enable local authorities to compete with these high land prices. Some of these authorities do not seem to think that they do, but it would need a member of a very expert profession to judge whether that was a prejudiced point of view or not. However, I hope that the Government will keep the matter under constant review.
To summarise, my Lords, I believe that the great differences in these land prices are very largely due to immigration and to movements of the population. I think that a measure of immigration may he quite natural; but, in my view, excessive and too rapid immigration does lead, or may lead, to great human misery—and that is quite irrespective of where the immigrants come from. There is a Bill going through Parliament dealing with immigration to this country from overseas, and I suppose that the discussion on that Bill will turn largely on the colour bar. I should like to put forward the somewhat unconventional view that, though these racial matters are, of course, of great complication, fundamentally it does not really matter to, let us say, a town in the South-East of England whether the immigrants come from Jamaica or whether they come from Wigan; the same impossible tasks are set to the local authorities in the way of housing, education and so forth. I hope, therefore, that the Government will press on with what they are already doing to dissipate demand and to spread out the population.
In conclusion, I would say that, although I have been expressing certain views—as, indeed, other people have done; hardly a week passes without some Paper appearing on this subject—I admit

83
at once that I base what I have to say on information which I consider pretty inadequate. My main object is to try to extract the Government's views based on their information, which I suppose is the most authoritative that could be obtained. Having regard to the importance of this matter and to the amount of attention that is now being paid to it, I feel that it would be a good thing if some Papers giving information could be laid, as my Motion asks, and therefore I beg to move for Papers.
3.43 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, a famous philosopher once said that if men did not flatter each other there would be no such thing as polite society. Without wishing to flatter, I must say that I was greatly struck on this occasion by the very informative and unbiased way in which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, addressed himself to this subject. I do not think he is present at the moment, but there was one question I wished to ask him, and that was: did he say that building societies do not like to lend money to people with an income of less than £20 a week? If he made any such statement—and I do not know whether he did—I can only say that I nearly had to send for a doctor. But there were no medical Members of your Lordships' House present, so I had to recover on my own. However, it was a great shock to hear such a statement. I can assure your Lordships, and everybody, that building societies do not lend money to men of straw; nor, for obvious reasons, do they lend money to people with very small incomes. But they very definitely have no rule as to £20 a week. In all appropriate circumstances, building societies do lend money to people whose incomes are less than £20 a week.
My Lords, there are certain factors to be considered before we suggest any remedies for this problem. First of all, there is the undoubted growth of population, coupled with the great influx of immigrants. The last subject is a very delicate one, and as my learned and noble Leader is sitting in front of me, and below me, perhaps I had better not express any personal views on the subject or I may find myself in very hot water. But the fact is that we have had an increase in population of our own
84
people, coupled with an enormous influx of immigrants which is now going on and increasing every year.
I am making no criticism, but the fact is that we cannot build enough houses for all purposes. I am not making any criticism of the Government, nor of the local authorities. The Government have only the taxpayers' money; and, apart from grants, the local authorities have only the ratepayers' money. Therefore, when we criticise these various august bodies we are, in a sense, criticising ourselves. When we take into consideration the very old, insanitary houses that should be pulled down in the coming years, and the new houses that we have to build, in any event, to satisfy current requirements, it means, broadly, that between 400,000 and 500,000 houses must be built each year.
There is another feature to Which I would draw attention, and that is the terrible congestion that exists—and it is increasing—in the South of England. At the present rate of development, by 1970 there will be a continuous street from Charing Cross to Reading, with similar development in other directions. In an area covered by a radius of 40 miles from Charing Cross, in all directions, there will be a population of some 20 million people. That is a horrifying prospect, yet no-one seems to take any interest in the matter.
On the subject of the Green Belt, there is a good deal of misunderstanding. In fact, only one statutory Green Belt has been formally approved—the one round the Greater London area. There have been 70 sketch plans submitted. Of that number, 47 relating to the Green Belt have been accepted generally or in part, and 23 proposals have been submitted for formal incorporation in development plans. Whichever way one looks at the matter, the outstanding fact is the increasing demand for more and more land for building. That, in itself, operates to put up the price of land. There is no reliable index relating to the changes in average land values throughout the country, but it is estimated that, apart from certain astronomical rises in the cost of land, the cost of building has increased by about 25 per cent. in the last six years. It is only fair to say that that is partly due to the cost of building itself and partly to the cost of land.

85
Having made these comments, may I make now a couple of constructive suggestions? I am not suggesting for a moment that any overall or global plan is possible. I am certainly not in favour of land nationalisation. However, having said that, I agree that there should be some form of State intervention on a limited scale. One of the pressing problems to-day is the replanning and rebuilding of districts in the middle of most big cities. The cost of that operation is beyond the scope of local authorities. May I suggest that there should be set up a trust, like that advocated by the Civic Trust, to buy and hold decaying areas until either the local authority or private enterprise is ready to develop them? All areas would not be taken over at once; and, as a prospective area was sold or leased for development, the trust would be repaid. Needless to say, the trust would require powers of compulsory purchase.
The other matter which is causing us all anxiety is the lack of houses for letting. I know that the Socialist Party—I am never quite clear whether I should refer to them as the "Socialist Party" or as the "Labour Party", but your Lordships know whom I mean: I mean the good-looking noble Lords and Ladies sitting on my left—are always in favour of the building by the State of houses for letting, but they are not in favour of the building by private individuals of houses for letting. I myself think that every possible encouragement should be given to private developers to build houses for letting. But the position to-day is one of extreme difficulty. One suggestion is that the local authority should acquire areas of land and then sell them to private developers. Of course, the local authority, in selling the land to private individuals, would have to make a small profit in order to recoup themselves for their administrative and other expenses, and there would be no objection at all to that. The builder, in turn, would be financed by the Government at some very low rate of interest, such as 2 per cent.; and when the house was built, it would be a condition that the builder should lease it and not sell it. From the revenue thus obtained, the builder would gradually repay the Government, and eventually he would be the clear and unfettered
86
owner of a house which brought him in revenue every year.
My Lords, they are only two very mild suggestions which I make, and which I hope the Government will take into consideration. There are many speakers to-day, and no doubt many other admirable suggestions will be made.
3.52 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said in initiating this debate, it is now several years since your Lordships last debated the problem of the nation's housing. Nothing, of course, more intimately affects the welfare and happiness of us all. I should therefore like to start off by saying that I welcome these two "Siamese twins"—the two Motions moved, and so ably moved, by the noble Lords. It is high time that we again took stock of this great problem. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend Lord Gage, will forgive me if I do not answer all the many points which they have made. To do so would take an inordinate amount of time. However, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be dealing with their speeches when he winds up, and we will certainly endeavour to answer any questions posed in the debate, then or thereafter. But I myself feel that the House might prefer, at this stage at least in the debate, if I were to sketch the broad problem as we see it.
First, a quick glance back. For a number of years now, house completions in the United Kingdom have been running at around the 300,000 mark annually. The total score is now just over 4 million. That means that of our national stock of housing, about one-quarter of the stock is represented by new, post-war homes. All this, of course, is pretty familiar to your Lordships. Perhaps less familiar is the less dramatic story of modernisation. I have no figures as to what has been done on purely private account, but I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the sharp increase in grant-aided improvements. Before the 1959 Act, these were running at around 35,000 dwellings a year. For the last

87
two years the figure has been stepped up to around 130,000; and at this rate we should therefore be able to look forward over the next ten years to the improvement of some, million-and-a-half houses. In terms of arrested obsolescence and of greater comfort for over four million people, this relatively modest work of face-lifting can mean a great deal.
This overall achievement in the past has closed the critical gap between the number of dwellings in this country and the number of households seeking dwellings. Ten years ago, the gap was a million wide—12–1 dwellings and 13–1 households. To-day the gap is 100,000–14·6 million dwellings and 14·7 million households. Sometimes, my Lords, I feel that we overlook this broad achievement. I believe myself that the general improvement in the housing situation which underlies it should be accounted a massive national achievement.
But what of the present? When my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government recently opened the four-millionth house at Twickenham, the Daily Herald, in a leading article, commented that this was a matter for congratulation, but not one for complacency. I entirely agree. The nation still has an enormous housing problem on its doorstep. The estimates of the national housing need, of course, vary, it has, in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made clear, become a favourite guessing game for our statisticians and economists. The estimates, as your Lordships know, vary from some 5 million to some 8 million over the next 20 years; and, as your Lordships also know, our own best guess of the need over the next 20 years is at least 6 million.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, dealt with these figures, I will try to put the sums as simply as I can. First, there are the slums. We have at least half-a-million slums to sweep away and replace. Secondly, there is the backlog of shortage. The statisticians tell us that the gap between households and dwellings is now only 100,000, but we all know how these broad national statistics can conceal pitiless local shortages. We also know that to give flexibility,
88
and to allow us industrial mobility—more mobility, a point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, touched on—we need a surplus. We estimate that to overtake the backlog of shortage and to create the necessary surplus will entail at least another half-million houses. Thirdly, there is obsolescence. It was the Industrial Revolution which provoked the great building wave of the last century. As a result, much of our housing in this country is old; not as old as in, say, France, but not as young as in, say, Scandinavia. By 1981, unless we replace them, over 4 million of our houses will be 100 years old or more. Some, of course, will still be serviceable, I hope mine included; but we must certainly aim to replace not less than 3 million of these old houses.
Finally, there are all the by-products of a growing population and rising standards. Many unexpected things have happened since the war, but I think few have been less expected than the population explosion which has taken place within these Islands. The Registrar-General suggests that we shall have to crowd about 5 million more people into our small Island in the next 20 years. But this is not all. The really significant factor is that households are increasing even more rapidly than the increase in the population. In the last ten years, for example, the population rose by 5·3 per cent., but the number of households in this country increased by 12·1 per cent. We live longer; we marry younger; we have more children; and to accommodate this incontinence (if I may so term it) we must add another 2 million houses to our estimate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to the Alliance Building Society's estimate as being higher—8 million, as opposed to our 6 million. I think the difference between our estimate and theirs lies in a different estimate of the increase in households. We believe that they are wrong. We believe that we are right. I suspect we are both wrong.
The result, in any case, as we see it, is that we must plan for at least another 6 million dwellings in the next 20 years, at least 300,000 a year. I would not, of course, suggest that we should not aim higher. If we can hit this target before 1981, so much the better. Above all, I should not wish to leave any impression that when we have secured these

89
new houses we can rest on our laurels. Because of the continuing need to replace obsolete or obsolescent housing, there is no magic moment when any particular generation can say: "We have solved our housing problem". Never has this been truer than it is to-day, when we are faced with this double dynamism of a growing and increasingly prosperous and therefore exacting population. But I would not claim that the figures of 6 million in twenty years, or at least 300,000 a year, are in any way sacrosanct. Indeed, we must try to raise our sights, if we can. I suggest that they offer a rational background against which to view some of our special problems.
The need after the war was for a mass attack on housing shortage, a general advance all along the line, to try to cope with the sheer shortage of general need housing. I believe that to-day housing is becoming a more sophisticated problem, and in that way perhaps a more difficult one, more selective in its incidence in particular sections of the community, more qualitative and more localised in its geographical impact.
There are two special gaps which we believe need to be closed. The first is that of providing good suitable housing for elderly people with their very special needs. It is a subject which your Lordships discussed only recently. I will therefore touch on it briefly. It is a subject in which I, embarking, as it were, on the approach march to old age, find a particular interest. It is one to which the Government and my Ministry will continue to give the closest attention. There has already been, as your Lordships know, a dramatic increase in the number of one-bedroomed dwellings suitable for old people, completed annually—a rise from 11,000 in 1951 to 27,000 in 1960. There has also been a corresponding improvement in design. We trust that local authorities and housing associations, and everyone else interested in this field, will maintain the impetus. It is important for its own sake.
I was in one of our northern towns recently on a particularly cold day. What decent housing can mean for old people was borne in upon me by a dramatic contrast in conditions: on the
90
one hand, old ladies dragging themselves out from their slum houses through the snow to the cold, rickety, shared toilets; on the other, within a few hundred yards, much the same old people—warm, relaxed and happy in their flatlets. This is work which must be kept up.
The second gap which requires filling is that of new housing to rent, which has been touched upon this afternoon. At the present time very little medium-priced accommodation is being built for rent. At one end of the scale there are, of course, luxury flats to let, and at the other, the cheaper type of house or the seedier type of "digs". But at the moment there is a void between council houses for rent and private enterprise houses for sale. Of course, this is partly a reflection of the continued and, indeed, healthy desire of people to own their own homes, but in other respects the position is not so healthy.
There are growing points of our national economy where new rented accommodation is badly needed for, say, the younger managerial staff. This lack of rented accommodation, indeed, affects our whole industrial mobility. Again, whatever your Lordships' views may be on chemical monopoly, I think that most Members of your Lordships' House would agree that it would be unhealthy in the long run if rented accommodation were to become a municipal monopoly. In fact, most of us would like to see more private enterprise building of houses to rent. Perhaps the Labour Party, by reaffirming their second thoughts on municipalisation, will be able to give private enterprise the necessary assurance on this score.
Perhaps local authorities could help if all of them were to adopt realistic rent policies, with, of course, the necessary safety net for those in real need. This would help to reduce the present unrealistic gap between the rents of their subsidised accommodation and the rent of unsubsidised accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, who I see has, very wisely, slipped out, gave us some advice about how we could help to meet or fill this need. All I would say on that is that we will look into his suggestion.
In any event, we hope that the housing association movement will feel able to step increasingly into this breach.

91
We trust, of course, that they will continue as in the past to co-operate with local authorities in providing for special requirements of various kinds. A circular which we are just about to issue to local authorities will make this clear. In addition, however, we hope that housing associations will take advantage of the £25 million loan fund provided for under Section 7 of the Housing Act which your Lordships' House passed last summer. We should like them to play an increasing rôle in the field of unsubsidised building to let, for those who do not wish or are not able to buy their own houses, and who cannot expect the local authorities to help them.
We believe, in fact, that the housing associations can make a really important contribution here, as they can in the almost unexplored field, at least in this country, of co-operative housing. It may be argued that the £25 million loan financing will not go very far. Granted. At the same time, it is our hope that this element of Government financing should serve to prime the pump. There is no reason why new building of this sort to let should not offer a sound investment for private capital. In all this, we believe that the National Federation of Housing Societies, of which my noble friend Lord Gage is the President, can play an increasingly important part as a guide and as a stimulus to progress. As a sign that our intentions towards my noble friend are both serious and honourable, I would merely mention that we have increased our annual "dowry" to the National Federation from £2,500 a year to some £15,000 a year.
I said just now that there was a qualitative problem as well. It is this. The growing wealth of our society brings with it quite inevitably a demand for better building, more spacious and better equipped homes. The homes we are building to-day must satisfy the needs of our people for the rest of this century and beyond. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made. Homes are not throw-away containers. They cannot be bought and discarded, like last year's motor car, in favour of next year's models. They have to have built-in longevity; they must
92
not have built-in obsolescence. In short, the homes we are building to-day to satisfy the affluent society of 1962 will have to satisfy the much more opulent society of 2012. I am not confident that all the houses that have been built in this country since the war, whether by local authorities or by private enterprise, satisfy this simple test.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said about the Report recently produced by my right honourable friend's Central Housing Advisory Committee, called Homes For Today and Tomorrow. The noble Lord has told your Lordships broadly speaking what is recommended in that Report. I will add only one point to those which he has made, and that is to remind your Lordships that this Report appeals for the better lay-out and landscaping of housing estates, often deplorably low in standard in this country, and suggests, quite rightly, that local authorities and builders are foolish if they do not make certain, by employing competent architects, that all the houses they build satisfy the higher standards now called for. But these higher standards will, of course, cost money. Given the country's economic position at present, I do not deny for a second that this Report comes, as it were, at an awkward moment. But again the remedy lies very largely with the local authorities themselves. The more their rent policies are flexible and realistic, the higher the standards to which they will be able to build.
There are further reasons why I believe this pursuit of higher quality is practicable, even in to-day's rather difficult economic conditions. One is because I believe that we need to increase the efficiency of housing construction and to get better value for our money. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said on that score. My noble friend will, I gather, be referring to this subject at greater length when he winds up, and therefore I wish to touch only briefly on what we as a Ministry are trying to do on this particular front.
Many of your Lordships are aware of the success of the Ministry of Education's development group. Since 1959 my Ministry have established a similar development group composed of a balanced team of architects, sociologists,

93
quantity surveyors and administrators. This group is now conducting concentrated research into what type of housing people really need and the advantages we can obtain by applying new techniques in house construction. My noble friend Lord Bossom will be glad to hear that this study includes a study of standardisation and prefabrication of components. The group's work is as much practical as it is theoretical. There is a group of old people's flatlets at Stevenage which is in process of erection at this moment; there are two houses to be exhibited at this year's Ideal Home Exhibition at Olympia; there is a group of 39 houses shortly to go up in West Ham; and there is a slum clearance and re-development scheme in Oldham. These schemes will all incorporate a measure of experiment in materials and techniques, and we propose to have the results carefully studied before they are passed on to the local authorities. But I would emphasise that this sort of work takes time. I do not think we can expect immediate results in economies or in better design from this type of work. It is a field for patience and carefulness, but also for concentrated effort.
In a sense—but in a very real sense—the housing problem, at its most acute, is predominantly a Northern one. It is in the older industrial towns of the Midlands, of the North West and North East and, indeed, of Scotland, that we find the worst and the most slums. Of the 50 authorities with major slum problems only one is to be found south of a line drawn from the Humber to the Severn. It is in the North, too, that we find the biggest areas of blight and obsolescence. Only too often in the North we come upon a drab and stagnant town centre. Now much progress has been made with slum clearance. In 1955, 850,000 properties in England and Wales were declared to be slums. Since then, nearly 350,000 have been swept away. Last year, some 62,000 were dealt with, and if we could maintain this pace we should be able to liquidate the remaining half-million within ten years. But because the slums are unevenly distributed it will take us longer to deal with the hard core of the Northern slum problem, if I may so term it, even with a very special effort.
94
I do not need to dwell on the social consequences of slums. But, my Lords, it is not only the social and humanitarian consequences which should give us pause. There are wider consequences, too. I was struck by an article by Tom Stacey which I read over the weekend in Mr. Roy Thomson's latest coloured production. In it Stacey, in describing the youth of Britain, said that in a sense the concept of Disraeli's "Two Nations"—the rich and the poor—was now becoming out of date. But, unless we are careful, we may create, or allow to be perpetuated, two other nations in this country: the favoured South and the less favoured North—a sort of Italy upside down.
My Lords, this is the point where our housing and planning policies must come together. Our greatest single housing problem is that of our Midland and Northern slums. But our greatest planning problem is the magnet of London and the South-East, the Drang nach Suden, if I may use a German expression. This magnetism will be accentuated if squalid housing and living conditions in our Northern cities are allowed to persist. The young and the enterprising will inevitably be drawn South and it will be that much the more difficult to attract industry to the North.
It was therefore not only with the social and humanitarian problems of the slums in mind, but also because he is acutely conscious of this vital planning factor, that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced last Friday that as soon as economic conditions permit he was proposing to mount a further attack on Northern slums and squalor. Next to maintaining the general impetus behind the nation's householding programme, slum clearance, with a special blitz on the Northern slums, must remain our first priority, with all that this means in terms of adequate resources of special skills, of finance, and of land. This clearly implies that a substantial proportion of our housing effort must continue to be invested in subsidised housing for rent. In terms of planning it implies that we should do all we can to enhance the amenities of our older Northern towns and help breathe life once again into their centres.

95
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that there will be no "Stop-Go" about this policy. It is intended to be a steady and consistent policy. I would also assure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that we have, of course, noted the Civic Trust's proposals about the re-development of central urban areas; but I think we are awaiting a study which my noble friend Lord Mancroft is at present conducting in this respect on their behalf, in the intervals of lecturing in the Southern States of America.
The second great problem before us is that of containing and accommodating our great urban regions. It is this problem on which the Motion of my noble friend Lord Gage so largely bears. Planning, of course, has been affected by just the same factors as housing—the explosion of population and the even greater explosion of households; and by the enormous and unexpected spread of the motor car. Again, I think our planners may originally have underestimated the extraordinary attraction of the big cities for mid-20th century man. But we are not alone in having possibly underestimated. Even those super planners, the Russians, appear to have miscalculated. This is what Mr. Khrushchev said to his Party Congress in October last:
"The housing problem remains very acute. In the past few years the growth of urban population in the U.S.S.R. has considerably outpaced the estimated figures. By the end of the 7-year plan (1965) the urban population will increase by about 15 million more than had been assumed".
But, my Lords, the mere fact that these planning problems have become more acute is surely the justification for planning. For what would have been the position had we not had these planning controls, if the Lord Gages had not been at the helm? We should have had endless ribbon development spidering out along the main roads from the cities. We should have had an unchecked spread along our coastlines—"marzipan development", as the late Aneurin Bevan termed it. The towns would have gorged on our precious countryside; London would have married Birmingham and the Chilterns would have been submerged. I think it is incontestable that planning controls in a certain way heighten prices—perhaps in a localised way. If we
96
could all build over Green Park, I suppose that prices of land in Belgravia might come down; and I imagine that if we could build round the shore of Lake Ullswater the price of land at Bannisdale might come down. But if the price of planning is indeed higher prices—and to a certain extent I think it is—surely it is a price worth paying.
My noble friend also referred to speculation. I have spoken for too long, and I will therefore be very brief in what I shall say on this. One hears much talk of speculation, but it would certainly be difficult for us to pin down rumours on this subject and to get concrete examples. In this sort of thing, the tale loses nothing in the telling. Speculation does not, of course—and this is the point I would put—affect true land values. If the land is not worth what the speculator is asking for it, he will not get his price, and we personally doubt very much whether speculation—and I think we agree here with my noble friend—has had any material effect on the market as a whole which, incidentally, appears to be falling slightly at the present time.
But what are we doing about this great urban problem? We have a great number of surveys in hand, special studies of the great conurbations. At the same time, we have done everything within our power to bring home to local authorities the need to squeeze the best use out of available land and, where necessary, to ensure that suitable new land is brought forward in good time for development. We issued a circular some eighteen months ago on this subject, and some 90 suggestions for amended development plans have come in. Many of these propose substantial new areas for residential development—300 acres at Cambridge, 155 acres on the periphery of Ipswich, and 400 acres at Fareham. But in general our contact with the local planning authorities shows that the latter are well aware of the needs of the moment, and that most of them already have in mind ways and means of ensuring that building is not hampered by a shortage of land. Of course, what we now need and propose is to get these ideas clearly written into the development plans with the least possible delay. That is the broad strategy.

97
I should like, in conclusion, briefly to mention what it means, as it were, in terms—and I will take a most difficult example, that of "the great wen" of London and the South-East. I suppose the next most acute is a smaller wen, Birmingham and the West Midlands. What is our approach to these problems of the South-East? In the first place, I think we must recognise that a further great expansion of population within the South-East is inevitable, if only as a result of the natural population increase. We cannot, and should not, adopt a Canute-like policy on this issue. What we can do is to mitigate this growth by making our Northern regions more attractive to live in, to work in and to play in. What we can also do is to plan to absorb this increase in as sensible and as economical a manner as possible.
What does this mean specifically? First of all, it means winkling out every available acre at the heart of Greater London which is suitable for residential accommodation. A good deal has been done along these lines already. Perhaps the biggest bonanza which we may expect is that from the British Transport Commission. We hope that in the very near future they will be throwing up about 850 acres of land within Greater London, with perhaps more to come. We hope that a substantial amount of this will be suitable for residential development. This can mean new homes for many thousands of Londoners.
That is one approach. The other approach is to secure redevelopment at realistic densities. Something can be done by building high, as the London County Council have shown just over the river at Brandon Estate, or down the river at Poplar and Stepney. And higher densities, within limitations, are quite compatible with civilised living conditions. Yet a law of diminishing return applies here, and we feel that the best bets are the spacious suburbs developed at two or three houses to the acre. We believe that there is great scope for redevelopment within those areas.
While we must aim to secure the fullest possible use of land within the conurbations, we must clearly also plan for a great wave of what is inelegantly termed "overspill". This is already taking place, of course. In the last ten
98
years the population of Greater London has shrunk by about 200,000 people, and, given the natural increase concealed within these figures, this means that about 500,000 people have moved out of Greater London in the last ten years. But at the same time, the population of the Outer Metropolitan area, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, has grown by over 1 million. What is perhaps even more significant is that our best guess at the present time is that the population of the South-East region as a whole is likely to grow by about 2½ million in the next 20 years. Much of this overspill can be absorbed through a network of private decisions, within towns expanding, as it were, under their own steam. But much of this overspill must necessarily be planned overspill.
In all this we recognise that the New Towns will have a great rôle to play. The New Towns were conceived under a Coalition Government; they were born under Lord Silkin, and have matured under ten years of Conservative rule. Almost everyone who knows them at all well must recognise the success which they have proved: in social terms, despite difficulties; in architectural terms, despite mistakes; and, above all perhaps, in economic terms and in the way in which they have attracted industry. I personally should hope that in this next decade we shall see a whole new generation of New Towns brought into being, possibly fewer in number than the first generation, but conceivably larger in size.
We must also look to further large-scale town expansion schemes. I will admit straight away to my noble friend Lord Gage that progress under the Act of 1952 has been somewhat disappointing, but it is now gathering momentum. Take the town expansion schemes which depend on London. Already the agreed schemes will provide for the absorption of 155,000 people, and schemes under negotiation will add an additional 80,000. Here again, we are planning for the future. Possibly we should now concentrate our efforts more, and plan for fewer but bigger town expansion schemes. In any event, I am quite certain that we shall need to run very fast indeed if we are to keep

99
pace at all with the dynamic expansion of the South-East of this country.
I have, of course, taken note of what my noble friend said about the difficulties met with in certain towns which are being expanded and which difficulties, it is suggested, are due to bad liaison in Whitehall. I would assure him that no differentiation is made in these matters between New Towns and town expansion schemes. But I will certainly undertake to look into that possibility on his behalf, in case something may be going wrong.
My Lords, may I briefly summarise the main outlines of the policy which I have tried to sketch? First, we recognise that, despite the massive progress made since the war and during the last ten years of Conservative Government, the housing needs of this country are still far from satisfied. Secondly, we plan, during the next ten years of Conservative Government, to secure at least another 3 million new houses. This means, on the average, at least 300,000 a year. Thirdly, as our first housing priority we propose, within the limits of what the national economy will bear, to mount a concentrated and sustained attack upon the slums of our older industrial towns and cities, especially in the Midlands and the North. Fourthly, we shall continue to pay substantial attention to the needs of the elderly, to the provision of medium-priced rented accommodation, and to the modernisation of older properties. Fifthly, we believe that the quality of the nation's new housing should be raised.
Sixthly, we shall, together with local authorities and the building industry, seek to secure, without sacrifice of quality, economies in house construction. Seventhly, we shall, as our first planning priority, continue to pay close attention to the development of our great urban areas, and, in particular, to the problems posed by the magnetic attraction of the West Midlands and the South-East. Finally, we shall aim to ensure that sufficient land is made available for development in good time and in the right places; that the best possible use is made of all available land, and that co-ordinated plans are made for the reception of overspill.
100
May I just say this, my Lords, in conclusion? Despite the progress we have made, it would be quite idle to pretend that the housing problems of the nation are yet solved. For, quite apart from much too much bad housing, we are still faced with an overall shortage of housing, especially in some of the great urban areas. Indeed, this is perhaps the last great problem of material shortage with which we as a nation are confronted. But whilst we cannot be complacent, we should not doubt our ability to rise to this challenge. Thirty years ago there were nearly 2¾ million unemployed in these islands, and much real want and hunger. My Lords, we have basically conquered that problem, and I see no reason myself why we cannot equally, and indeed in a much shorter time, conquer the problems that we are discussing to-day.
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just preceded me has covered the ground so widely and so effectively that he has taken away much of the criticism that could be levelled against the present situation and has shown that the Government intend, if indeed they do intend, to have a really bold policy. But I want to bring your Lordships back to the more immediate problem which has been slightly lost in speaking about the next five, ten or twenty years, and it is the immediate, present condition of homelessness of a very large number of people. It is most severe in those cities and towns where the housing problems as a whole is most acute; in industrial cities like Birmingham, where there is virtually no hope whatever that a family with two or three young children evicted from furnished rooms will be able by their own efforts to find alternative accommodation.
The intensity of this problem in Birmingham will be realised from the fact that there are roughly 30,000 lodger families living in other people's houses, with no separate home of their own. In hundreds of cases there are husband and wife with three or four children living in one room, without a kitchen or living room. Others may have a share of a living room and kitchen but still be dreadfully overcrowded. Side by side with its efforts to tackle this problem,

101
the city is dealing with 47,000 other families who have a separate home of their own but one which is condemned as unfit for human habitation. Taking the two groups together, there is an immediate need—and I stress the word "immediate"—for 78,000 additional homes, and this takes no account of the further increase of the population over the next twenty years or of the demand arising from the formation by the existing population into smaller and smaller groups in a way which is evidenced by population statistics.
A great deal has been done in the past; and I can pay tribute to the work the city has done in constructing 40,000 new buildings since the war. The rate of new house-building is 2,200 a year. It cannot go faster than this for a variety of reasons, the principal one being the dwindling supply of land in the city, and the second, the keen competition for the inadequate supply of building trade labour. In the city of Birmingham—I cannot speak for London—building costs are considerably higher than in other parts of the country. A house which could be built for £6,000 in the Eastern part of England and £7,000 in Liverpool costs £8,500 to build in Birmingham, and that is due to the fact that builders have to pay what they call incentive wages in order to prevent people from going to the more lucrative jobs in the motor trade and the allied industries connected with it. These are matters of great importance.
Altogether some 5,000 homeless are given their own homes each year, but at the present rate it will take sixteen years for the people who are asking for houses to have their legitimate desire for a house fulfilled, quite apart from any legitimate growth of the population. The city has made very great efforts, both in a municipal way and through its housing associations, to deal with some slum property, not merely in clearing it but in improving it in such a way that a large number of these houses have been reconditioned in order to help people.
But the problem is immense and it is largely due to the question of overspill. Where are we going to find the land in order to build the houses that are necessary? The city has made repeated representations to the Minister of Housing and
102
Local Government, and, following the last Wythall inquiry in 1959, the then Minister promised to give the problem of overspill his personal attention. But people stand at attention for a very short time and are very soon standing at ease. In recent months discussions with the counties surrounding Birmingham have taken place with a view to the possibility of securing overspill places at Droitwich, Worcester and Daventry; and the Ministry is exploring the possibility of a New Town of Dawley. But all these schemes are merely paper exercises at the moment and until they are translated into bricks and mortar the problems of homelessness and slum clearance in Birmingham are likely to become even more serious than they are at present.
It is true also that the solution of these problems is held up not merely by overspill but by high rates of interest, and it may well be that the idea of subsidy might be replaced by a system of low interest rates for housing. I know the problem has been discussed and looked at, and it may be that it is more of a national problem than a local problem so far as finance is concerned, as indeed it is in some European countries, notably in Sweden. Whatever the methods used, it is beyond dispute that the present rate of slum clearance is both too slow and inadequate in size. Probably some extraordinary measures are required, and I think one of the chief ones is the stirring of the public conscience about the problem. It may be that one way of stirring the public conscience is to ask people to pay the bill.
So much for the homeless. One has to speak in terms of detachment to a certain extent, because this is not the place to try to interpet these ideas in terms of the actual pain and despair that rests in the hearts of people when they think of the long time it will be before they get a house of their own. The people who are evicted are not always evicted because they are bad lodgers. Very often it is through no fault of their own, nor is it necessarily through the fault of rapacious landlords. It is often enough that the family, growing older, can no longer stand the younger, and turn them out. Sometimes it is that the landlord wants the house in order to put some urgent case of his own family into it, and people are evicted. Of course,

103
we must have methods of dealing with people who would be without an actual roof over their heads if it were not for the provision of what are called half-way houses and hostels. But the use of hostels involves segregation between the father and the rest of the family, and it can be for only a very short time; and the half-way house sometimes provides merely a room for so many months while they go on trying to find other accommodation. That is perhaps the particular problem in Birmingham and the West Midlands. It is largely due to the fact that there is no more land to be had, but it has to be thought of in terms of what is actually happening to the people.
To turn to the more serious work that has been spoken of, there are one or two things one might add. It has been said that the general belt of population has been from Lancashire down to London, going through the Potteries and the Midlands, and people have been encouraged to drift that way. Later there was a new belt that goes from just south of the Wash down to Southampton, and people have been urged to drift that way. I am so glad to hear the noble Earl suggest that there might be encouragement to drift back to that most delectable part of England, Northumberland and Durham. Although they have many slums at the moment, they could be built up into very lovely parts of England, taking the place of some of the worked-out mining villages of West Durham, in order to get the drift flowing backwards. This requires far more co-operation with those who are responsible for industries, whether it be the Board of Trade or such organisations which deal with it. This housing problem cannot be unrelated to industries where people work, and industry itself has to be related to all kinds of factors, such as ports and raw materials.
There is one other point which I think ought to be considered, which is a social problem. One has to realise that with the break-up of the village something very beautiful and lovely in English life went out. There you had a community which was a mixed community of people of different trades and of different professions and they knew each other and cared for each other. We still have that in the country towns where people know each other. In the
104
new housing estates, whether they be in London or the conurbations of the West Midlands, or wherever they are, there is a tendency for everybody to be of one kind and they do not know each other. They may know each other at work but there is not the same neighbourliness.
It is sometimes said that the slums of England are a cause of a great deal of delinquency. That may be true, but it is equally true, as has been proved in most parts, that the new housing estate by itself does not bring any reduction in delinquency. Something more than merely a new house is needed. A house is material. The home, about which some of us have been talking, is something which is spiritual and moral; and although we cannot legislate for the spiritual and moral, we can at least legislate in such a way that the moral and spiritual become possible. Some way or other must be found to deal with these new housing estates, to turn these new housing estates which are built round the towns into communities. A great deal more help should be given through that factor being taken into consideration by the housing authorities.
It has sometimes been said—it was said in another place on Friday—that if we took people off these building sites the particular trades that they have, the particular skills and materials they use, would not be available for the actual building of houses. That is true so far as the bricklayer is concerned. But when you consider the vast amount of housing that is built on exactly the same principle as these thirteen-storey flats and as offices are, then the criticism has no great merit behind it. There must be some consideration given to the priorities: whether to build offices for prestige, or houses in which to house people where they can have real homes of their own.
A great statesman—and I hope it is not controversial to call him a great statesman—Austen Chamberlain, speaking of this problem some years ago, said that this was a matter that had to be tackled almost at once. He said:
"What I care about is that something should be done and done quickly to remedy conditions which are a scandal to all who know them, which grow worse as time passes, and, until we find a remedy for them, spread like a canker, attack new areas and bring the fungus of unhealthy life to others."

105
Those words are relevant to-day, certainly to certain sections of our country. Good housing should be recognised by everyone as a basic need for healthy living. Only by resolute action by the Government, encouragement by voluntary societies (I am glad to say the housing associations are encouraging) and knowledgeable good will by ordinary men and women who can feel the problem and see that something is done about it, can the problem be effectively tackled and solved.
4.48 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, your Lordships will have listened with great interest and distress to the speech of the right reverend Prelate. We must all deplore the conditions he describes. It is clear that the magnet of industry has attracted to Birmingham far more people than Birmingham can properly house. I am quite convinced that my noble friend, when he replies, will be able to tell the right reverend Prelate the proposals of the Government in the matter. It appears, from what one hears, that the housing authorities are absolutely overwhelmed with this problem so far as Birmingham is concerned, and have not been able to look, or have not looked, far enough ahead to make reasonable provision for their population.
We have two Motions on the Order Paper this afternoon. It is rather difficult to run them in double harness. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe has covered the housing proposals of the Government so fully, and I would say so adequately, that I do not believe your Lordships would wish to go again over the full range of figures that he has provided. There can be no doubt that, with an expanding population, the housing problem is a continuing one. There is no solution, as I think the noble Earl said, to the housing problem, it is a continuing problem. During our lifetime—and I speak as one over 60 years of age—the housing problem will continue. It is limited, or its solution is limited only by the amount of labour, land and finance available to build 300,000 houses, or more, a year.
As to the labour position, I hope that that will be gone into by later speakers. The building labour of this country at the present time appears to be fully occupied, and from the housing figures
106
recently pulblished, I do not believe that more than 300,000 houses can be started. If more can be started, then I greatly hope that the Government will authorise an increase; and if an increase is possible I believe that it should be devoted largely, if not entirely, to slum clearance. In the more rural and agricultural communities housing problems to-day have not the same urgency as they have in what are called the great conurbations (I always regard that as a horrible term), but in great groups of industrial towns; and any surplus of labour and finance ought to be diverted to those.
I do not believe that the solution of the housing problems of Birmingham, or of any great city, is impossible. It is only necessary to go sufficiently far out to build what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe described as a New Town, or a new satellite, or whatever name you like to call it. These things have been done. New Towns have been built. There is a ring of them to the north of London. If they can be built there, they can be built beyond the Green Belt of Birmingham. It is surely only a question of the Ministries concerned making a decision and putting the labour on to the work. The problem of London has not been solved, but strides have been made in the New Towns of Crawley, Hemel Hempstead and Basildon. A great many places have been built, If that can be done for London, surely it can be done for the city of the right reverend Prelate, too.
I should like to refer to the great advance that has been made in the use of both improvement and standard grants for the modernisation of older houses. It is extremely satisfactory that at last local authorities are making a greater number of grants and that the owners of eligible houses are applying for the grants. But there is still one rather deplorable aspect of this matter—there are housing authorities who are not making a discretionary grant in any circumstances. They do not act in this way for any housing reasons, but on political grounds. But because of their attitude the intention of Parliament is evaded. There is no doubt that if a man lives in one rural or urban district he may get a discretionary improvement grant for his house; but if he lives in another, perhaps only a mile or two away, he will not because the council

107
there has determined not to make discretionary grants. I hope that, when replying, my noble friend will make some reference to this point, which for a number of years now has caused a great deal of ill-feeling in the countryside.
I am rather surprised that the question of the rents of houses has not been mentioned, either by the noble Lord who moved this Motion or by any subsequent speaker. Usually, when we in your Lordships' House have a debate on housing severe words are expressed about the level of rents. I have with me an extract from the Ministry of Labour Gazette, summarising family expenditure in 1960 for 3,540 families. I think these figures are of interest, because they show that rents have not risen excessively in the last few years. The total family outlay of these families, which averaged 3·04 persons per house, was £16 10s. 2d. a week. That meant, roughly speaking, a rise of £1 a week since 1959. The housing expenditure rose from 27s. a week in 1958 to 28s. 11d. in 1959, and to 30s. 10d. in 1960. That latter rate is almost exactly one-twelfth of the total family expenditure, and I am sure that all your Lordships will agree that that is a small proportion of total expenditure. That proportion is lower than it was in 1930, when it was one-eighth, and is equal to the figure between 1900 and 1914, when it was also one-eighth of the total weekly expenditure. Therefore, I do not think it can be proved, on the Ministry of Labour figures that rents have risen out of proportion to weekly expenditure.
I should like next to refer to the second Motion, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Gage. My noble friend took the question of the price of land back to the year of Mr. Lloyd George. I myself should not go so far, but I should like to refer to the time of Mr. Justice Uthwatt, the author of the Uthwatt Report. When he commented on the price of land he drew special attention to what he called "floating development value". Those of your Lordships who were interested in these matters so many years ago will no doubt remember it. He said that the whole of England was covered by a floating development value which, in the days
108
before the various Town and Country Planning Acts, might descend anywhere at any time, and the fortunate owner of the exact spot would then benefit not from the total floating development value but from a portion of it; and therefore he might receive a considerable sum for a plot of land which hitherto had no obvious development value. I fear that I have not explained that proposition as ably as did Mr. Justice Uthwatt, but broadly he wrote on those lines.
My Lords, floating development value has now come to earth. Wherever land is zoned for development for building, or for industrial development in county development plans and in statutory town maps, floating development value has come to earth. You have only to look at the map to see where development will take place, and that is where high values will be found. That, I believe, is the reason why high prices obtain in special localities. They are to be found only where extensive development is likely to take place over a very short period of time, either in regard to industry or owing to a move or increase of population. You will not find these high values in what one can term the normal agricultural counties of England; you do not find them in the far west or in the far east. You do find them in the south-east, due to special reasons. But, normally speaking, you find them in the belt, described by the right reverend Prelate, stretching from Liverpool to London, and in this new south-east conglomeration of population which is now growing so fast.
Roughly speaking, in the outer areas the value of building land has followed rises in wages and rises in prices of commodities. Land that may have cost £300, £400 or £500 an acre on the outskirts of a small town before the last war, now costs £1,500 or £2,000 an acre for comparable land. If that is the case—and there is a good deal of evidence to show that it is—I think it will be found that the increase of prices in the more highly priced areas that I have described is pro rata: the price of building land goes up just as prices rise in all other directions.
Before I sit down, I should like to say a word about some of the reasons why this trend of population is confined

109
to two or three areas. Your Lordships have approved on many occasions the creation of national parks and of areas of outstanding natural beauty. The national parks cover one-tenth of the land surface of England and Wales—5,254 square miles; the areas of outstanding natural beauty (which of course are national parks in all but name), cover no fewer than 1,701 square miles. Of course a great deal of this land is mountain, moor, lakes, and so on, but it all has to be subtracted from the total amount of land in this country.
The National Parks Commission, whose Twelfth Report I have in my hand, have under consideration the designation of another eleven areas of outstanding natural beauty—I will not read the names that appear in the Report. So far they have designated twelve such areas. If it is reasonable to suppose that the eleven new areas will equal the existing twelve, it means that there will be another 1,701 square miles of land, chiefly in the southern counties—Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Buckinghamshire. Hampshire again, the Cotswolds, North Norfolk and mid-Wales—on which very little building will be allowed. Very rightly they will mainly be concerned with agriculture and the preservation of scenic beauty, which is the object of their designation. But it means that there will be that much less land available for other purposes.
The last category of land, which I have not so far mentioned—and it may even be greater than the two I have already mentioned—is that of Green Belts. The Green Belt for London is finally approved, and if you wish your Lordships can see a map of it; but the other Green Belts are still in sketch form in the hands of the Ministry, and nobody but the Minister of Housing and Local Government knows how much land they cover. I myself have taken part in outlining a Green Belt around Bristol and Bath. From east to west that is a distance of about 20 miles, not all in the County of Somersetshire, for it covers a great deal of land in Gloucestershire, to the north, and stretches into Wiltshire, to the east. On that land very little building will be allowed, because the Minister has already published the principles on which
110
he proposes to allow building on Green Belts.
My Lords, that is only one Green Belt, and I am quite convinced that all other great cities, like Bristol, and I am sure Birmingham, too, are to be surrounded by a Green Belt, which I believe to be the wish of the nation.
I believe that the country wants Green Belts around the great industrial towns, but it will take hundreds and thousands of acres of land out of the possible building market, in order that it may be preserved for the enjoyment of the public, for the use of agriculture and for the preservation of its natural beauty. Those are most admirable objects, but, by the time the map of England has finally been redrawn, with all these reservations of land in their final form, there will not be many places where new towns can be built. This is a fact which the Minister of Housing and Parliament will have to face. If we are to have these admirable schemes, we shall have to think very hard indeed where our new towns are to go; and I believe that if your Lordships will look at the price of land against the background of all the places where building is not allowed you will not consider that the price of land is too high in those places where building is allowed.
5.9 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Silkin, is unquestionably deserving of congratulation for bringing to the notice of the House this important social problem of housing. I would emphasise that the problem under discussion this evening is a social one, although some of the speeches might indicate—at least it seems so to me—that it is being approached in the same sort of attitude and atmosphere in which one might present a company balance-sheet. Shelter, my Lords, is a basic human need, and the housing of the people is a major responsibility of government. I know there are some social responsibilities which a Government can neglect, and with good fortune can escape any serious consequences, but housing is not in that category. There is no escape at all from the social, economic or, indeed, moral consequences of neglect of the housing problem. It is important to realise that every day's delay in tackling this problem in a fundamental manner

111
adds to the difficulties and piles up the cost.
In spite of the statement that we have heard this afternoon, I believe that not even the most complacent supporter of the Government could find any degree of satisfaction in the present situation, because, judged from any standpoint, the present housing situation, particularly in the North, to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, drew attention, is a scandal and makes a complete mockery of any claim to national affluence or, indeed, national dignity. I believe there is something wrong in any state of society that attempts to measure progress in terms of motor cars and television sets—although we cannot provide the roads to contain the cars—and yet can tolerate circumstances which cause hundreds of thousands of people in this land to live under intolerable conditions. Those are the circumstances to-day.
Far too often—and this has been the case during the course of this debate—the problem is considered as a matter of arithmetic, with a statement as to the number of houses that have been built during a particular period; and, if figures can be quoted showing an increase in one year over another, it is assumed that we are approaching, or are within reach of, a solution of the problem. Nothing is further from the truth.
The social problem of housing is more complex and more significant than I honestly believe the Government realise. There is no single problem of housing; it is a series of inter-related problems bearing upon a wide range of social services and responsibilities. It will never be satisfactorily tackled, unless that fact is thoroughly understood by those who have the responsibility for seeing that this nation tackles in a far more strenuous way the problem of housing. It certainly cannot be solved by pushing up "brick boxes" for private profit. While we want to see an extension of the development of private building where it is necessary, private enterprise production of houses so far tends to go where the pocket is deepest, not where the need is greatest. That is a factor which must be borne in mind.
The whole problem cannot be dealt with in isolation. As I have said, it is related to many social and economic
112
factors, and the repercussions that can follow have an impact upon every phase of our national life. It is hardly necessary for me to state—both sides of the House realise it only too well—that bad housing carries its penalty in terms of national ill-health. In short, fewer houses, more hospitals. Inadequate housing and overcrowding are unquestionably linked with the social problem of crime and juvenile delinquency. If anyone doubts it, I can take him to many areas where, unquestionably, the housing conditions have had a serious influence upon the rise in juvenile delinquency. I would draw attention to the fact that not only slum conditions but bad housing conditions—and there is a difference—place an appalling disability upon both child and teacher in the realm of education. I should like your Lordships to appreciate fully the tremendous disabilities that are placed upon the working-class people of the North, due to the reluctance to bring about much earlier that drive which has been promised this afternoon.
I was glad, too, that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made reference to the close connection between production and housing. I agree with him, and I agree that all too frequently we tend to neglect that important aspect. I think we should all agree there may be a demand for greater mobility of labour in the future even than there has been in the past, but there can be no mobility of labour if removal, on the part of a working-class family, carries the danger of being rendered homeless. It frequently happens that where it is necessary for sections of the working-class population to move to another area, the greatest difficulty in bringing about that measure of mobility, which is necessary in the national interest, is due to inadequate housing and the fact that these workers recognise the appalling difficulty of securing a house, of renting a house, in some other part of the country.
I should hope that consideration of these facts would cause the Government to effect a reappraisal of the priorities and a reassessment of the cost of tackling this problem, because I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that to-day we are spending relatively less on housing than we did a few years ago. I am informed that since 1953 investment in housing as a share of the

113
total fixed capital formation has fallen from 26·4 to 17·7 per cent., and between 1951 and 1959 the annual rate of house construction in the United Kingdom was only 5·8 per 1,000. Just in passing, I would merely state that I am informed that in Germany the annual rate of house construction is 509,000, which is slightly more than 10 per 1,000 inhabitants.
Therefore, my Lords, there are many facets to this problem. First, as has been mentioned by more than one speaker, there is the problem of the slums and the appalling blot that they have been upon the community; secondly, there is the cost of housing. I would point out that only a matter of a few days ago a summary of the experience of building societies—and I would indicate to the House that I am a director of one of the leading building societies in this country—indicated that existing house prices rose by 8 per cent., and new house prices rose by 11 per cent., during 1961. Would those noble Lords opposite who made reference to land prices indicate that, in those circumstances, the cost of land has not had a tremendous influence upon that upward surge? I would also point out that that trend has been adversely affected by the Government's own financial policy, and I would ask for some consideration to be given to the possibility of insulating the flow of resources for housing against financial interest variation. I believe that it would be possible, and at least it is worthy of consideration on the part of the Government.
I believe also (and again I should be glad to hear the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe) that we need a greater emphasis upon the problem of the deployment of housing as influenced by the location of industry. But all that demands a sustained and orderly planning. We need the provision of houses planned from a community standpoint. Throughout Britain have seen, at times, acre upon acre of faceless houses. Someone has referred to "faceless men", but these are faceless houses. They all bear the same sort of face, or lack of it: there are no amenities of any description. We do not want that; we want to build communities. The nation claims the strength: surely we should be able to tackle this problem. We also need
114
the provision of old people's houses which will fit into those communities, and attention to be given to the whole question of house standards, which have shown a steady deterioration over the years.
My Lords, there has been considerable reference in this debate to land, but, in spite of the statements made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I remain unconvinced. I am quite certain that in many parts of this country we have seen vicious exploitation so far as land prices are concerned. According to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, the problem of land is regional. It certainly is; it varies between area and area. But the fact remains that in every single area in this country the price of land available for sale to-day shows a far greater increase than the general average increase in the price of any other commodity you care to mention. That is a clear indication of the effect of the monopoly aspect of land. Because, my Lords, land is different from any other type of commodity of which more can be produced whenever the price rises. That is not possible with land, and so we find that people are taking advantage of the monopoly position. I am certainly not prepared to place the responsibility upon immigration or upon any emigration tendencies on the part of Wiganite friends of mine.
Then there are the slums. Quite frankly, my Lords, I offer a suggestion. I do it seriously, and not facetiously; and I do it kindly. I would suggest that Members of the Government spend a few days, or a week, living in any of the slums of the North—not an official visit, with the Lord Mayor in his chain attendant upon them, and with the green paint and the whitewash preceding the visit, but living there. If they were to do that, and survived the ordeal, I am certain that the result of that practical experience would he an entirely new recasting of all the promises we have heard this afternoon; and the wiping out of the slums would be indicated as a first priority. I offer that as a suggestion.
EARL JELLICOE: I wonder if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one second. I thought I had made it quite clear in my speech that the wiping out of the slums was a first priority.
LORD PEDDIE: I agree; but it is a question of speed. There is not much satisfaction to a person who is living in a slum to know that, in twenty years' time, there is a possibility that these slums will be wiped out. I believe that it can be accomplished in far less time. That is the point at issue. It is no satisfaction to a person living in a slum to be told that. I accept the sincerity of the statement that we have heard this afternoon, but it is no sufficient satisfaction. We want the problem to be tackled far more intensively. We want it to be placed higher and higher in the order of priorities. In any event, my reply to the noble Earl is that if that be the intention of the Government in the future, at least it is not borne out by the indications given by the expenditure of recent years. Relatively, the expenditure has tended to go down, which certainly would not seem to indicate that the clearance of slums is a very high priority.
One-quarter of the entire stock of houses in this country to-day was built before the Public Health Act, 1875, which. was the first Act to lay down any standards at all; so one can understand the standard of houses in this country to-day. The noble Earl made reference to the Census of 1955, when local authorities estimated that there were approximately (I think it was) 961,000 slum dwellings. My Lords, I can assure this House that that figure of 961,000 was a gross under-estimate, and I will tell your Lordships why I think so. Anyone who knows anything at all about Lancashire will appreciate that there was something very odd in the figures that were presented relative to different towns in Lancashire in that 1955 Census. Figures were put forward by some as a full statement of all the houses that had to be considered slums. Others interpreted it as their ability to deal with the number of slum houses within a certain period; and the different attitudes of the various towns had an influence upon the figures.
Let us have a look at these figures. Liverpool showed 43 per cent. of all its houses as being registered as slums; Manchester, 33 per cent.; Oldham, 26 per cent.; Salford, 24 per cent.; Bolton, 10 per cent. Since 1955, I agree, 400,000 of these slums have been demolished, with 550,000 condemned dwellings still
116
in occupation. But this is the point. If the Government are claiming some satisfaction from that achievement, and pointing to it, as has been said this afternoon, as an indication of the complete conquering, within a reasonable measure of time, of this problem of slums, I would say that they are barking up the wrong tree. The fact is that the position is getting worse. The rate of deterioration and obsolescence of houses is faster to-day than the rate at which these slums are being pulled down and new houses are being erected. That is the tragedy of the case, that we are not catching up.
EARL JELLICOE: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again, but I should like to be quite clear about this. I was merely claiming that, if we maintain the same pace as that which we have maintained over the last five years, we should be able to clear those houses which were declared unfit in 1955; but there was, of course, the difficulty that their incidence was uneven geographically. I also mentioned the fact that our estimates included the clearance of 3 million obsolete houses which by 1981 would be over 100 years old. So the larger estimate includes, as it were, the smaller one.
LORD PEDDIE: I appreciate that point, and I have no desire to take any unfair advantage. I am merely stating the case as I see it. The only point I am emphasising, and I must repeat it, is that in spite of the progress that has been made—and I compliment the Government upon that degree of progress—it is not sufficient. Unfortunately, the rate of slum creation is greater at the moment than the rate of slum clearance. Coupled with that, also, is the important fact which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, himself stated: that standards are rising, and therefore our estimate of what is considered to be a slum may, in ten or fifteen years' time, be different from what it is now.
That brings me to the point of housing standards. The noble Earl also made reference to the fact that we have to build for the future; that we have to keep in mind the standards of tomorrow. Well, how are we keeping in mind the standards of to-morrow? The average floor space for a three-bedroomed house declined from 1,032

117
square feet in 1951 to 898 square feet in 1960; it went down. And this at a time when we are running against the longterm trend. As living standards rise, surely there will be a demand for more living space. The noble Earl himself made that statement. Yet the trend today is running precisely opposite to that indicated by the noble Earl. Indeed, housing construction in the United Kingdom shows a downward trend since 1954.
The average number of houses completed each year per thousand of population between the years 1958 and 1960 I think I have already given; and I will not weary the House with a series of figures relating to many other European countries, except merely to state that we show ourselves at considerable disadvantage. The housing problem must be pursued on many fronts with purpose and imagination, and I believe that the situation could be transformed within less than a decade. But I say in all seriousness that I think it needs a far more intensive effort than that which has been demonstrated by the Government this afternoon. I agree that there is room for varied forms of housing development, such as municipal renting of houses.
Whilst on that point, I would indicate that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made reference to the Labour Party's attitude toward private building to be rented. I think he knows more about our facial appearance than about our programme. Because our difficulty is not a question of any adverse attitude toward private building. We find great difficulty indeed in discovering any private interests who are willing to build for renting purposes, and I am quite sure that no person in the House will blame the Labour Party for that.
I was also interested to learn of the development of co-operative housing. I think there is a tremendous field here. I was also intensely interested in the noble Earl's reference to co-operative house ownership, although I would agree that the amount of £25 million is not a great sum. I hope he is right in believing that this will be a pump priming operation. My own personal view is one of great faith in home ownership. Although there has been a discernible switch in this country to home owner-
118
ship, at the moment it stands at about four in every ten.
In this regard I was pleased to hear more than one reference to the work of building societies. I would take this opportunity, because I think it is of value to the Government in tackling this problem, to emphasise the work of social service which is undertaken by building societies. During 1960 building societies advanced loans covering the sum of no less than £559 million. It is recognised, of course, by all people that building societies operate in a high interest-rate environment. But what is not generally realised is that taxation accounts for 1¾ per cent. of the current mortgage rate of 6½ per cent. I believe the total taxation bill of building societies amounts to about £46 million; but that means only a net amount of £37 million, for reasons which Members of the House will appreciate. I suggest to the Government that the question of building societies' taxation is worthy of a new approach. Recognition should be given to these social services, and the valuable contribution which could be made by building societies by the substantial reduction of their mortgage rate down to 5 per cent., and the expenditure by the Government of a maximum of £37 million; and that is not taking into account the consequential savings.
I think, my Lords, that I have spoken for long enough but I would end on this note. I would agree, as I am sure all noble Lords would, that it would be dishonest on the part of any Member of this House to try to create the idea that this problem of housing is one of easy solution. It is not. We, at least on this side of the House, are convinced that it needs a dramatic change in the order of priorities; and we believe, limited though our resources may be, and great though the strains at this moment may be, that in placing an increased emphasis upon housing we need not measure it in terms of physical cost. We should look to the enormous return and the tremendous dividends which would result, not only by way of social benefits, but in practical, economic content, as a result of the improvement of the housing situation.
5.36 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, has made a powerful speech, somewhat on the lines of the

119
angry young man who berates the present for not getting rid of the past quickly enough. I think he can assure himself that there is no Government supporter who is complacent about this particular problem, because we all realise what an appalling problem it is. And it is not confined to us; it exists in practically every major city in our Western civilisation; and worst of the lot is Moscow, the heart of State planning.
Normally, of course, a shortage of any commodity soon creates a supply. But for various reasons, including rent control over the past years, and so on, the law of supply and demand has never been given free access to the housing situation, and so artificial conditions have prevailed for a great many years. Some of the artificial conditions may be inevitable and necessary, but one can minimise the handicap they impose by being a little more realistic about some of them. There are still very large sections of the country where the rent of houses bears no relation whatsoever to the cost of replacing them. If they did, that alone would be a great help in providing finance for further housing.
My noble friend the Under-Secretary made a particular plea for an increase in houses to rent for a class of people who are very neglected in this respect; that is, the people with middle incomes. I would suggest to him that the building of houses for other people to rent is a dying practice in this country; and any chance it has of reviving is completely killed, to my mind, by the fact that it is generally believed that the Labour Party believe in rent control, and some people believe that one day they may again form a Government. If the noble Earl wants to get houses built for rent—private enterprise houses—obviously he must produce some sort of scheme whereby, in certain circumstances, the owner can demand that the Government purchase his house from him at a price at which he should not have lost on the bargain as a whole. The noble Earl very rightly stressed the importance of housing for the old-aged, and I hope that he will go into the question of extending the subsidy there to all who supply accommodation for the old-aged, regardless of the particular type of
120
accommodation which they must be supplying.
I was interested to hear the excellent speech by the right reverend prelate the Lord Bishop of Birmingham. It raised thoughts in one's mind on the general question of the planning of industry. Some industrialists say that it is wrong to force industry to go to particular areas, because by so doing, it adds to their costs. But, goodness me! the speech of the right reverend prelate was an absolute exposure of the results of not planning for industry. By allowing the motor industry to expand so fast in Birmingham, and to entice people away from their jobs all over the country into Birmingham, what a tremendous lot has been added to the social costs of the City of Birmingham! I think that that abundantly proves the case for the planning of industry.
At the moment, the Church of England is engaged in a large programme of modernisation and replacement of its old and over-large parsonage houses. As a member of the Committee of the Church Commissioners which deals with this matter, and chairman of a diocesan finance board, I come into contact with this aspect of the building problem. What I see leads me to believe that in most parts of the country the building industry is definitely overburdened. In some parts it is difficult to get adequate and prompt attention from architects. In some parts it is hard to get proper contractors to tender; and, when they do, the price is often unexpectedly high. Prices are running something like 20 per cent. more than architects estimated them to be a year ago. I suggest that that 20 per cent. amounts to a good deal more than can be accounted for by the wage increase in the autumn. I think it must be caused by increased building profits and by builders having to bribe away skilled operators from their competitors to keep in business.
The price of building percolates throughout the whole economy, and if overburden is leading to too high prices, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do their utmost to relieve the situation. This can be done in two ways: either by increasing the capacity of the industry or by reducing the burden on it. There is a school of thought among the economists which suggests

121
that the present proportion of our resources devoted to building is about the largest the economy can stand. That may well be. But, if that is so, in view of the housing situation, I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that the general public will demand that a higher proportion of our resources should be devoted to housing than is being done at the moment. The most satisfactory solution, of course, would be to increase capacity through an improvement in productivity—in other words, no increase in the labour force, either in building or in materials industries, and the production of a greater final output. I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with this aspect. Are we producing enough skilled people? Are the apprentice schemes working?
When we come to the position of materials, it appears, from the figures I can find, that in the last four or five years the production of cement has gone up 20 per cent., whereas the production of bricks has gone up only about 12½ per cent. We hear of brick shortages, and I should like to know why that is so. The brick industry is prosperous. I am a shareholder in the largest brick company, and I am sure we are willing to put up new capital at any time for the enlargement of the industry if it be necessary. It can be no question of capital. Could it be labour? To the layman, it would appear that the brick industry was tailor-made for complete automation. From the claypit to the finished brick, the clay would be untouched by human hand. That is an unskilled verdict. But are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that research and progress in that line have been sufficient?
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the "stop and start" policy of the Government led to the brick industry's being underemployed a few years ago?
LORD HAWKE: Only for very short terms, I think. The cement industry, which has been subjected to the same "stop and go", has been expanding steadily the whole time. The necessary productivity cannot take effect in the short term, and I believe that Her Majesty's Government must help the economy temporarily by trying to cut down some building, in order to reduce the overload. In the event that the back-
122
log of orders decreases, contracts will proceed more quickly, and in the end the industry will be fitter than at the start. The trouble is to know where on earth to do any cutting because there is hardly any building on any scale going on in this country to-day which does not appear to be essential.
The target of considerable criticism at times is the amount of building of shops and offices. It is difficult to secure correct figures, but the Rodwell group of construction engineers published in the Daily Telegraph on January 25 figures of the estimated amount of total construction. Out of a total of £1,665 million spent on building, shops and offices accounted for only £130 million. That is not a large amount. So it is difficult for the Government to see where they can get even a small percentage of relief of the burden.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord repeat his figures?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, £130 million out of £1,665 million, which does not include maintenance. If one includes maintenance, the figure amounts to just over 5 per cent. of the total new construction plus maintenance. I do riot know whether these are correct figures, but they are the only ones I have. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the overloading of the building industry and rising costs are an inflationary factor in the economy, he could go after the finance of the less necessary building in the private sector. He is clipping the wings of the banks with his special deposits, but he has no similar way of influencing the lending of other financial institutions which seems to be directed more to building of the luxury type.
When we turn to London, about which I thought we should have heard more this afternoon, the position is terribly difficult. There are fewer people living in the area and more office space and therefore more transport problems. We have the legal right belonging to most owners that where they wish to redevelop offices they can provide cubic space which can house up to 40 or 50 per cent. more workers than are working in a similar space to-day. That, of course, must put up land prices; and it

123
means that anybody with the remotest claim to a planning consent to redevelop an office will cling to his land until he gets a high price, even if at some stage temporary saturation should appear to have been reached. The economics are on their side. The office space can rent at, say, £2 a square foot, and at least half of this is paid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But if the same space were to be let as a residence, it would be a very poky flat that would be available for £1 a square foot, and the Chancellor contributes nothing unless they are company-tied dwellings. The result is that, unless we do something, the centre of London is going to be inhabited by only the richest and the poorest, and those with the middle incomes will be forced out further and further to the surrounding countryside and add to our transport problems.
We must have some bold plan to tackle this problem, and I suggest that, just as developers have to provide garages, so they should be compelled to provide residential accommodation. The Barbican scheme seems to be an excellent example. They will get a lower return on their money, which in the first instance will certainly mean a lower land price, because the development will not be so profitable. If we can make some substantial residential additions to the office and shop accommodation in the central area, then we shall find the transport problem will be eased.
At the same time, we must obviously explore every possibility of finding new sites. For the last two or three years I have agitated Her Majesty's Government into forcing British Railways to disgorge some of their land. At first I got the impression that British Railways had no spare land; but I have now read in the newspaper that quite substantial quantities of land may come on the market. If that were the only action taken by Dr. Beeching, I think that would justify his appointment. But now we want an inquisition into land in the hands of all Government Departments, because up and down the country they are large owners of land, not only in great blocks of training areas and so on, but in odd little corners with some dilapidated huts on them; and one wonders if it is known to whom
124
these odd sites belong. In many cases they would make the most perfect building sites.
Only last Sunday, when walking, after two miles I came on a site of about an acre which was used to house Italian prisoners in the last war, but which since then, so far as I am aware, has been completely derelict. I do not know to whom this belongs, but it would certainly make an excellent site for four to six bungalows or a similar number of council cottages. It is difficult for Ministers to force Departments to produce and disgorge their land. Whitehall in this respect is like a big damp sponge: their prodding and so on will have no impact at all. I am not sure, but I believe there persists a custom that a Department does not hand over its land for sale until it has consulted everybody else in Government circles which it thinks might be able to use that land. Obviously, this is a slow process, and we want something a great deal quicker. The only thing I can suggest is that the general public should be invited to write to their Members of Parliament when they see these odd pieces of land suitable for building up and down the country and ask them to put down a Question in the House.
In addition, I would suggest to my noble Leader that once these pieces of land have been sited, what is needed is some sort of Geddes Committee to sit and hear evidence as to whether there is or is not good reason for keeping the land; and their decision should be final. I believe that up and down the country there are innumerable sites Which are perfectly suitable for building, and they are held on to by Government Departments who in many cases have forgotten what they bought the land for. We have started with British Railways and are getting results there; now let us start on the Government Departments.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I would say that he made a statement in regard to the British Railways development of properties and development of land, attributing to Dr. Beeching recent development. I think this ought to be corrected, because this has been going on this last ten years.
LORD HAWKE: I am glad that I accelerated it, at any rate.
LORD LINDGREN: A special company has been set up and, as I say, the development has been going on for ten years.
5.57 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for introducing this Motion dealing with a subject which is, without doubt, one of the most important of our internal problems. Nearly every phase of housing has been touched on in the debate, and I wish to adopt rather a different line from that adopted by other noble Lords. It seems more than likely that we shall enter the Common. Market and consequently face the stiffest competition, and in the selling price of all our goods we have to add the overhead of the cost of housing our people. That cannot be avoided. This overhead charge has to be added on to the cost of every article we have to sell, which means that we have to provide the indispensable housing for the lowest practicable and appropriate cost. I do not mean that we should reduce the quality of our housing, but that we should take advantage of all the latest approved, advantageous, technical knowledge available. Certain of our contractors are doing this, but they are in the minority.
There are three techniques, all of which have been proved beneficial either as to cost or as to time of production, that could be adopted in this country but which are very much ignored at the present time. There has been much discussion this afternoon about the cost of land, but I propose to confine my remarks to the building situation. There is no doubt that there are a good many builders who have already used one or two of these techniques, but very few take advantage of all of them together. If they would do this, they would get much more advantage than they are getting now. First, I would refer to the gains obtainable from a rigid following of what is known as a time-and-progress schedule. Many builders say they are using this, but the fact is that few rigidly follow their time-and-progress schedule when they have made it, and very few are equipped to do it, or even to make the schedule, because they have to get all the drawing and specifications completed before they start any work. You cannot make a schedule if you do not
126
know what you are going to make it about. That condition is not uncommon in this country, unfortunately.
Also, there must be total harmony between the owner (no matter whether or not the owner is the local authority), the architect and the builder. There must be no uncertainties. Everyone must know exactly what is to be created. That is vital, yet, unfortunately, it is not always the situation. Everybody who is interested in the job must know. With this information a schedule can be worked out stating exactly to the day when all operatives in each trade—and there may be as many as 28 trades included in a big operation—must be on the job. It can be worked so that it is known exactly on which day the men will do the job, when they will start and when they will finish. This can be done, and is being done, in the country where they do more building than in any other country in the world.
Most builders now use time-and-progress schedules, but only a few adhere strictly to what they have laid out. Many of our large undertakings are not finished on time. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, remembers when he was on the London County Council how few of those big jobs were finished on time. It could be done and it is being done in other parts of the world, so there is no earthly reason why we should not do it. With such a schedule, worked out exactly, it is known when every man has started on the job and when he has to finish his job; every piece of material, no matter what it is, is there ready in time. There are not those delays which now occur so frequently. All this must be checked every two weeks. There must be a meeting on the site with all the men from each trade present, and they must go round and see how the job is getting on. They must ask, "Are you on time?" If a man is not, he has to be told, "You must have the job ready within the next two weeks." I am quoting things that are happening in other parts of the world, but which do not always happen over here.
To demonstrate the result of such precision of work, one of the first twenty-storey buildings in the world, the headquarters of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway in Richmond, Virginia, was

127
finished from the foundations to the completion of the president's office in less than a year. As a matter of fact, it took a little over eleven months. Look at all the big buildings which are going up in this country to-day, and see how much time we are taking on those operations! That was done in 1910, 50 years ago, and we have had 50 years' experience since that time to see if we could do as well. How many of our buildings are making that same pace? That is one technique we are not using.
A second technique not being practised to anything like the degree it could be is prefabrication. Prefabrication does not mean making everything look alike. We all know what happened in 1944. Three people were sent over to America to see whether they could find anything which would help in building so as to avoid the effects of the bombing. We went all over the place, and at the Fontana Dam in the Tennessee Valley we saw two wagons come up with two parts of a building. They put an adhesive round them and they were stuck together. We went inside, and they had tea ready for us. Those buildings were being built by women; all the work was being done by women without any trouble at all. We brought back the details of that. We put five models of that building outside the Tate Gallery, and they were copied all over the country. We erected about 170,000 of them. Those were put up right away and saved the nation the great difficulty of having no houses for our people at that time.
I am not suggesting that we should build a great number of that type of prefab, but I am strongly recommending that we should adopt the same advantages that that prefabricating principle could give us. We could standardise the details, and then have them made in quantity production. They would fit into all sorts of houses yet in different environments they would not all look alike. That could be done, and it would be a considerable saving. It would be perfectly simple. A few enterprising builders are, in fact, doing this to-day, but they are doing it to their own and their clients' material advantage. But how seldom we see this eminently scientific principle used! In the first
128
place, information about it must be made available. Here again, the United States (I dislike referring to it so much) have a system of what they call a Sweet's catalogue. It is a very thick volume. Every builder and architect goes to it, and they know exactly what they can get all over the country. In that way it is possible to get buildings more quickly and cheaply than by having every individual piece designed and collected from different sources.
Then there is the third principle, which we are not applying—the modular principle. In simple words, that is making everything that goes into the buildings in multiples of four inches. This may not sound very much, but eighteen countries have officially adopted it. Russia is using it, and France is using it. No fewer than eighteen countries are using this principle, but we are doing nothing about it. I must declare my own interest in this matter, as I am President of the Modular Society. We have been working for years to get the country to adopt this principle, and the architects and builders are showing themselves more and more in sympathy. Canada and the United States are using it already. It cannot be done, however, without the backing of a Government Department. It will not cost a farthing to adopt the principle, but we must have Government backing as a basis. To carry out the principle we must have what are called modular components—that is to say, everything must be in a multiple of four inches, so that it can be produced in quantity and builders and architects know that they can get it. There are architects in the Ministry of Housing who are very keen to do this (I am not "telling tales out of school" when I say that), but at the moment they do not receive support from the Building Research Station.
I am going to refer to my good friend our Leader. I mentioned this question once before in this House, and he rather questioned whether I was accurate about it. I think that at that time there were a number of people within that Department who were not very keen, but with a mild backing of the Minister for Science or the Minister of Housing this could be done, and done very rapidly. To show what can be done, one of the leaders of the Building Research Station has now written an article, which has

129
been published, strongly endorsing the use of this principle, and I would ask whether our Leader would kindly inquire again of the Building Research Station how they feel. I think that he will find a change of heart among them and that they are now much more sympathetic towards the idea than they used to be. I believe that when they go into it in more detail they will find something here that will enable them to build more quickly and more cheaply than in the past. I believe that in the last six months there has been a rapid change of heart, largely due to our housing situation. They have realised that if this were carried out it would help us very much indeed.
It is impossible to tell when the modular system has been applied. This Chamber could be built on a modular system, and you would never know it. It could be used in a small house, or in a great Chamber like this. Everything fits in, and there is not the waste of other methods. It used to be the rule that in ordinary brickwork the cost was increased by 12 per cent. if the fitting was wrong. That has been almost cut out with this system, which gives the man the opportunity of doing more work and getting better results in very much less time.
I have mentioned that 36 countries are doing it, and more countries still are now joining in rapidly. I have talked to experts in America, Where it is actually compulsory, by law, in certain departments of the Government. They say they are saving 10 per cent. in time and up to 10 per cent. in cost by using this principle. I think—and this has been said by several people this afternoon—that, looking forward, we must improve and make better housing for the future. I do not think that what satisfies to-day will satisfy in five, ten or twenty years' time. We must do more. Things like weather stripping could be applied in the housing work to cut out draughts and make heating more satisfactory; sound proofing could be introduced to give people a more peaceful life at home; there are roof insulation and things like double-glazing on exposed sides of housing. All that type of thing can be done with ease and benefit. I realise that a number of people will disagree with these proposals, and may even say
130
they are almost impossible, but I would suggest that they continue their investigations a little further before they become too positive in saying that we should not gain in speed and get a better article with the same effort.
6.22 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, who has just sat down will not expect me to follow him into the realms of building operations. I am pretty certain I should not be any use whatever in this time-and-motion study, because I should always be behind schedule; but we all have our own problems in regard to housing and I shall refer later on to one which interests me. I was very struck by what the right reverend Prelate said about conditions in and around Birmingham. They are pretty formidable, and those which confront me are not nearly so formidable as those which confront him. I was so struck by his speech that I hope noble Lords will read it again very carefully, because I thought it extremely able and very appropriate for the occasion.
During the last few days we have been hearing much from Government circles about the need for national planning. In fact, it is suggested that new slogans will shortly appear on our hoardings in regard to that particular matter. This awakening by the Government and their supporters appears to he somewhat belated; but one sinner who repents is some measure of success, even though he be only a small addition to the ranks of those who for years have endeavoured to persuade those who govern us that an orderly way of life is the only satisfactory one for our people. Our economic and social welfare, our material and spiritual strength, our family lives and homes, our international prestige and our peaceful co-existence with other nations cannot succeed in the present age if we continue to exercise a national and international "free-for-all."
Whatever may happen farther afield, it is important, I think, that in home affairs all loose ends should be avoided and that our efforts interlock and tie up. We are discussing housing on a national scale, and I wonder whether such coordination as must be necessary for efficiency and success has been and is being applied at present in this respect.

131
It would seem to me that as far as rural housing is concerned there is an apparent loose end, and one which has not been tied up and coupled with housing operations in other spheres. There cannot be isolation in any housing activities; they must all fit in together. It is for that reason that I want to speak generally about housing and homes in country districts. It is natural that I should do, as I am essentially a countryman and interested in those who live in rural Britain, whether their homes are in small country towns, villages, lanes or open fields. Fortunately, I do not share their problems and difficulties but I can do my best to help them to solve theirs.
A few days ago there was discussion in another place similar to the one we are having here to-day, but on a cursory glance at the Hansard Report it did not seem to me that any speaker, Government or otherwise, gave any consideration to rural problems except the first and the last speakers, and their references were very brief. In planning national housing on any appreciable or reasonable scale you must not divorce rural conditions and needs from those of the cities and heavily populated areas. If you should do this and think only of New Towns, overspills, slum clearances, city flats and new businesses and factory erections, and thus ignore the rural areas, then our country villages and towns will die, our people will migrate to the cities or to overseas, and country life and pursuits—the pride, I suggest, of the present—will be numbered as things of the past. Our balance as a nation is maintained by country and town. Both have needs and difficulties of their own in housing and other ways. These needs should be satisfied; and responsibility for this lies with the Government.
"Where there's a will there's a way" has always been accepted and is as true now as when I heard it on my mother's knee. In my own neighbourhood complaints are being voiced at the non-erection of village houses by local authorities with Government aid. Village folk have their difficulties in regard to water, sewerage, lighting, schools, rail and road transport which are unknown in the towns and cities, and it is realised that on lower income, high or even economic
132
rents comparable with high present-day building costs cannot be paid in the countryside without a serious inroad into other necessary family expenditure. There is not, therefore, the same incentive for rural local authorities to undertake the task which has been allotted to them. But we are one nation, and each and every one of us is entitled to a home and decent living conditions.
I said that local authorities in rural areas are trying to do their best with restricted resources, but many schools which might be commenced still lie dormant for that reason. Villagers do not wish to see their villages decay, but such appears to be happening, and stagnation sets in. Newcomers cannot be welcomed and families leave to seek their livelihoods in cities and towns. Last year no fewer than 19,000 farm workers left their industry. Some probably did not leave their villages, but I expect most were forced to do so through lack of alternative accommodation, if they occupied tied cottages.
Two instances have recently come to my notice in my awn particular area, instances to Which I should like to refer very briefly. I know of one village which has been described as a dying one, where for many years, apparently, no council house or cottage has been built, and where it will be impossible under existing financial and other conditions to build such a house or cottage for several years to come. It has been stated that only half the farm workers employed in that parish live in that parish, owing, presumably, to lack of accommodation. The rural district council concerned have the matter in mind, but it is said that it may be some years before another house can be built. There is a reasonable agitation taking place to save this village, and I hope it will succeed.
Here is another example of village difficulties. This is a village adjoining a very large and apparently important American air base, at which I believe some 200 to 300 houses have been built to accommodate the families of American personnel. I understand that they were known as tobacco houses, but even if they were such, it is certain that they were built by the use of British labour and materials. The village people have waited for ten years for an additional

133
council house to be built in that particular village, and apparently are still waiting. I have said I realise the difficulties of the appropriate rural district council, and I do, but who, I ask, are the real people who should count for consideration in our own country? These problems could probably be duplicated and multiplied up and down the country.
The tied cottage problem is still with us, and there is a very disturbing case from a Kentish area which has received recent publicity. This particular case throws some light on the scarcity of rural housing in that particular area. So far as I can gather, the case runs along these lines. A farm worker and his family, having had to leave their cottage on the farm on which he had worked from 1945 until 1961, a matter of sixteen years, are without a house. The man is in lodgings and the wife and three children are in a hostel Which they will have to leave shortly. The break-up of families was referred to by the right reverend Prelate, and he made reference to the hostel accommodation and the ways in which families had to live. An application from this man for a council house was made as long ago as November, 1946. The council house was not granted because he was already in a tied cottage; he was working as an agricultural worker and he was already housed. But his present family position is precarious. The rural district council concerned cannot provide him with a council house. One of the reasons for this is that at the moment they have nineteen evicted families on their books, who are naturally due for rehousing before this particular family to which I have referred. All these people, I expect, are in dire need.
These human problems can be solved eventually only by recasting all our views upon priorities, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Peddie, and coming down wholeheartedly on the side of humanity. We would then act accordingly. I have said enough, I hope, to turn some light on the problem of housing in the countryside and the conservation of rural life. I do not wish to see our villages decay and families forced to leave. What I look forward to and envisage is greater prosperity in agriculture, the retention of higher paid labour, and the improvement of village
134
homes and conditions so that all concerned can really enjoy the fruits of their labours and continue to live in the delectable parts of rural Britain to which mention was made earlier this afternoon. I hope the Government will look at the rural position.
6.27 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, first I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, for the fact that I have to leave immediately after I have spoken, due to a prior engagement in my own village, and I hope I have the indulgence of your Lordships on that account. I must declare a small interest in this matter, being a Vice-President of the National Union of Ratepayers' Associations. I am sure that all sides of the House are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and to my noble friend Lord Gage for moving a debate on these two very vital subjects.
For those of us who are still young the housing problem is perhaps one of the most vital of our time, because the population of our island is increasing all the time and therefore the need for housing will become greater and greater. One of the problems which face young people is not only the difficulty regarding mortgages for houses hut the ancillary expenses, such as legal fees, that go with it. The stamp duty has to a large extent been abolished, which helps; but these fees present a real difficulty for the young family man who is trying to buy his own house freehold. He is therefore forced, very often, to try to find a flat, and flats to-day are extremely scarce for a number of reasons. Mention has been made of the shortage of building labour, and with the vast new hospital programme which is before us and with the increased need for new factories the shortage of building labour is a problem which I think will be with us for some time to come.
I would now refer to the price of the land. I live in Surrey, which is the county perhaps most affected of all by the high price of land. When my own house was new the land cost something like £1,500; it is now worth approximately three times that figure. Fortunately, we have a local authority which

135
does not allow indiscriminate building in back gardens—which has been the practice in a number of areas. It is for that reason that much of this ribbon development has been occasioned. But, of course, planning authorities all have varying ideas. By the side of the railway line near where I live some maisonettes have just been erected. I must confess that I regard that as bad planning. For one thing the noise must be almost intolerable at times; and there is also the safety factor. To be fair, the maisonettes are quite presentably designed. But, of course, in the Home Counties, and particularly in areas like Surrey and Middlesex, where the Green Belt takes up a large area, the housing problem is becoming more and more acute. The need to preserve the Green Belt, which I hope we shall do, and the need for housing more and more families have to be reconciled.
In regard to the high price of land, may I tell your Lordships that last week I took a cutting from the Hitchin Gazette, which covers an area that I know well, having lived near there for some years immediately before and during the war. I see that in regard to the village of Ashwell, which is not far from Hitchin, there is an advertisement which says:
"Two plots, with 75 feet frontage each and with planning permission for one detached house on each plot, £1,250 each."
I do not know the circumstances of that particular development, but it seems that at least in some areas the price of land and of house building is not as high as we have been led to believe in some circles. Nevertheless, I think that the high price of land is something that will need careful investigation. I do not think it is something for which any Government can be held entirely responsible; it is largely a question of supply and demand. For example, my own village of Ashtead, in Surrey, now has a population of nearly 10,000 people. At the end of the war it was something like half that number. It has become a popular area for a number of reasons; there is a good train service to town and a great deal of lovely countryside. All these factors add to the housing problem.
I must just say a word as a commuter because it is an important con-
136
sideration in any housing problem. Even as late as quarter past nine in the morning trains from Epsom go to Town with standing room only. That may be a good advertisement for the attractions of the neighbourhood, but it leads to grave travelling problems. A good deal has been said recently about offices moving out of London and into the suburban areas—indeed, at Kingswood, which is not far from where I live, several offices, including one big insurance company, have moved in. So far as I know, this is proving successful. But here again there are problems for existing staffs, some of whom probably live north of the Thames. They are faced with a cross-country journey to and from home. Even if they try to find houses in that area they probably find that there is a waiting list, and they may have to take their turn.
I personally am a great believer in the New Towns. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, knows, they had their teething troubles. Having had some experience of the New Town of Stevenage, I feel that it is a typical example of a well-planned New Town. The factory area is on one side of the Great North Road and the housing part on the other; and a great community spirit exists. The shopping centre is well laid out; there is a big choice of shops and there are no traffic problems—there is no problem of children running under a car, because all the cars are kept well clear of the shopping centre. That is an example of imaginative design.
My brother lives near the town of Roydon, in Essex, and for shopping purposes Harlow has proved much cheaper than some of the surrounding towns like Hoddesden. One of the great advantages of the New Towns has been to make some of the shopkeepers bring their prices into reasonable line. I do not suggest that that was the purpose of building the New Towns, but it is an important consideration and is one of the things which has justified the existence of these New Towns. The styles of building are improving all the time, and I think that more and more housing authorities should go to these New Towns to look for ideas. I do not say that New Towns are the solution to all our problems—far from it, because it means that land has to be acquired, and

137
there are many other difficulties. But one of the great things about them is the community spirit, particularly among the young.
Turning for a moment to our aged population, which is growing all the time, I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of building, or encouraging local authorities to build, more bungalows. Brighton is a typical example of a town which has been doing this, and is still doing it, with advantageous results. Some of the bungalows are most attractive, and the elderly people there are very happy. This has been a worthwhile debate. The Government have been given a number of sound ideas, and I hope that it will be possible for at least some of them to be put into practice.
6.38 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, only on the point, which I personally was glad to hear, of his appreciation of the development of New Towns. His speech, too, is a criticism of the Government, though at the time he was speaking he may not have intended it to be so. After all, in spite of all the post-war difficulties and the reversion of the economy of this country from that of war to that of peace, my noble friend Lord Silkin, and the Labour Government of 1945–51, started fourteen of these New Towns, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, has just said, are a credit to this country and the envy of thousands upon thousands of foreign visitors to this country year after year. But the Tory Government, which took over the reins in November, 1951, six years after the end of the war, have not started one single New Town. But the tragedy goes even deeper. One of the problems of my noble friend Lord Silkin in setting up the New Towns was to find the specialised personnel to create the organisation for their development.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting for one moment? Is he speaking of England and Wales? Does he forget there is a place called Scotland? Because we have started a New Town there.
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, but the Government have not started that New Town. The Government put that re-
138
sponsibility on to the local authorities. There are two in Scotland, which were started by my right honourable friend, but I was going on to what is an even worse tragedy than the Government's not starting these, because it is going to be difficult for us if we start again, as I hope we shall.
My noble friend, Lord Silkin, had considerable difficulty, as I was saying when the interruption took place, in starting the New Towns, owing to the lack of specialised personnel. We really had only the experience of the existing local authorities of Letchworth and Welwyn to draw upon. The fourteen New Towns which had been created during the time that he was Minister, under the Labour Government, were built by a cadre of specialised, efficient personnel. Due to the fact that the Tory Government have not started any New Town during their ten years of office, those very excellent men and women have been gradually drifting away, going into private industry or local authority service. If the Government take the hint from the noble Lord, and I hope they will, that the method of dealing with the housing problem can be solved only by expanding the New Towns, then they will again be faced with the difficulty of finding the personnel—the same difficulty as that experienced by my noble friend Lord Silkin at the time this cadre was created in 1945–46.
My complaint against this Government is that they have been playing politics with housing ever since they came into power, preying on the difficulties the Labour Government had to deal with from 1945 to 1951. We had to plan the resources of the country. We realised that the building industry could not undertake more work than it had either the labour force or the materials to cope with. As we were developing factories and schools as well as housing, we said at the time that 200,000 houses per year was the maximum that the country could build, having regard both to the conditions of the building industry and to the economy of the country in relation to other requirements.
LORD MOLSON: Do you still say that?
LORD LINDGREN: I do not say it still. That was in 1945 to 1951, when we

139
were changing over from a war to a peace economy. The whole of the building industry had been out of existence for the period of the war, and the brick-making industry had also been largely out of use. Therefore, not only did we have to recreate a labour force for the building industry, but we had to recreate the building supplies industry in order to carry out that programme of 200,000 houses. Whatever the programme of housing one has to deal with, it has to be planned in relation to the capacity of the building industry to deal with it; and the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, shows that there are at least some people on the architectural and production sides of the industry who are trying to face the problem a little. As I have said, my complaint is that the Government have been playing politics with this problem, and that their attitude is that the commodity of housing, whether it affects the owner-occupier or the person who rents his house, is just like every other commodity, one on which one makes a profit, and that the greater the profit the greater the success of the industry.
My Lords, I do not want to go over old history too much, but private enterprise just cannot deal with the problem of housing for the mass of the people of this country. Roughly, the housing figures are as follows. Out of 14 million houses, just over 4 million are owner-occupied, and 10 million are rented—in other words, rented from a landlord. Of that 10 million, 7 million are privately owned by landlords, and just over 3 million are owned by local authorities. That shows a ratio of 10 million rented to 4 million owner-occupied, and that proportion must always be borne in mind.
I said just now that private enterprise cannot deal with the requirement of rented houses for the average worker because it cannot provide houses at a rent they can afford to pay. That is not a phenomenon of post-1945; it has been the fact almost ever since the Boer War, since which time there have been practically no houses provided by private enterprise for renting to the ordinary worker. We dealt with the housing of the worker between the Boer War and the 1914–18 war only because of the develop-
140
ment of transport in the larger towns, to which the right reverend Prelate referred earlier, such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and London. Due to this development the better-off people moved away to the newly-created suburbs, leaving their old houses for the workers to occupy as tenement dwellings. The dwellings in which most of us were brought up between the Boer War and the 1914–18 war were those left by those better-off people leaving for the suburbs, the new methods of transport, the railways and later on the motor car, making it possible for them to do so.
Following the 1914–18 war it was simply impossible for private enterprise to provide workers' houses for rent. This was due to the cost of land, the organisation of the building industry, and so on. Between 1919 and 1939, well over one million houses were built by local authorities—I think the accurate figure is 1,111,000—and there was a whole spate of legislation from 1919 onwards, including the 1936 consolidating Act. Since 1945, of course, again the local authorities have provided the houses for ordinary workers. I maintain that the record of the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 was an excellent one, having regard to the difficulties we had in providing 200,000 houses per annum. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition reminds me that that was in addition to dealing, in those early years, with the whole of the war damage.
But since 1951 the housing record of the present Government has been really disgraceful. They came to power, I will not say on the cry of housing alone, but partly on the cry of "300,000 houses per annum". And, of course, they say they have done it. But they have done it by a debasement of standards and have brought about fluctuations which have made the greatest difficulties for local authorities.
Since 1951 the life of the average local authority officer and member has been a nightmare. From 1945 to 1951 it had stability and security. Rates of interest remained the same right the way through; rates of subsidy remained the same right the way through. They could plan their housing, they could enter into negotiations for purchase of land, they could go through their committee stages,

141
have consultations with architects, and go to tender, knowing the circumstances under which they were going to make their programme. Since 1951 they have just not been able to do that. Rates of interest alone have changed 24 times, and subsidies have been varied up and down and finally cut out altogether, except for special houses such as old people's bungalows. But for general needs, subsidies have gone altogether. During the eleven years from 1951 the local authority just has not known where it has been from day to day.
As regards the purchase of land, because of the tampering by this Government with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, local authorities have hardly known, certainly not from year to year, where they stood on the price of land, on interest charges and on building costs within the building industry. The circumstances in which they made their first preliminary plans with their housing manager and architect were nowhere near the conditions under which they had to let the houses at the end of the contract.
If we are going to deal with the problem of housing it can be dealt with only on the basis of planning by everyone, the local authority and the building industry, so that they know where they are not from day to day but from year to year; and we must get that situation. We are a little happier than we were a short while ago, when in another place I had to fight Elections while the slogan was "Tory freedom works". Of course, this is the mess that Tory freedom has got us into. Now I understand the slogan is going to be "Tory planning works". If we are going to deal with the problem of housing it can only be done on the basis of planning.
The fact is that to-day there is practically no building whatever in this country for general need. My noble friend Lord Wise referred to the plight in the countryside. I am proud as I go up and down this country to see the houses that were built between 1945 and 1951, while my late right honourable friend Aneurin Bevan was Minister of Health. They can be found in every village in this country, but since 1951 there have been practically no houses built in any village anywhere, and of course the
142
reason is that local authorities cannot afford to build them.
I am not concerned only with that; I am concerned with falling standards. I referred earlier to the 1,111,000 houses which were built by local authorities in the inter-war years from 1920 to 1939. I have been associated with local government ever since 1928, and there are very few local authorities in this country who were really proud of council housing in the inter-war years. The local authorities were not to blame, and I am not going to blame the Government too much; they were trying to force down costs. But they certainly were not a credit to the building industry which was responsible for them, or to the building trade worker whose skill was used in their building. In fact if any of your Lordships in those inter-war years were so proletarian as to visit music halls, you will remember that when the comedian grew tired of "flogging" the mother-in-law joke he turned to council houses—you could hear the woman next door changing her mind; you pulled the chain and the house fell down around your ears. Those were the music hall jokes, but the tragedy was that there was a basis of truth in them.
During the war the Tory Government recognised this, because they set up a Committee under a very respected Member of this House, the noble Earl, Lord Dudley. His Committee sat during the war years and the people of this country were promised that, after the fight against Fascism, they would come back to housing standards better than those of the inter-war years. To give the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, and his Committee the credit to which they were due, those standards of housing which were accepted in 1944 by the Tory Government were a considerable advance upon the standards that existed in the inter-war years. It is to the eternal credit of the Labour Government and Aneurin Bevan, as the Minister of Health, that in the early post-war years the Dudley standards were adopted for the 200,000 houses which were built every year; the promise made by the Tory Government during the war was honoured.
Year by year since 1951 those standards of housing have been reduced by the Tory Government, until we are

143
to-day building houses of a lower standard in floor space, height of rooms, fittings and density, than we were building in 1938. Is that something of which the present Government can be proud: building at lower standards than obtained in 1938? Because of financial provisions and so on, houses built by local authorities now are little better than the result of skilful calculation by an architect of boxes 12 feet square and 7 feet high, with no circulating area within the house, no hall, no pram space and so on: houses which are now down in some cases to below 800 square feet, although the Dudley standards were well above 1,100 square feet.
That lowering of standards does not apply to only local authority housing. And it applies to space. During my connection with the Urban District Councils Association, of which my local authority was a member in earlier years, we fought the Ministry of Health to give us the power to build houses at ten to the acre, and finally, with a little squeezing, we got that power. Local authorities are now building houses, not at 10 or 12 to the acre, as we were doing in 1937 and 1938 under the 1936 Act; they are now building them at 17 to the acre. As a good Cockney, I know the saying, "There is not enough room to swing a cat". There is not enough room in the back gardens to hang out washing so that the wind can get at it and so that it does not knock the fence over or get dirty on the fence. Seventeen houses to the acre is nothing of which we can be proud.
As regards references to eating up agricultural land and our not being able to spare the land, it is not the working-class houses at ten and twelve to the acre which eat up agricultural land; it is the houses at one, two or three to the acre on the peripheries of towns. If you really would like to tackle the problem of density, and have a greater density of those houses which have parkland around them, I will give you all the help you like. But forcing ordinary working-class people back to living in houses which are seventeen to the acre is, I think, going much too far.
I referred to the fact that there is no provision there for building houses for general need. I have not the figures for
144
1961, but in 1960 103,000 local authority houses were built. Of that 103,000, 60,000 were under slum clearance schemes; 15,000 were to rehouse people displaced by demolitions necessitated by road-widening schemes, factory alterations, planning alterations and the rest; and 27,000 were one-bedroomed houses for old persons. So out of the 103,000 houses built by local authorities in 1960, 102,000 of them were for those specialist categories of slum clearance, rehousing because of demolition for road-widenings, and old persons' bungalows, and only 1,000 houses were for general need. For all the sons and daughters of the workers up and down this land who were getting married, there were only 1,000 houses. If we are really going to deal with the problem of housing, we can deal with it only on the basis of increasing the availability of houses for general need as well as coping with the clearance of slums which were created in the years gone by.
The main reason why local authorities are not building for general need is the problem of interest charges; and, like private enterprise, they cannot now provide a house at a rent which the worker can afford to pay. An interest rate of 1 per cent. on money means 6s. per week on the rent of a house. Local authorities, if they are borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board, are having to pay, because of the period over which they can borrow the loan. 6⅛per cent. That means to say that, before they deal with anything else—the cost of materials used, the cost of development, the cost of the building trades' workers' wages, and so on—36s. 6d. goes in interest charges to the financier. Something seems to me to be all wrong when the financier gets such a huge return on the elementary human right of a person to be adequately housed.
I return now to the question of those 103,000 houses which were built in 1960. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has just left the Chamber. I do not complain, because I did not give him any notice that I was going to raise this matter.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive

145
me, may I point out that my noble friend has not left the Chamber. He has gone to the Box to obtain certain information which I sought in order to put me in a position to answer the noble Lord's argument.
LORD LINDGRIEN: I stand corrected, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the very pleasant way he called me to order. I saw the noble Earl go that way, and I know that the time is getting on—and even the noble Earl is entitled to eat; he has been sitting on the Front Bench from the time the debate started. However, the noble Earl made an interjection when my noble friend Lord Peddie was speaking about slum clearance, and if I understood him aright—and please correct me if I misunderstood him—he was satisfied with the progress that the Government were making in slum clearance. Their programme, if I may say so, has been a dismal failure.
I remember taking part in debates in another place when, in 1955, the Government announced their programme of slum clearance after the 1954 survey by local authorities. They then said that there were 378,000 houses to be cleared in the five years ending 1960, and that the programme was to deal with 75,000 houses per annum. Now the yearly average over the whole of the period from 1955 to 1960 has been 52,000, and the total number built is 255,000. That, on the Government's own programme, their own five-year target of 1955, is 123,000 short; one third of their target short. I do not know which way percentages work, but I should say that that shows that they have done only 66 per cent. of the work they promised to do. That does not seem to me to be anything of which to be proud. Even in 1960, which was one of their best years, when they dealt with 60,000 slum clearance houses, it was 15,000 below their target of 75,000 per annum.
Now the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the question of average housing costs as quoted by the Ministry of Labour Gazette, showing that they had not gone up very much. May I quote an instance that is happening at this very time in the area of a local authority of which I know something? There, we are now carrying out a scheme involving 100 houses. These houses, I will admit,
146
are being built for general need. The land has cost £2,500 per acre. Just as a side comment, my Lords, I may say that that same land was bought in 1920 for £40 an acre. It was £40 an acre in 1920—as agricultural land, I will admit: it is £2,500 in 1962. However, the land cost £2,500 an acre, which is not excessive bearing in mind the price of land sold in the Home Counties. The development cost—road charges, sewers and the rest of it—is £200 per house; and the contract price for the three-bedroomed house of 997 feet is £1,795. Now on the basis of interest at the present moment of 6¼ per cent., the rent is £3 5s. a week. The rates on the house are 12s., and that brings the total to be paid by the tenant up to £3 17s. My Lords, the average wage in that area is £11 a week. Practically £4 out of £11 is, in my view, an undue proportion to take out of the wage for the ordinary workman. It is no good noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, trying to blind us with science; saying that workers are paying only one-twelfth of their income in rent. It just is not proved.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord whether the rents in his particular local authority are pooled? What is being charged for the older houses?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, why should a worker who lives in a house which was built in 1919 under the Addison scheme, with all the disadvantages of the houses which were built at that time—the music hall jokes that I have referred to—have to pay, as an addition to his rent, for accommodation and facilities which he has not got, just because the financier is getting a "rake-off" of 36s. 6d. out of this house to which I have referred? Will the noble Lord tell me why the ordinary council house tenant of a house built in 1920 should make a contribution to the financier for money lent in 1962?
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord a question. He talks about financiers. Again, I feel that this is a sort of conspiracy. It is the sort of thing I was referring to in my speech. Surely, quite a lot of the interest goes to the Public Works Loan Board. Is that a financier?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I will deal with that now, although I was going to deal with it later on. That is another "racket" in which this Government have been engaged. My Lords, I apologise; I am forgetting that I am here and not in another place. That is another complaint I have against this Government—that, perhaps, is a more Lordly way of putting it. Local authorities have always had difficulty in dealing with their financial problems, and back in the 1890's, in order to help local authorities, the Government said, "We will amalgamate your credit, and you can purchase money from the Public Works Loan Board which we will raise on the credit of local authorities, and you will not be at the mercy of the financier." The Public Works Loan Board was set up, I think, somewhere around 1897, but right the way through the Board have advanced money to local authorities at a lower rate of interest than they could themselves have raised on the open market. This Government stopped local authorities from going to the Public Works Loan Board, and said, "You must go on the open market." And in order to prevent the local authorities from even trying to go to the Public Works Loan Board they put the rate of interest up so high that the market rate was just a little bit below.
What in fact has happened is that the excessive rate to which the Government raised the Public Works Loan Board's rate has become the market level of loans to local authorities. They are now raising it. The noble Lord who interjected can pick up a newspaper on any day, and a Sunday newspaper in particular, and see advertisements from local authorities, rural borough and county councils, appealing to the ordinary person to invest money at 6½ per cent. I remember seeing on Sunday that Middlesbrough were even offering 6¾ per cent. if the money available was over the £5,000 mark. So again this Government have stopped the use of the collective credit of local authorities through the Public Works Loan Board, and have forced them to the financier and the open market.
The Government also talk about "a property-owning democracy". But, my Lords, the interest rates to which I have just referred, and which in some building
148
societies go up much higher than 6½ per cent.—some are even as high as 8 or 8½ per cent.—make it almost impossible for the ordinary person to purchase a house. Sometimes we on this side of the House are accused of being against house ownership. My Lords, we are not. The more people who are in a position to enter into an obligation to purchase a house, the better it is. But I take the view that a person who enters into an obligation to pay a rate of interest and the repayment of a mortgage over 20 or 25 years—and some local authorities and building societies argue now for 30 years, in order to ease the payments—should be in a position to be able reasonably to meet that commitment. There are very few ordinary working-class fellows, very few ordinary manual workers, who know that they will be employed this time next month, let alone this time in 20 years. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House rather smiles and titters. But the fact remains that there is no guarantee of employment for the building trade worker, the fitter, and the rest of them. It is true that for the last 20 years there has been a period of full employment. But even skilled workers—and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, raised a question in this House last night about men who are quite skilled, and who have had jobs over a long period of time—are now facing the fact that their jobs have gone.
I have never held the view that full employment means that one has to be employed in the same job in the same place all the time. There ought to be the availability of employment, and that means mobility of employment. Even if we take the case which my noble friend made yesterday, I do not say that we have to find a job for every aircraft worker in Christchurch, or Portsmouth. But if we are going to have mobility of labour for the fellow in Christchurch, or Hatfield, or Stevenage, or anywhere else, to move to some other part of the country where his services are required, housing must be available for him; and that type of person does not find it easy to own his own house.
My Lords, I have spoken longer than I intended, but if we are going to deaf with this problem, it can be dealt with only in conjunction with the reorganisation of the building industry, to which

149
the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, referred. That is an essential part. There is not the slightest doubt that the building industry, with its hundreds of thousands of small firms, is antiquated and unable to deal with the problem on the correct basis. If we are going to have planning of industry; if, as I suggest, the only way to deal with general need is by local authority permission, then it can be done only by large-scale building and large-scale contracts, with the contractor using the latest methods to which the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, referred, and only, I might add, by the Government's bringing finance into better relationship with housing.
7.16 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, at one moment when the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, was more controversial than he was at other times, he said that he had almost forgotten that he was not in another place. My Lords, I quite forgot that I was not in another place. When I heard his criticism of the (as he called it) lower standards, I well remembered the same speech which he made soon after the present Prime Minister became Minister of Housing in 1951. I will not pursue his arguments further, beyond saying that I hardly think that his arguments would particularly commend themselves to the one million families who are occupying the houses which they now have as a result of the increase in the rate of house building from 200,000 to 300,000 a year. In ten years that means that an additional million families have been rehoused.
My Lords, I was on the Central Housing Advisory Committee for ten years, and I made a number of speeches on housing at that time; but from 1951, When I became a junior Minister, I have been obliged to keep silent. I hope that my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not object if this evening I pass in review the general policy of Her Majesty's Government, and make some criticisms which I hope will be of a constructive kind.
Rent restriction and subsidies go hand in hand. Private rents were for a long time kept artificially low, and consequently it was necessary for large subsidies to be paid, in order that rents charged by local authorities should not be substantially higher. Rent restriction
150
meant that a subsidy for the benefit of tenants was paid from the pockets of private landowners. Subsidy meant that the rents of occupants of local authority houses were kept artificially low at the expense of the taxpayer and ratepayer. The removal of rent restriction has been making slow progress since the Rent Act, 1957, and we know that one-twelfth of the houses still rent-restricted are being freed each year as tenants move or die. There is, in fact, very little hardship under that Act. The Survey that was made soon afterwards showed that controlled rents had increased by 60 per cent. and uncontrolled rents by only 52 per cent., which tends to show that, as houses are freed from rent control and come into the free market, rents are not made excessively high. I much regret that at the last Election the Conservative Party thought it necessary to give a pledge nothing more would be done to speed up the removal of rent restriction, but we are moving in the right direction, even though it be unduly slowly. If this goes on, it should be possible soon to deal with the problem of subsidies.
Events have followed very much the same course in the years after the Second World War as they did after the First World War. It was in 1933 that Sir Edward Hilton Young, the Minister of Housing, and afterwards a Member of your Lordship's House as Lord Kennet, brought to an end the payment of general subsidies for building new houses. The immediate effect, as it was on every occasion when subsidies were reduced during those 20 years, was that the cost of building fell. It also had the further effect which Sir Edward Hilton Young foresaw, but which was not foreseen by the Opposition at the time, that there was a sudden and remarkable increase in the number of houses built. I am glad to say that at approximately the same period after the Second World War, Mr. Duncan Sandys had the courage to do away with the general subsidy for the building of new houses. The result has been extremely satisfactory.
Last summer your Lordships passed an Act which perhaps in some respects was another step in the right direction, in so far as it directed subsidies generally to the particular local authorities who are most in need of help. The test, your

151
Lordships will remember, was a notional rent of twice the gross annual value. That meant that where assistance was given, it was given on the basis of the real requirements of a local authority. But I very much regretted that this meant the restoring, in some degree, of a general subsidy, instead of the subsidy continuing to be directed to the building of houses for aged people and for slum clearance. To that extent I feel that it meant once more the payment of money without a careful study of whether it was necessary in the particular case.
It is also important, I feel, to consider the subvention of rents out of the rates that are paid. There are really remarkable cases where local authorities are charging too little. Of course, it is the expectation of the Government that, as a result of the new test that has been applied, there will be a strong financial inducement to local authorities to raise their rents to a reasonable level, but we are far from having reached that point at the present time. The Minister of Housing and Local Government, in another place on February 2, gave the figure that for most of the houses now being built the economic rent is 60s. a week. He mentioned that in the case of Manchester the rent paid was 15s. 9d. a week; in the case of Wakefield, 17s. 9d. a week; and in the case of Wolverhampton, 18s. 7d. But nowhere in England is there anything so fantastic as the rents that are being paid in Scotland. As your Lordships will remember, until recently, Dunbarton was charging 2s. 10d. a week for modern houses. I hope your Lordships will have that matter in mind when, at some time in the future, the Scottish Housing Bill comes before us.
It may be asked: How can we expect Private enterprise to compete with artificial subsidies paid in this way out of the rates to the tenants by the local authorities? In point of fact, private enterprise has done extremely well. This was not one of the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, but whereas in 1950, when I think that the noble Lord was still Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing, the number of houses built by private enterprise was 27,000, and that by the local authorities, 170,000—
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords—
LORD MOLSON: Let me finish my figures, then the noble Lord will know the point he has to answer—In 1960 the number of houses built by private enterprise was 168,000 and that by the local authorities, 129,000. Now what has the noble Lord to say?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, that is my point. The houses built by private enterprise have no relation to the needs of those who occupy them. The 27,000 provided by private enterprise in 1950 were for owner-occupiers, and the 168,000 provided last year are again for owner-occupiers. They are not for the general need for houses to rent.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, that argument fails on two points: first, because the total number of houses built was half as large again as it was in 1950; and secondly because, as the noble Lord himself pointed out, such a large number of the houses built by local authorities were built for the purposes of rehousing slum tenants. The noble Lord, like other noble Lords on the other side, emphasised, very rightly, how important it is to get on with the slum clearance programme, which, of course, was held in abeyance, for understandable reasons, while the Party opposite were in power.
I venture to say that, either now or in the very near future, there will be no need for the continued payment of subsidies in respect of housing. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, pointed out, subsidies should be paid where people are in need of personal help in paying the rents that are required. That is already done in the case of aged persons. The scales laid down by the National Assistance Board do not include rent, and normally the total amount of rent is added to the scale of assistance given to an aged or disabled person. What has happened is that subsidies have been paid in respect of houses quite indiscriminately and without any consideration of the need of the tenants.
How did that come about? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, will remember this—it is not in any way discreditable to him or to his right honourable friend. I well remember when, in the

153
Committee upstairs, the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan moved to delete from the Housing Acts reference to "the working classes". At the time the Conservative Opposition supported that, because, as faithful disciples of Mr. Disraeli, we wanted to do away with the two nations and have one nation, and so it seemed to us that these references to working-class dwellings were inappropriate. But I hardly think that Mr. Bevan foresaw—and I am perfectly certain my honourable friends and I in another place did not—that one of the effects of that Amendment would be that subsidies would be paid for the provision of houses by local authorities without any consideration of the means of the tenants who were to occupy them.
The payment of subsidies was in fact an expedient introduced as a temporary measure after the First World War. It was then expected that the value of money and the cost of building would go back to what they had been in 1914. That, of course, never happened and a great vested interest in the subsidising of housing has been created. It took a great deal of courage on the part of the Conservative Government to do away with food subsidies, and I hope that the time will soon come when we shall find that they have the courage to do away with housing subsidies also, in so far as they are paid in a general and indiscriminate way.
There was justification for the payment of subsidies only so long as the working classes were too poor to pay an economic rent for reasonable accommodation. I believe that the Government's mind is moving in this direction. I was interested to read in the speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government on Friday last, when he spoke about 60s. a week being the economic rent, these words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 652 (No. 47) col. 1513]:
"of course, not everybody concerned can manage rent of this kind, but the needs can be met in appropriate cases by rent rebate schemes. What can be wrong with the principle of distributing a subsidy according to need? Councils of both political complexions have done this in one way or another. I am sure that it is a sensible approach, which both sides of politics could share, that the subsidy which is available in one way or another could he distributed according to need."
Then, if I may read on, because this is most important, he said (col. 1514):
154
"The introduction of rent rebate schemes requiring those who can afford it to pay a full reasonable rent might well remind some of the better paid that they are able to look elsewhere for a house and so make room for those who really need subsidising."
That is obviously what is in the mind of the Government. My purpose in speaking to-day is really to ask them not merely to put this forward as a suggestion to local authorities, but to bring increasing pressure to bear upon them to do something of this kind.
The rents now being charged are calculated on the lowest incomes. In 1938 the average industrial worker was paid £3 9s. a week. In 1961, he has been receiving £15 7s. 1d. a week, an increase of rather more than 4⅓ times. But rents throughout the country have not gone up in proportion. And if we go back to the old figure of between 18 per cent. and 20 per cent. as being a reasonable rent charged on a working man's income, we find that gives a rent of about £3 per week. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said: that there may be places where, owing to the high cost of land and so on, the economic rent may be above £3; and that would, of course, be above what the lowest paid worker could pay. But it would not be above what the average industrial worker could pay, and it is a great deal less than some of the wealthier occupants of council houses could pay if they were called upon to do so.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lord keeps talking about rent and quotes the Minister of Housing and Local Government. But in addition to rent there are rates, which on the average house works out at about 12s. to 15s. a week, according to the rateable value of the house.
LORD MOLSON: I take all that into account. I am dealing with figures now, and it is not altogether easy to get accurate figures.
I will mention one difficulty. Whereas in the case of Scotland an official White Paper gives the average rent, I do not know of any official figure for rents that is given for England. In point of fact, the Institute of Municipal Treasurers, whom I am just going to quote, give them in different categories. But even

155
there the figures show that the rents being charged at the present time are ridiculously inadequate, having regard to the rent-paying capacity of the employed worker. For example, I find for 1960–61 that in a rural district rents were sometimes 9s. 6d. a week, going up, in the case of one single metropolitan borough, to 60s. a week. And in the case of post-war houses the latest rents vary from 40s. to 44s. a week.
In the case of Scotland, the average is available. I apologise to my Scottish friends if I refer to this point again, but it is just as well that, before the Scottish Housing Bill comes along, we should have these figures in mind. We may perhaps have allowed things to go a little by default in the case of England and Wales, but in the case of Scotland there is need for your Lordships to look at the Bill and consider the question of rents. Despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has managed to get the Dumbartonshire Council to increase its 2s. 10d. rent to something like two or three times that figure, the average rent payable is still only 9s. 1d. a week.
I ask your Lordships to consider the injustice of this subvention of council house rents from the rates. There are owner-occupiers who have bought their own houses and are maintaining them, and they are expected to pay out of the rates for the maintenance of other people's houses; there are slum-dwellers, those who have not yet been moved, paying their own rates; and there are many poor people in all kinds of accommodation who are paying rates as a subvention for the benefit of others, many of them much better off, who are living in the best and most up-to-date accommodation.
I fear that I shall fall under the censure of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, who spoke about people discussing housing as being a financial or an accounting matter. If, however, we want to solve the housing problem in this country we must look at the financial side of it. I wholly accept what the noble Lord said about the great human tragedy of inadequate and unsatisfactory housing, and it is because I desire this matter to be settled and solved as soon as possible that I beg the Government to
156
look again at this question of finance. Subsidies no one will grudge if they are paid to those who are in genuine need. But it is entirely wrong that subsidies should be paid where there is no need, and the indiscriminate payment of subsidies has the effect of keeping up, or even raising, the cost of building.
Reference has been made this afternoon to the high price of land. I was glad that the noble Earl the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the Government have no intention of departing from the sound town and country planning schemes which they have. I am sure this must be gratifying to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whom I first got to know well on Committee in another place, when he piloted with so much skill the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which has served both the Government of that day and the present Government so well in the ensuing years. I fully recognise the importance of the cost of land, and if I do not refer to it now, it is because I have put down on the Order Paper a Motion for debate on a later occasion (I hope that it may come on about Easter time, or a little later) on the whole question of dispersal, which I am sure will have a great deal to do with ensuring that land is made available for housing and keeping down its cost.
My Lords, I believe that the record of the Government so far is good in the matter of housing, but I think that a stage has now been reached when they should carefully consider the whole question of the application of subsidies to houses regardless of the means of the tenants.
7.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, if I may, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on bringing this Motion forward in the way he did. I am not going to be drawn by my noble friend Lord Molson into the question of Scottish rents, but I would warn him that I have been reading a nice little book. I think he should beware of averages. The book is entitled How to Lie with Statistics, which I recommend to him. He will find interesting and erudite remarks about averages in that book. One has to be very careful about averages.

157
The debate has brought out, if it was not known before, the urgent need for housing and has shown a certain amount of disquiet. The speech of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe comforted me considerably. There are, of course, sites available for houses, and there are actually in some parts of the country houses available which cannot be let. Therefore, I think one must consider one aspect of the housing situation as relating to the dispersal or dispersion of industry. No one will go to live in a house unless he has a job to go to. There are a large number of places in the development areas where there is no industry. There are cheap sites and, in some cases, houses available. In other cases, there are the facilities for providing houses. The only thing which is holding the matter up is the difficulty, and so far the failure, to attract industry to those places. My own local authority has agreed to take 300 families from Glasgow overspill. We cannot take them just to put them on the dole, which appears to be the case in a large number of places up and down Scotland. Therefore, I think one must consider which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The Board of Trade made, and are still making, strenuous efforts; and I think they should be congratulated on one or two notable successes. On the other hand, I feel that there is room for better liaison between local authorities, who are trying to attract industry, the Board of Trade, who know industries which might be interested, and the industrialists themselves. If one is at the attracting end it is very difficult indeed to know where to search to try and induce an industry to come. I think something might be done there.
To turn to building, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned central heating, garages and "fridges". Certainly two local authorities in Scotland are to my knowledge already providing them in their housing. Stirling is one and Cumbernauld New Town (which is hardly a local authority) are doing the same to the extent of providing background heating and a power point for a "fridge" which, of course, is a tenant's fitting. One can see in Cumbernauld township a brilliant exposition of really fine planning, really up-to-date housing,
158
and very cheap, too, according to modern standards and prices. It is a first-rate job. The planning and conception of the whole layout is simply brilliant. I think it is better than any of the other New Towns that are available to be seen, and I think everybody ought to go and look at it.
We talk about high building costs. If we really boil it down, the cost of a building is somewhere between 70 per cent, and 90 per cent. for labour and not for actual raw material in the ground, as one might say. Therefore, as soon as there are rises in the cost of coal, wages, transport, or any of these things, the whole lot accumulates and comes to roost on the building. I do not think contractors are making undue sums; in fact, I know most of them are not. The inefficient ones are going down, and the efficient are struggling along. What is happening is that labour is paid a wage plus incentive bonus; the wages are statutorily controlled and the incentive bonus is not. Therefore, the bribe, if one may call it so, to operatives is occurring in cases where people have to get the building done. That is a point where regulation of some sort should come in. Certain types of building, factories for example, need not be built in brick. Various other types of building can be built in other materials, and the authorities who give licences for building should take particular heed to the type of construction when there is an adequate alternative.
Small authorities could reduce their costs of building if they were to amalgamate in bulk buying with neighbouring authorities. They could bulk buy, for example, standard fittings such as doors, windows, sinks and other kitchen equipment at a smaller price, and if they work on a modular standard I think a great deal might be done which is not being done at present. I see the noble Lord. Lord Bossom, is not here. I wanted to ask him what he would propose to do with a brick which did not work in, so far as I know, with any modular standard. But there is a great deal to be said for the modular principle. It saves a great deal of money.
There are several other systems of building. There are about five or six houses which are produced in this country of various types of prefabrication

159
which might ease the pressure. The French have recently erected a 40-apartment block of flats. My figures are approximate, but very nearly accurate. It took them, from starting on the site to the complete erection of the building, 10 or 11 days, and 17 days after that the building was occupied. If that can be done I think that system is worth looking into and considering. It may not be applicable here; I do not know anything about standards compared with buildings in other countries. We talk about the Germans, but do not bother to inquire whether the accommodation provided in their country is equivalent to our accommodation. So you again have to be careful how you bandy these things about.
There is one other point to which I have never had a satisfactory answer. Roughly speaking, by the time you have finished paying all the charges (or the local authority has, bearing in mind that the money comes from rates or taxes) for a house which to-day is worth £2,000, you pay something in the order of £5,000. If individuals in private enterprise were given £1,000 they would build a house and, therefore, it seems to me that there would be a saving of £4,000. I am not quite sure what the answer to that argument is, but I should like to hear it. The arguments so far as Scottish housing is concerned in which I am chiefly interested, I shall have to reserve for our discussion on the Housing Bill when it arrives. But I have not forgotten the rent question. I do ask people not to talk too much about averages. Those who are still sinners and sell above the average price make it more difficult for others to build at a reasonable rate.
7.49 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Silkin for initiating this debate, but I must confess that I would not be a good supporter of the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, although I am a builder, because my own schedule has gone hopelessly awry. I anticipated that I should be speaking at about a quarter-past six. That is possibly an indication of the intense interest there has been in this debate. Everybody has made a contribution that has been well
160
worth while and has not just ventured in for a cursory dip, although certain noble Lords did stick their big toe rather gingerly into the safer waters, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who went in at the deep end and very nearly drowned himself. I shall come back to that in a few minutes.
I should like to say, while I remember to do so, how very much I enjoyed the speech made by the noble Earl, the Minister, but it was a disappointment in one sense. His language was so charming and the way in which he put it over so delightful that I only wish that his case had been as good as his speech. If it had been, then I should not have had very much to criticise. The speech was excellent; but when I heard the expressions of satisfaction from noble Lords opposite about what is taking place, it made me realise more than ever how very different the position is in Scotland as compared with the general situation in England; although the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did indicate in his speech that as one moved farther North in England the situation was not quite so satisfactory, and it may be that in these northern counties their position approaches what we have in Scotland.
But although I think the Scottish situation is far from happy, to a certain extent the Government couched the statements in the same way as the noble Earl made his speech to-day. The White Paper on Housing in Scotland starts off in this way:
"In the sixteen years since the war 450,000 houses have been built in Scotland; altogether, over 800,000 have been built since 1919. This means that of the present stock of rather more than 1,600,000 houses about half are less than 40 years old; but it also means that half our houses are older than this, and that very many of them fall below a reasonable modern standard."
That, I think, is putting it mildly. In fact, of the more than half which are older, because between 1913 and 1919 virtually nothing was done owing to the impossibility of the circumstances, it follows that rather more than half the houses in Scotland are 50 years old and upwards.
But that is not the end of the story. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to the fact that in 20 years' time there would be 4 million houses (I think it was) in England and Wales which

161
would be 100 years old. The comparable figure at the present time in Scotland is half-a-million houses which were built before 1880. He made the point, with which I must concur, that a house is not necessarily a bad house just because it is au old one. I have no doubt that his house is much older than mine, but the greater part of my house is 140 years old. It is a good house to live in, but the houses about which I am talking, referred to in this document as largely unsatisfactory, are not houses which it has been possible to modernise as years have gone by.
I am indebted to the Housing Convenor of Glasgow for some information about the position in that city. I should not wish to suggest that what exists in Glasgow can be taken as typical of the whole of Scotland, because it is recognised by everyone that Glasgow is in probably the most difficult situation of any local authority in the world. But it is worse only in certain degree than any other large centres of population. My own city of Dundee has almost as bad a problem as that in the city of Glasgow. When I give your Lordships these figures, it will give you an idea of the situation that Scottish authorities have to face.
Almost half the houses in the city of Glasgow—and remember, my Lords, that one person in five in Scotland lives in the city of Glasgow—have only one or two rooms, and over 400,000 people are living in these one or two-roomed houses. When I say one or two-roomed houses I mean just that; it does not mean one or two rooms plus a kitchenette and bathroom; it means one or two rooms. Where it is a one-roomed house, that room is living room, dining room, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. Everything that a family has to do has to be done in that single room; and 400,000 people in Glasgow are living in houses of one or two rooms.
In fact, in Central Glasgow two-thirds of the houses are of not more than two rooms; 34,000 people in Glasgow live more than four persons to a room; 90,000 live more than three persons to a room. My noble friend, Lord Lindgren, was complaining about building in England being done now at 17 houses to the acre. In one district in Glasgow 12,000 people live on 18 acres
162
of land; and this still exists "despite", as the noble Earl said, "ten years of Conservative Government". The only word I would quarrel with in that statement is the use of the word "despite". I think he should have said "because".
Less than half of the Glasgow families have a bath in the house and over one, third share the facility of a water-closet—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will know from his electioneering in Glasgow, that means out on the common stair. He may be the man who had the most unfortunate experience of standing at a door trying to get out of a little boy whether he could see his father to talk electioneering, but he was not in. Then he wanted to see his mother and she was not in. Did he have a big brother? Yes, but he was not in. Did he have a big sister? Yes, but she was not in. Only after all these questions did he discover that he was knocking at the toilet door on the stair. Now that may seem funny, but it is not funny to the people who have to live in these circumstances.
I could not help feeling when the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was speaking about the satisfactory situation—whether or not it is the case in England I am not competent to judge, because I do not know the situation—that if his references to England are not more accurate than his references to Scotland then he has not done much to destroy the case which has been put forward by my noble friends. He referred to averages, and was warned by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, about the difficulties and dangers of averages. For instance, he talked of 18 to 20 per cent. as being the figure which used to be considered a long time ago as a reasonable amount for a working man to pay out of income for the rent of his house, but he should remember that that rent always meant the complete figure of rent, inclusive of rates. Rent, to the working man, because he generally paid the whole lot together, was what went out. He did not separate it and say, "So much for rent, and so much for rates".
At the present time, because of the different levels of valuation, although rents are very much lower in Scotland, rates are not. Again I am indebted to Glasgow for these comparisons, which

163
were made recently when they were considering the new Scottish Bill. Reference has been made to the Glasgow rents of 10s. 9d. a week for a two-bedroomed semi-detached house, whereas in Leeds the figure is 27s. and in Manchester it is 22s. But in Glasgow the rates which are payable on that house because of the very much higher annual value which now prevails, because Scottish valuation is ahead of the English, is 19s., whereas in Leeds the amount paid in rates on that house is 10s.; and in Manchester it varies from 11s. 7d. to 15s. 8d. So that the comparison is not quite so one-sided against Scotland as the noble Lord indicated.
He also said in his attack on subsidies that it was wrong that subsidies should be paid to anyone without reference to need. My first thought on that was that I hope the noble Lord and other noble Lords opposite will be prepared to carry this question of need when subsidies are paid throughout the whole field, and not confine it to those sections of subsidy which are mainly paid to wage-earners and lower salary earners; because there are many people at the present time who participate in subsidies from the Government who would not be able to substantiate them on the grounds of financial hardship they were suffering. But that is beside the point.
The noble Lord said that if people were unable to pay the economic rent then the remedy was an application to the National Assistance Board. Obviously, that is a remedy which is applicable to old-age pensioners, unemployed people, people on National Insurance and the like. But it seems completely to have escaped his notice that the National Assistance Board will not pay any assistance with rent to anybody who is in employment, no matter how low his wages are; because, of course, a wage-earner cannot go to the National Assistance Board for help. While the average wage in England may well be the figure which was quoted of £15, there are many areas in Scotland where the average local wage is very much less than that figure. I should think that a figure of about £10 a week is far nearer the average in many parts of Scotland. If anyone suggests that a wage-earner can pay a rent of £3 or £4
164
a week out of an income of that figure, then I think he is very much out of touch with reality.
The argument is that the rent to be paid should be an economic rent. How many of these people in Glasgow will get a council house, or a privately built-house, if they are to pay an economic rent? What is an economic rent? These was a reference to houses in England costing £1,700; but the figure in Scotland, when various things are taken into account for the average house, is, in fact, of the order of £2,000. The economic rent for that is approximately £140 a year. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, who said he thought the building of houses to let by private enterprise was now a dead letter and that we need not pin any hopes on a revival there. I entirely agree with that view, although I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who seemed to be under the impression that my colleagues were against the building of houses to let by private enterprise. As the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said, we have no real opportunity of deciding whether we are for or against it, because it is something that does not happen. It was notable that when Lord Lindgren challenged Lord Molson on his figures for England and Wales, he did not dispute the fact that the figures for private enterprise were houses for sale.
In Scotland another document, a very useful one—and it is the most recent—has been issued, the Housing Return at December 31. I do not think that the Government can feel in any way complacent or even satisfied about what is happening in Scotland in the building of houses. There has been reference by some noble Lords to the fact that when the Prime Minister was in charge of housing he raised the accomplishment to a very much higher figure than had been achieved during the years of Labour Government. Little heed was paid to the difficulties under which the Labour Government worked. I am not interested in harking back to what happened in 1945 to 1950, or even between 1950 and 1960, because the folk who are living in the slums and in overcrowded conditions, or are homeless, in Scotland will not be housed now by what was done then, but only by what will be done in the future. It is only because of the trend that I quote these figures.

165
The Government in this document in Table I aggregate the years 1945 to 1954, and the toal number of houses built by local authorities in those ten years was 203,996; or, as nearly as makes no difference, an average of 20,400 a year. In 1955, under the present Government, the figure was 29,278; but every year since then, with the exception of 1957, the figures have fallen. In 1960, they had fallen to 21,500, which is slightly above the average of the ten years, 1945 to 1954; and in 1961, the last year completed, the figures had fallen to 19,541. So the Government in Scotland have now reached the unenviable position that fewer houses are being built for letting than were built on average in the ten years which included the six years of Labour Government.
It is no answer to say that the number provided by private enterprise has shown an increase. The total for the ten years I have quoted was 13,800, and that figure had risen in 1961 to 7,147. But I think that almost without exception those 7,147 were houses built for sale. The only houses, other than those built by local authorities and the development corporations, for letting, were a small number in 1960 of 542 listed as "others"; and that includes dwellings built by housing associations and houses provided or authorised by Government Departments. The number built by the housing associations was, in fact, only 53, and I think that can be taken as the total number of houses, outside of those provided by local authorities or Government agencies, provided in Scotland to rent.
If there is an intention to drive people to houses to let from private enterprise, we must look at what it is going to cost them. I am a builder, and at the present time I am building houses for sale. The other day, just for the exercise, I worked out the rent which I should have to charge for those houses if I were letting them, and then I took in all the various other items that would have to fall on the tenant. The figure I arrived at was £4 5s. per week, which does not fall so very far short of the weekly figure at which these people can buy the houses. So there is, in fact, no incentive for them to rent a house from private enterprise at a figure of that kind; and if people like the noble
166
Lord, Lord Molson, have their way, that is the rent they will have to pay also if they rent from a local authority. If that is to be the trend, the Government will solve the housing problem simply by removing people from the list. Because nobody will be in a position to take a tenancy of houses at figures of that kind.
The Government seem to have an idea that by raising rents they in some way make it easier for private enterprise to come into the field. I have never been able to understand that factor, and maybe at some time when we are finished a little earlier than to-night the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will take me into the Lobby and explain the economics of this suggestion. At the moment I do not understand it. I do not want to go into it, particularly at this time as we shall be discussing it later in any event, but I should like to refer to the finance of the new Scottish Bill which is presently being discussed in another place. The Government have accepted the principle of payment according to the financial needs of the local authority. Again, this is something that I do not understand, particularly when it is said that the local authority are to be encouraged to get help by raising their income from rents.
If the position in Scotland is to be that the notional rent to be charged is the gross annual value, and if that is less than £60 there has to be added to that half of the difference between the gross annual value and the figure of £60—I understand that the Secretary of State is taking power to alter that figure of £60 so that if within the two years he wants to make it £70 or £80, he can do so, but let us deal with it on the basis of £60, which is the figure mentioned in the Bill at present—so far as I know, none of the major authorities in Scotland will qualify for the £32 subsidy. Certainly those that I have asked calculate that next year they will be receiving a subsidy of £12 for houses which were approved, I think after a date in November, 1961. What does that mean? The economic rent which the local authority will require to charge is £140. They receive a subsidy of £12 from the Government which reduces their outgoings to £128. A reference to the difference between gross annual value and £60 is not going to help them in the slightest. The local

167
authorities will still have to subsidise these houses on a basis of something of the order of £60 or £70 a year.
I turn now to interest rates. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, referred to the fact that a house costing £2,000 to commence with costs upwards of £5,000 by the time all the interest calculations are taken into account. I admit that that is an argument which is much used, and it is not a very valid one, but it is an interesting way of bringing home the effect of interest rates. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will forgive me if I quote him—he will not be surprised because I told him I was going to do so. I was reading the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, and one of the Members of that House quoted a statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, when the 1957 Scottish housing legislation was passing through that House. This is what he said:
"Interest is now 5½ per cent. and it might be assumed that the average over the next few years will be lower, perhaps 5 per cent. There is absolutely no reason to assume that, because they are high now, they will remain as high as that for any long period."
That was in April, 1957. Within six months the rate was up to 6 per cent. and it has never been below 6 per cent. since; in fact it has topped 7 per cent. That was justification for what was being done—that the local authorities did not need to worry about this high rate of 5½ per cent.
Reference to the Public Works Loan Board is a joke in Scotland, because you really have to prove that you are completely non-creditworthy before the Public Works Loan Board will give you any money. You have to prove that nobody else in the length and breadth of the land will lend you any money. Then they will say, "You cannot afford to pay these people, so we will charge you one-half of one per cent. more than they would have charged you had they loaned you the money in the first place." As a Scot, it always seems to me an annoying thing that the money which the Government are lending is below the line in the Budget, the surplus of taxation. It seems to me to be profiteering in the extreme that the Government should lend us back our taxes at 6¾ per cent. interest.
168
When these figures are taken into account, it is obvious that there can be no solution as to economic rents so long as we have, as part of the transaction, to keep interest rates at that figure. I do not subscribe to the point of view that because rents were low in the past necessarily they must be as low to-day. This is my final point. In the White Paper the Government stated that
"a low level of rents was natural in a period of bad housing conditions and low wages. With a rising wage level and standard of living it is not reasonable to keep the rent of a good modern house at an artificially low level."
Subject to what is meant by "reasonable", I would not quarrel with that statement. But one of the results of Government policy is that, although they state in this document that a low level of rents was natural in a period of bad housing, in the city of Glasgow people are paying £2 a week for a single-roomed house without even a sink in that room, because the house is decontrolled—a thing which was lauded as something which was worth while in itself.
This is not the odd case. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is not as ignorant of housing and slum conditions in Glasgow as one of my colleagues suggested noble Lords generally were. I am certain that he could, without difficulty, go to many houses of that kind in Glasgow where the rents have risen to that figure. There may be cases in England and Wales where decontrolled rents have risen only 52 per cent. while controlled rents have risen 60 per cent., but in Scotland it is quite a common thing to find that decontrolled rents have risen 200 to 300 per cent. over the figures that existed before 1957. In those circumstances, I think it is reasonable to suggest that in Scotland the Government must continue for a long time to rely on the efforts of local authorities to assist them in solving what is, in fact, still by far the worst of our Scottish problems. I suggest that they will not get that co-operation and support from the local authorities if they think they can buy it for a subsidy of £12 a year against an economic rent of £140.
8.17 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, it is not my intention to enter into the

169
intricacies of the Scottish housing situation, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes will forgive me if I do not follow him in that connection. I should, however, like to make one or two observations on certain of the remarks that the noble Lord has addressed to your Lordships. I was glad indeed to hear him say words to the effect that age was not necessarily the yardstick on which to judge the suitability of a house. I appreciate that very much. As a matter of fact, I live in a house which is about 198 years old. It was not built as a house but as a stable, and I find it most convenient to live in.
The noble Lord then referred to the situation in Glasgow. For years past I have said that the situation there is without precedent anywhere in the Western world. But, believe me, it is a mast difficult problem to solve. I had the privilege of serving on the local authority in that city for some years and I know just how difficult it is. I am sure that the House will appreciate the difficulty when, considering some of the statements which have come from the Benches opposite to-day, I say that Labour has been in office with a break of only three years since the year 1933, and still the situation is as described by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, my Lords, but if I may interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I would point out that he must also admit that during all but six of those years the Labour Party in Glasgow were handicapped by the fact that they had to work with a Conservative Government and with Conservative legislation.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The noble Lord asks me to take a great deal if I am to take that. But I think that one thing is most unfortunate, and I put it to my noble friend the Minister of State. The statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, used for the years 1945 to 1954 are lumped together. That is most unfortunate because the great year in Scottish housing was 1953, when all records were broken and nearly 40,000 houses were built. I leave the Scottish situation because we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss that when in
170
due course the Bill comes before us. We shall have to wait a very considerable time before it arrives in your Lordships' House.
I would wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having initiated this debate on housing, because housing always seems to me to be a somewhat delicate subject from the Labour Party's point of view. That being so, I appreciate all the more their providing this opportunity in your Lordships' House to consider a matter of such vital importance, for I have always been very strongly of the opinion that bad, inadequate housing causes more misery than any other failure to meet human needs.
So long as there is not a separate, decent house—I mean in respect of size, sanitary condition and repair—for every family in the country, house building should be pushed ahead to the utmost limit of the country's capacity. What I feel has to be decided and kept under constant review is the proportion of the country's total capacity that can be devoted to housing, while there is still maintained, at a level sufficient at least to prevent the possibility of a deterioration in our standard of life, the other essentials to a sound and progressive economy.
Reference has already been made to the fact that during the years of the Labour Government from 1945 to the end of 1951 only once, in the year 1948, were more than 200,000 houses built. There were 228,000 houses built in that year, and in 1951 the number fell to 195,000. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for reminding me that in their 1951 Election Manifesto the Labour Party stated that they would maintain the then present rate of 200,000 new houses a year. I am also reminded that in his Election broadcast the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that unless we stopped building schools and factories we could not then go beyond 200,000 houses a year. I have no doubt my Lords that the noble Earl's statement represented the honest opinion held by himself and by most of his influential supporters. Three of these supporters, whose words are on record, are now Members of your Lordships' House. Each of them made statements at that time which support the view I have just expressed. As they said more

171
or less the same thing, I will content myself by quoting just one of them.
Commenting on the Conservative Party's declared target of 300,000 houses a year, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred to it as a cynical and irresponsible attempt to exploit the housing difficulties of the people. I do hope that words such as those will not be applied to some of the statements which we have heard to-day. But, be that as it may, the noble Lord's words can surely only have meant that he did not believe such a target was capable of attainment, and, by inference at least, I am led to assume that he was in agreement with the figure of 200,000 in his Party's Manifesto. I think we can take it, my Lords, that if it were not to do damage in other directions, particularly to school building and factories, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the leaders of the Labour Party readily believed that new house building must be restricted to 200,000 a year. Well, as your Lordships know, they were entirely mistaken, and I think one of the reasons for that was probably that they failed to take into account the impetus to greater effort, the increase in confidence, which resulted from the removal of restrictions and controls, thus giving freedom to the building industry and the local authorities to get on with their job, a freedom which also allowed more effective deployment of both materials and labour.
In the result, of course, neither educational building nor factories suffered. The expenditure on educational building rose from £48 million in 1951 to £125 million in 1961. I cannot get any really comparable figures in regard to factory building, so I am driven to take the figures for the value of building and civil engineering work, which I have obtained from the monthly Abstract of Statistics. This shows that in 1950 £1,316 million was the value of the work done; in 1960 it was £2,581 million. Surely letting people mind their own business and get on with their own job produces very satisfactory results.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but no one knows better than he, from his experience of the operation of the
172
Hydro Board, the extent to which costs have risen during these periods, and it is exceedingly doubtful whether the second figure he gave, the higher one, represents a larger volume of work actually carried out.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It may not, but I thought it would be interesting to take the value as at those dates. Unfortunately, I have not had time to go into that exercise, and I should not like to undertake it while standing on my feet.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord should not brush this point to one side. If my noble friend is right, what becomes of the argument the noble Lord is putting forward?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: The noble Lord's friend is probably right to a certain degree, but the noble Lord knows perfectly well one could not compete with the point made by Lord Hughes whilst one is standing on one's feet.
LORD HUGHES: Except that I did think I was being fair to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by quoting a case that was within his intimate knowledge, since he knows that some of the contracts cost more than twice as much as was originally contemplated when they are carried out over a period of eight to ten years, because of the tremendous increases in the costs of wages and materials during that period. I am not suggesting that that applies over the whole field, but he was quoting civil engineering work. The Hydro Board are, of course, engaged in similar work, and I thought it would be comparable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as the question is directed to the volume in physical quantities in regard to factories and schools at the present time as compared with 1950, I must say that, unless I am vastly mistaken, it is within my knowledge that the volume has increased, whatever the change in the value of money.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I am grateful to my noble Leader for that explanation. On the other hand, I am quite certain that none of the noble Lords opposite holds the view that factory building is lower to-day than it was in 1950.

173
My Lords, as Lord Peddie said when addressing your Lordships' House, it is useless to deal with housing in isolation. Granted that housing is one of the essentials, we cannot devote the whole of our energies to that and that alone. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, there are other things, such as education, to be taken into consideration. I have already shown how much more we are spending in that connection during the present financial year, but the Government is presently set on the biggest school programme ever. It is intended to run between the present financial year and the year 1964–65 and to cost some £440 million. Furthermore, we cannot but take into account the expansion in the university population; 30,000 students, to start with, and a further 35,000 by the early 1970's, with seven new universities. That surely will mean a very great capital investment. Over and above that, there is the five-year plan, announced in 1956, for the expansion of technical colleges at a cost of £100 million, which programme has now been extended to 1964 at an additional cost of £60 million.
Then there are the hospitals. Naturally, no new hospitals were built for the National Health Service between 1945 and 1951. During the present year about £31 million will be spent on new hospitals and on major improvements to existing hospitals. There is also the recently announced programme, which envisages an expenditure of some £500 million on new hospitals during the present decade. There is, too, the road programme. We are in the middle of a ten-year programme which, including major improvements, is now running at £88 million, to be raised to £102 million in 1962–63. That compares with a figure of £5·4 million in 1951.
Now, my Lords, what I should have been interested to learn is which of these various programmes—be it schools, universities, technical colleges, hospitals or roads—would noble Lords opposite suggest should be cut.
LORD HUGHES: None.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: There has not been one mention of it.
LORD HUGHES: Why should we cut them?
LORD STRATHCLYDE LORD STRATHCLYDE They are all essential to the future prosperity and well-being of the country. But perhaps noble Lords opposite would like to go further than that. They have not made any suggestions. Let me try to put something into their minds. I should like to refer to the breakdown, which was alluded to earlier in the debate, of expenditure on building and civil engineering work, prepared by Mr. Myers and reported in the Daily Telegraph of January 25. In his breakdown, the gentleman states that housing accounted for £630 million, out of a total of £2,565 million, which is about a quarter. Educational building accounted for £125 million—and surely we should not wish to cut that. Private industrial building accounted for £350 million and, goodness knows!, there are enough complaints about slum factories and the need for better layout. No one, I suggest, would wish to cut that sum, either. Then there were shops, £60 million; hotels, £15 million; and hospital services, £25 million, which sum will shortly be very considerably increased.
Then there were fire stations, and, if anything, we need to spend more on fire stations than we are spending at the moment. The sum there is £100 million. Maintenance accounted for £900 million, and no one would wish to cut that either, after the comments we have heard during the debate to-day as to the state of certain buildings. Commercial and office buildings accounted for £70 million, or 2·73 per cent. of the total sum. In the circumstances, although a good deal of comment has been made on the building of offices and commercial buildings, I would suggest that 2·73 per cent. of the total spent on building and civil engineering work is little enough for the purpose. Everyone knows that there are slum offices, also, and there is a good deal of thought and agitation for legislation to impose better conditions and accommodation for office workers.
My Lords, the building industry is very heavily engaged. My experience, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, leads me to believe that it is too heavily engaged. We cannot get more houses without cutting some of these other activities, and I suggest that it is for the Opposition to suggest at least where these cuts should be made, keeping

175
always in mind that in the days when they were in office they came deliberately to the conclusion that the priorities were such as to prohibit the building of more than 200,000 houses a year. That the building industry, working in co-operation with the local authorities and the Government, has succeeded over the past ten years in hitting the Government's target of 300,000 houses a year, while at the same time carrying out the programme in the other directions to which I have alluded, is to my mind very greatly to its credit. As for the Government, I would submit that, failing any conclusive evidence to the contrary—and we have had none whatsoever from the other side of the House during this debate—they have the priorities about right.
8.34 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and also to my noble friend Lord Gage, for putting down this Motion to-day and letting us discuss this very important subject. To my mind, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, good housing, so that the people in our country may bring up healthy families under good conditions in a true Christian way of life, is one of the most important of all our social services.
I must, for a moment, look at the past record of Her Majesty's Government in this connection, before I come to deal with the future. I think that 3 million houses in ten years is a very great achievement, because right the way through the ten years that averages out at 300,000 houses a year. They rehoused one family in every five in this country, or 3½ persons per family, which is something like 10½ million people. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said that we have really been playing politics for the last ten years and have done very little with the housing programme, but I leave it to the House to judge if rehousing 10½ million people or one family in every five is a very small programme. I read in a Sunday paper about two weeks ago that the Government badly needed a success story for the difficult times through which we are now passing. If that is not a success story, I really do not know what is.
176
Turning to the future, I would say that we must not be in any way complacent—and I fully agree on that with the noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate to-day—because we have a gigantic problem in front of us. We have heard a most powerful speech from the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Birmingham, about the terrible conditions in Birmingham. I thought we should hear a little more about the conditions in London, on which I should just like to say a word. Very great strides have been made, but if one reads the debates which have recently occurred in another place, one sees that the conditions in some areas of London are still appalling. I think there are about 8,209,000 people living in the London region, and from 1945 to December, 1961, the local authorities had built 299,225 houses, whilst private builders had built 128,451, a total of 427,676 houses. At December 31, 1961, 24,428 local authority houses were being built, and 12,509 private enterprise houses were also under construction, making a total of 36,937 houses. This information can all be found in the Appendix which was issued two or three days ago by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Last year, 24,391 houses were completed in the London region. That figure has not been published, and I obtained it from the Ministry.
It is not always easy to know, because some of these lists are duplicated, but I am told that the London County Council have something like 80,000 people on their waiting list. On top of that, there are all the Metropolitan boroughs with their waiting lists. One finds certain duplications, with people putting their names down with both the local Metropolitan borough and the L.C.C., hoping that if one does not succeed the other one will. But we still have a tremendous problem, I submit, in the London region.
To-night we have heard the brilliant speeches of my noble friends Lord Gage and Lord Hylton, as well as those of other noble Lords, about the land problem, and land is, of course, getting extremely tight in the London region. A lot of people will have to be housed outside this region. I am a member of the County Council of West Suffolk, and

177
the Ministry have been looking to the Eastern counties to see what can be done. The County Council on which I have the honour to serve has agreed to take 40,000 of London's overspill in the next 20 years and the agreement has been made subject to the Minister's approval. It is now in front of the Minister and the London County Council, and involves trying to house 40,000 people from the London area in the next 20 years. I agree that that is only a small contribution, but we are only a small county, and other counties are doing the same thing.
But, as has been said to-night, the town development schemes are, unfortunately, going rather slowly. Haverhill, in the area of West Suffolk, was a pilot scheme, and there they have built a few hundred houses with the help of the L.C.C. The factories have come with them and it is quite a success. The original scheme was for them to take 5,000 of London's overspill, and they have now agreed to take another 5,000. Bury St. Edmunds, the county town, decided to take 10,000. That is all in the figure of 40,000. But the scheme is going rather slowly.
It is extremely difficult, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Stone-haven to-night, to match up industry and houses. One may be ready but the other one is not, and so on. But it is going on slowly. One would like to see it going a little faster, but I have the sort of feeling—I may he wrong—that many people really do not want to leave their native city of London, and would prefer to remain here. That is natural, of course, but when we read about the conditions in which some of these people are living in London and in these other big cities, we realise that it is inevitable that many of them will have to move out to the expanded towns and to the New Towns. Some of the New Towns are getting up to their maximum rate of building now, and so more and more will it be necessary to depend on the expanded towns scheme for London's overspill.
There is one other point that I should like to mention. The time is getting very late, but I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bossom on the very interesting and instructive speech which he made to your Lordships
178
to-night on building techniques. In order to try to get more houses with the available labour—and I think that to-day there are something like a quarter of a million men in England and Wales working on new housing—we have to try to get more productivity. I have always thought that we should have more prefabrication and non-traditional methods of building houses. There are many systems, including houses made of concrete poured into metal shuttering on the site, and also prefabricated, pre-cast concrete section houses made in factories and brought to the site from those factories. They can be made to look quite nice; we have quite a number of them in various towns in the Eastern counties.
There is to-day, as we all know, a vast shortage of skilled bricklayers and carpenters. I hope that after next year we shall be able to push up the number of 300,000 houses, if it is possible; but, as has been said to-night, the building industry is extremely overloaded, what with the housing programme, the hospital programme, the education programme and the factory programme. Unless we can get more efficient methods operating in our building industry—and I do not see why it should not be done; I have seen jobs done very much more quickly in America than in this country—we shall not succeed. It is largely a matter of organisation and strict schedules, as my noble friend Lord Bossom said; of time-and-progress schedules. If we get good organisation on the sites, then I think we may get more houses built.
However, for this year I think it is extremely important that we finish what we have on the stocks, because in England and Wales last year 92,000 houses were completed by local authorities, but there were 122,400 in course of construction. In a speech in another place on Friday, the Minister of Housing and Local Government told the House how the average time taken to complete houses in this country had increased from, I think, ten-and-a-half to eleven-and-a-half months, and how the price had gone up in the last two years by no less than 20 per cent. Those are very alarming figures; but during recent visits that I have paid to a few building sites I did not see enough men working

179
on the sites. They are too thin on the ground. The builders cannot help that, because they cannot get enough men. I hope that to-night we shall hear from our noble Leader something of what can be done from the building research point of view to try to speed up the methods, because I feel that we must endeavour to get more housing in the next ten years—and I feel certain we shall succeed. In conclusion, I desire to wish the new Minister every success in his important job, and I hope that his programme will be massive and dynamic.
8.46 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, we are moving towards the close of a most wide-ranging debate upon what is perhaps the most corroding social problem which faces our nation. The House is much indebted to my noble friend Lord Silkin for having introduced this matter in a speech which I think was informed, comprehensive, moving and impressive. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, will acquit me of any discourtesy if I concentrate my remarks principally on the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Silkin. I have spoken a number of times on the land price question, sometimes vehemently. I do not dispute its importance. Indeed, I shall make some allusion to the question later in my speech; but, as I have said, my remarks will be principally addressed to the other elements of the housing problem. My Lords, here, perhaps, I should declare my interest in a professional way in land and property development.
This is something more than a debate on housing. It really is a debate on the problem of people: of men, women and children, and homes for them. It is, of course, the case that the public conscience has recently been disturbed by the spectacle of the homeless—and well it might! This, of course, is one of the bitter fruits of the Tory Rent Act, which set the landlords free to oppress, and the people free to be evicted and to search for the houses which are not there. But, tragic as is the situation of the homeless—and no one would gainsay it—the housing problem which faces this nation is much wider and much deeper than that. It is a question also of the slums, housing 2½ million people; a question of the lack of housing
180
generally, so graphically referred to by my noble friend Lord Lindgren; of the mean and shabby, sub-standard old houses lacking even the most primitive amenities and facilities; and of all the vast number of people who have waited for years, and still wait, for somewhere to live in decency and comfort. My Lords, I am sure that none in this House would question the statement that housing is our social problem number one.
There are in this nation, in truth, in sorry truth, two nations: one living in comfortable dwellings and the other existing in wretched and insanitary, and often indecent, sub-standard dwellings, or the pretence of dwellings. As regards the grim and sordid houses in multiple occupation, some weeks ago the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, gave a mortifying picture of what he saw on a limited visit to some of these houses. In truth, millions of our people, as has been stated repeatedly from these Benches to-day, are living in conditions in which we really would not house a dog. Apart from the hardship and persistent suffering which these conditions involve, with the women fighting a ceaseless but vain struggle against dirt and all its concomitants, slums and bad housing, as the late Lord Kennet (then Mr. Hilton Young) said as far back as 1926, are "radiating centres of disease and death". In bad health and sickness alone they are a crushing social burden upon the nation.
My Lords, the family is the basis of society. How can parents bring up a family of self-respecting citizens in the squalid housing conditions which exist for hundreds of thousands of them? How, in such conditions, can they build a home which is the haven of the family? Should we wonder that, on occasion, their children are wayward and, indeed, unruly? We should hang our heads in shame that such things should be in our midst in the year 1962. And things are getting worse with every day that passes. Despite all our limited efforts to catch up, we are not catching up with our housing needs. As many of the speakers from these Benches this afternoon have said, old, decrepit, obsolete houses and flats are becoming more old, more decrepit, more obsolete, more unhealthy and insanitary, with every day

181
that passes; and more quickly than we can replace them.
The improvement and conservation provisions of the Rent Act, 1957, intended to encourage improvements, have failed to make any adequate or satisfactory impression. Private landlords cannot, or will not, carry out improvements. According to the Rowntree Trust housing study, in the first years after 1957 more improvements were done by tenants at their own expense than by landlords, despite the fact that tenants get no grant and the landlords do. In the last two years, landlords' claims have been less than one-fifth of all the grants made by local authorities. With thousands of these old houses, private landlords can no longer discharge the obligations of ownership, even if they were willing so to do. If improvement and modernisation is done, it will be done by public authorities, who will in any case have to deal with the dwellings when they become slums, as they are doing, at the rate of some 150,000 a year, though we are clearing fewer than 70,000 a year.
My Lords, housing has now moved into the realm of crisis, and the position is deteriorating, much to our shame. There are, of course, a number of estimates, but I think one can reasonably take the estimate that this country needs 8 million houses and flats over the next 20 years—that is to say, 400,000 a year. In England and Wales in 1960, we built 265,000; and in 1961, 269,000—over 100,000 short of estimated needs. Of those built by local authorities, 60,000 replaced slums in 1960, and 62,000 replaced slums in 1961. We are also falling back seriously in slum clearance, as compared with the five-year target set in 1955, to which, I noticed with interest, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made no reference. We are, in fact, over the target for five years, 123,000 short. Public investment in housing has fallen, n real terms, by more than 40 per cent, since 1954—a sharper fall than that in respect of any other service. The proportion of resources devoted to public housing fell from 2·5 per cent. of the national income in 1954 to 1·3 in 1960. The result is that the number of dwellings built by public authorities in Great Britain in 1961 was less than one-half the number in 1954.
My Lords, that is bad enough, in all conscience. But it is much worse when
182
one realises, as my noble friend Lord Lindgren said, that in 1960 only about 1,000 of the council dwellings were built for general needs; and, of the 162,000 privately built, it is estimated that only 2,000 were for letting. Yet, as has been said already in this debate, it is estimated that only one in ten families can afford to buy a house, thanks, inter alia, to the monetary policy pursued by the Government.
The housing problem can be solved, in our submission, only by increasing public investment in council houses built to let. Doctrinaire devotees to private enterprise may not like it, but they cannot escape it: that is the inevitable remedy. It is becoming increasingly evident that the housing needs of the nation cannot be solved by reliance on houses built by private enterprise. In this field landlordism can no longer discharge its function and purpose in a tolerable social way. The acute housing crisis arises from this, and from the failure of the Government to recognise it, and from its neglect to plan and programme on a long-term basis, with a real plan and with adequate controls to make it effective. As with other things, housing has overtaken the Government. The present situation is a formidable indictment of this failure of the Government to deal with the housing problem. Despite legislation galore, there has been no programme and no national plan. There has been over the years, of course, a series of fits and starts; tinkering with subsidy; reduction, and, ultimately, the abolition, in some respects, of the subsidy; putting the local authorities on a means test in respect of housing; making house-building almost financially impossible by increases of the bank rate, with the consequent high rate of interest.
In any national crisis, housing has been the first of the services to be cut, both directly and indirectly. This happened again in July last, when the Government abolished the special facilities for building societies to advance money on pre-1919 houses. The scheme, I understand, was going very well, but the "stop" order was issued and the beneficient results were discontinued. Moreover, Mr. Brooke, the First Secretary to the Treasury, told the House of Commons in December last that there would be an increase in public expenditure

183
over the next 16 months in almost every item except housing. That is a sinister circumstance. The National Council of Building Material Producers say that in 1963 it is likely that there will be a sharp fall in the number of new houses and flats. It may be, they indicate, as much as 22 per cent., a fall of 66,000 dwellings.
I repeat that everything shows that the situation is getting worse. The Rent Act in operation has proved more baleful than even its sternest critics prophesied. Under cover of this Act, iniquitous things are being done against tenants, often illegally, I admit; but the Act gives opportunity to the oppressive and unconscionable landlord. In The Times of January 16 last, there was an article giving details of the tricks and cheating which are going on through the power of eviction which unscrupulous landlords can wield and exercise. Decent people of good will will recoil in shock and shame at the infamous things which are being done to tenants, ignorant of their rights and helpless in the face of being turned out on to the street. The Government cannot escape a heavy share of responsibility for these happenings, for it is their legislation which enables these dastardly things to be done against men, women and children. The Government also are responsible for the sad plight of many of the homeless. Of the 2,000 homeless families taken in by the L.C.C., it is stated that two-thirds were homeless because of the Rent Act. In Birmingham, where there were 1,300 homeless families during 1961, the number had increased by 130 per cent, since 1957.
There is another consequence of the Rent Act; that is, the creeping de-control of all new lettings which is taking place in a much greater measure than the Government predicted. This is taking place at the rate, it is estimated, of some 320,000 dwellings a year in England and Wales, more by a third than the Government predicted. In Metropolitan London alone the number is estimated to be of the order of 80,000. The Government took away the power of requisition which the local authorities possessed. This power should be restored. If the local authorities are to deal with the homeless in a humane way, they should have this power, which was
184
exercised by them in a responsible, wise and providential way when they had it. The compulsory purchase procedure, however much it may be facilitated by the Minister, is too slow to enable the Government to deal with the question of homeless persons and families evicted by landlords. The Government should reintroduce legislation to call a halt to the evictions which are taking place and, what is more important, to remove the threat of eviction which is the sinister weapon in the hands of the oppressive landlords.
This afternoon we have had exposed to us a picture of the grave housing problem, not only in London but also in the country generally, and of the sorry conditions in which people are compelled to live. It is one of the prime obligations of an organised society to provide shelter for its members, shelter which is decent, healthy, comfortable, and worthy of men, women and children—in short, accommodation which is civilised. And it is the duty of the Government of the day to see that this accommodation is provided. Clearly the Government have failed the people in this respect. They have no plan and no programme. They are more concerned with rents and decontrol and what the Minister of the day called "a free market in dwellings". What they have produced is a free market in human misery and wretchedness, with families traipsing the streets in a vain search for a place to rest.
In the face of the shortfall in slum clearance over the five years to 1960, with 123,000 houses short of the target, with a yearly average of 52,000 instead of 75,500, how could the Prime Minister talk, as he did at Brighton in October last, about putting slums first of all? As I have said, the First Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Brooke, said in December that over the next sixteen months there would be no increase in expenditure on housing. That means that slums are not first but last, or very near the last, for slum clearance constitutes by far the major part of the local authorities' housing activities and therefore slum clearance is down in the queue near the bottom. I think that the Prime Minister should know better than to tantalise slum dwellers with hollow expectations. It may be good conference stuff, but it is

185
more than a little unworthy of a Prime Minister.
I understand that the Prime Minister is reported to have added another slogan to his collection. I suppose that as old ones get worn out—or should I say, found. out?—new ones must be confectioned to replace them. The new one I gather to be, "Conservative Planning Works". Really! Conservative planning! When did they plan? They are the inveterate enemies of planning. Did they not win the Election on the slogan "Set the People Free", which in practice has resulted in the calamitous housing position of to-day? The Government should have planned years ago—effective planning, with proper priority and adequate controls. If they had done so, there might have been thousands more of our people living in decent dwellings. That is all we ask the Government to do and to do now: real effective purposeful planning—not pretence, but reality—without shutting it down before it gets started, as has so often been the case in the past ten years.
So far back as 1957, on the Second Reading of the Rent Bill, the Government was urged to tackle this cancerous problem seriously and resolutely. So far from doing this, the number of dwellings built by local authorities has gone down from 137,000 in 1957 to 93,000 in 1961. These figures are one of the measures of the Government's failure, indeed, neglect, which, unhappily persists. The Government should repair their sins of omission without further delay and redeem the promises made to our people.
At this point, I cannot help recalling the promise made during the First World War, when it was discovered that we were very near a C3 nation and when homes for heroes were promised. The promise was not kept. When the war was over and the danger past, it was not forgotten; it was flagrantly repudiated; and the late Lord Addison, who was then Minister for Reconstruction, was ignominiously sacked from office because he sought to implement the promise. The heroes of the Somme and Passchendaele and of the other seats of war were betrayed; housing was shut down and contractors were paid large sums as compensation for not building houses. Then we came to the Second World War. The then Prime Minister, now Sir Winston
186
Churchill, on one of his ebullient occasions, said:
"Housing must be treated as a military operation."
And so it was: the slowest military operation in military history, for, in truth, it never really got started as such.
Then came the next betrayal, which is the main cause of the high price of land, referred to in the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage—namely, the repudiation and repeal of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in respect of which my noble friend Lord Silkin is entitled to every praise. This Act was based on the Uthwatt and Scott Reports and dealt with compensation and betterment, and would have secured that the benefit of social development as expressed in land values would have inured to the nation; it would have prevented speculation and rocketing of land values. In a series of Acts this Government and their predecessors jettisoned these wise social provisions with the result that, as I have said, land prices have rocketed. The City Corporation, it is stated, is being asked to purchase a site from another public undertaking the cost of which is at the rate of £600,000 an acre—for a site near the Tower of London. The Conservative Party were committed to the proposals of betterment and compensation and to the development charge: they joined in the White Paper entitled Land User. This was the second betrayal: and so sixteen years after the war we have the shameful and indefensible housing conditions which have been portrayed this afternoon.
My Lords, this is not a question of rents or of housing units to be moved about like pieces on a board; it is a question of men, women and children being denied decent dwellings and decent homes. I do not think I can better conclude than by quoting what was said in your Lordships' House on April 16, 1957, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the then Rent Bill [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 203, col. 85]:
"It is about 112 years since Disraeli's book entitled Sybil or the Two Nations was published. It is a matter for pride and satisfaction that over the years that have since unfolded the social conscience of successive generations has led to the removal of many of those conditions of seething wretchedness, so graphically described by Disraeli in that book. But is it

187
the case that we have removed them all? No, my Lords, not all; not nearly so. For there still survive among us millions of the dwellings which were built round about the time of which Disraeli wrote. In that respect we must confess, with shame, I feel, that there are still 'Two Nations' in this island of ours divided by the standards of housing they respectively enjoy. The blot of a vast mass of disgraceful housing is still upon us. It is upon our national honour to remove it; to see that all our people are housed under conditions where the sweet qualities of family life can take root and flourish. Until we have done this, the conscience of the nation will remain besmirched, and we shall have failed to do our duty to our fellows."
Strange as it may seem, those words were said by myself, and they are just as apposite now as they were in 1957—indeed, more so. The real tragedy is that we have largely wasted the intervening five years.
9.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord's habit of reading his speeches has long endeared him to the entire House, but when he reads them twice at an interval of five years I am bound to say that we only realise how fortunate we are in having such a master of English prose in our midst.
I think that one thing emerges from this debate, quite plainly; and it is that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was right when he said that after seven years it was high time we had a general debate on the subject of housing and land prices; and the large number of the Members of the House who have spoken has testified to the interest your Lordships take in the matter. Personally, I should think the subject could not be too often debated, and, speaking as one on whom it falls to answer debates of this kind very often, I should wish that it was little and often, rather than have to reply to twenty speeches covering such a wide range as those to which your Lordships have listened.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, if he will allow me to do so, on what I thought was a most constructive contribution to the debate. The right reverend Prelate who spoke was a concealed maiden, if I may use the phrase, because, unless I am mistaken, this was the first time upon which he had addressed your Lordships' House. But he was so coy about his maidenhood that he never really revealed this fact,
188
and so, I thought, achieved less than his usual and proper meed of congratulation. I hope that we may see him again and congratulate him in person on a later occasion. There has been a wide range of well-informed and interesting speeches from a great variety of experts, and with the exception I would say (and I hope I shall be forgiven for saying so) of two somewhat stereotyped Party speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat, I think the debate has been notably marked by the absence of Party feeling and Party slogans. I would particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the objective and dispassionate way in which he introduced the subject.
It seems to me that the difficulty of handling this problem lies in a fundamental dilemma with which one is faced at the outset. As numerous of your Lordships, from the right reverend Prelate onwards, have reminded the House, this is a very human problem. One cannot, of course, discuss the question of housing without a vision arising in one's thought of the human unhappiness which is caused by the absence of housing of an adequate standard; the picture of its disintegrating effect upon family life, both among those who are embarked upon marriage and among those who, it may be, in old age are faced with a housing situation which may lead to their inability to keep house together; the picture of inadequate sanitary accommodation, with which any of us who has represented a constituency in Parliament (as a very large number of us have done at one time or another) cannot fail to be familiar. All these things necessarily arouse deep feeling; and deep feeling, I must remind the noble Lord who wound up for the Opposition, on this side of the House no less than on the other side of the House.
At the same time, as one recognises that this is a human problem, the moment one seeks to handle it in an objective and conscientious way one finds the human trappings fall away. Instead of this poignant human tragedy one finds oneself confronted with a vast range of highly technical and immensely complicated questions of great difficulty, so complex that I would venture to say that ordinary men and women find difficulty in understanding them, and so

189
difficult to solve that they must be understood if a fair answer is to be discovered. The question is how to simplify without being superficial; how to answer a serious argument fairly without seeming—to quote from the language of the Opposition, which is always so happy—like a dessicated calculating machine, and, above all, how to discern the wood for the trees. These are problems of exposition before which anyone may quail. I venture, my Lords, only to make this observation about it; and I will try to live up to it. The true requirement of a scientific age in such matters is that a ruthless application of logic and clarity of thought to a problem is not less but more necessary, precisely in proportion as human suffering is involved; precisely because it is more important to arrive at a right answer than to excite human sympathy, and precisely because, if emotional arguments are used, it is difficult to acquire the necessary objectivity of thought.
I start with one object in mind, and that is at all costs to try to see the wood for the trees, even at the expense of occasionally emphasising the obvious. Behind all this complexity there is one simple truth. Behind the economics of land prices and house building; behind the problems of productivity, materials and manpower, all of which have been exhaustively treated; behind the demands for palliatives and machinery, (which have come certainly from noble Lords opposite), commissions, controls, subsidies, interest rates, compulsory purchase, and now the old bogy of requisition, and planning, there is a single fact which offers the key to the whole debate. That is that we are in the presence of shortage—perhaps, as my noble friend reminded us, one of the last of the great material shortages of post-war years; and, after all, the only way in which it is possible to cure a shortage if, as here, the effective demand cannot be reduced, because it is based on human need, is to increase the supply. It is with the problem of the increase of supply that I propose to concern myself mainly in what I have to say.
This analysis may appear to be obvious. Nevertheless, I think it is an analysis which tends to be overlooked; and in particular it seems to me to have been overlooked in some of the criticisms we have heard from the Benches
190
opposite, and in some of the policies which we have been offered as solutions to the problem. We have been accused of being doctrinaire. I do not think that is fair. We must remember that we have now, since 1945, nearly 20 years of experience of dealing with shortages of various kinds, of which shortage of housing and land is only one. I think we may claim that our experiences of dealing with shortage of all kinds is not based now simply on a priori doctrines: it is based on experience.
It is perfectly true—and I say this without any desire to make a Party point—that Parties have differed about the best way of dealing with shortage. The Party opposite, perhaps over-obsessed with the problem of shortage in the immediate post-war years when the problems of supply were very severe, aimed at rationing and control. We believed that in the long run, and even in the short run, shortage is cured by increasing the supply, and that many of the devices to which noble Lords opposite, when they were in power, were, for the best of all motives, driven, in fact exacerbated the shortage and prevented the shortage from being cured. In other words, they tended to perpetuate the evil of which they were designed to be palliatives.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: Could we have an example of that?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am about to proceed to that, if I may. If the problem is shortage and the remedy is increased supply, we should, I think, in particular, accept at our peril the various suggestions of price control or rent control which have been offered us this afternoon, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who introduced the Motion, and by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who summed up on the other side.
Price control and rent control are, of course, justified in time of war, when building and manufacturing are at a standstill. But neither price control nor rent control are going to bring any more land into availability for building, or any more building into availability for occupation. Quite the contrary. Our experience has been—and we sincerely believe it to be true—that they drive land and buildings off the market. Rent

191
control in particular, as my noble friend Lord Molson reminded us in what I thought, if he will allow me to say so, was quite a remarkable speech, leads to under-occupation, generates slum property, and also causes inadequate quantity of building.
If the problem is shortage—and I again return to this as my analysis of it—you can over-state the issue as between different kinds of houses. It must, I think, be accepted that anything which has the effect of increasing the overall supply in fact reduces the shortage over the whole range of houses, and not only over its own sphere. I should be the last to minimise the importance of what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe was saying about the desirability and the intention of my right honourable friend of producing houses to rent. There are many good reasons for this. There is a perfectly valid distinction to be drawn between the demand for houses to let and the demand for houses to buy. But as the number of families to be accommodated in the country is a given factor at any given moment, the increase in the availability of either type will in fact tend to reduce the pressure on the other, as will the conversion or subdivision of old houses also tend to do. I would therefore not go the whole way with noble Lords opposite in drawing that distinction.
Secondly, I feel that they have been, to say the least of it, incautious in attributing to the Rent Act, 1957, the consequences which they have attributed to it. Certainly my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing has been very slow to state the causes of homelessness, and so, I think, has the London County Council, which at any rate thought it more prudent to conduct an investigation into them before dogmatising to the extent of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Whatever the broad effect on individual tenants may be, the abolition of rent control does not of itself reduce the total housing accommodation by a single unit. My noble friend Lord Molson has developed this point at greater length than I propose to do. Property is not to any significant extent left empty, and that is what, fundamentally, to my mind, is unacceptable
192
in the attempt that has been made this evening to blame the Rent Act for homelessness in London.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it transfers to the more wealthy, to those more affluent, the use of that accommodation which is left, and leaves a bigger problem for the local authorities to look after—the problem of those persons who have been de-housed by Government action.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not accept that either. But what I am saying at the moment is simply that if the question which we are really trying to solve is a question of overall shortage, whatever else is true about it—and it is possible to argue cases or not to argue cases on the basis of individual injustice—what is not possible is really to urge from the Benches opposite more than at best a marginal influence, and I should have said no influence at all, upon the overall balance between supply and demand. And although the noble Lord, Lord Latham, indulging in rhetorical passages, which no doubt he will be quoting again to us in another five years' time—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I hope so.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM:—ventured to call this the bitter fruits of the Rent Act, it was, of course, no coincidence that when the radio authorities sought to interview London's homeless, those they happened to stumble on first were people who, for one reason or another, had come into London from elsewhere, drawn into the Capital as if by a magnet.
Here again, returning again to my basic analysis that the important problem is one of shortage, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that it is this type of reasoning which must surely lead us to condemn any local authority which, in subsidising rents, does not at least consider a differential rent policy, or which in any other way seeks to pursue a policy subsidising tenants who are able to pay economic rents, at the expense of the rates.
LORD LINDGREN: Would the noble Viscount allow me to interrupt? Accepting that in his view differential rents are

193
a good thing for a local authority, would he apply the same standard to the private landlord?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: All I was saying was that a private landlord is not in the habit of subsidising rents at the expense of other people in the way in which my noble friend Lord Molson was describing.
LORD LINDGREN: He takes profit at the expense of other people.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The private landlord is as much a seller of goods as any shop; he is providing a public service for which people pay. What I was saying at the moment was concerned with my noble friend Lord Molson's case, that there is basic injustice in the fact that some people are unable to have the houses they need—in a way which noble Lords from all sides of the House have described—and that these very people should be asked to subsidise those who, with adequate earnings, are enjoying at others' expense, accommodation vastly superior but at the subsidised rent. I say this only because more enlightened Socialist authorities are working out schemes of this kind.
I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Molson that they are right to do so. This is not merely a Party point, because loyal authorities of both political complexions are pursuing the policy which I am advancing. All I am saying is that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is singularly out of date in his approach to the matter in seeking to defend practices which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has condemned.
LORD LINDGREN: I might agree that a worker who has reached the age of 55 or 56 is at a better standard than when he took the house at 25 or 26, because his income is higher. But will the noble Viscount take it from me that building societies will not give him a loan at 56 years of age if he is a manual worker?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: All I will say to the noble Lord since he has raised the question of building societies, is that he went so wild in his speech as to suggest that ordinary people cannot afford to borrow in the ordinary way. All I
194
can say is that figures for mortgages wholly belie what the noble Lord has tried to put before the House. My recollection is that figures for last year were at the highest ever and represented over 177,000.
I am not in the least seeking to minimise the disadvantage of high interest rates, to which I shall refer in due course, when I come to that part of my speech. But I think the kind of wild statement to which the noble Lord committed himself in saying that ordinary people were not, in fact, borrowing from the building societies is not doing justice to the strength of his own case.
LORD LINDGREN: The noble Lord, I know, is not one to distort what I said. I would agree that if you are a local government officer, a railway clerk or a schoolteacher, you can get a loan from a building society; but a building society will not give a mortgage to a bricklayer, a plumber or a fitter in an aircraft factory.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Lord had had more information about the earnings of some bricklayers, plumbers and fitters in aircraft factories he would not have made that remark.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, it is a fact; I know it from experience.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not propose to bandy any further words with the noble Lord, except to say that the facts which he has stated are wholly inaccurate and that the wildness and exaggeration of what he said has condemned him out of his own mouth. The truth is that these policies which he is seeking to defend tend to make less accommodation available, both by exhausting taxable capacity which might be spent on new buildings and by encouraging tenants who could well move elsewhere to under-occupy accommodation which might be made available for those who need it more, which, in effect, perpetuates a social injustice.
Before I come to examine in more detail either the nature or the disease or its remedies, I think I must re-emphasise the points which were made, I think, by a number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Latham; that these

195
remedies we propose must be put into the context of other policies, social and economic, which we are being pressed to pursue at the present time. Those noble Lords have been perfectly right to ask us to pursue, as indeed we are pursuing, a policy for distribution of industry which attracts workers to the Provinces and specifically to areas of less pressing employment. One of the areas mentioned was Scotland but it is, of course, only one of them. Clearly it cannot make sense in our desire to ease the housing problem in the capital to pursue policies there, or in the suburbs, which are designed to frustrate what we are seeking to do elsewhere.
I do not altogether share some of the hard things which have been said about other kinds of building. It is easy to condemn the erection of offices or garages, but, as my noble friend Lord Hawke pointed out—I think his figures were not quite the latest that I have, though they were broadly right in proportion—the proportion of offices and, still more striking, the proportion of garages is such a small proportion of the whole figure of constructional activity that it would be difficult to suggest a smaller one. It is of course less popular to complain of other types of buildings which obviously serve a social purpose, schools, universities, and hospitals, for instance. I am not prepared myself to admit that even offices serve no useful social purpose. People of all sorts work there, possible spending there almost as many hours a day as they spend in their homes. Recently when we debated the Queen's Speech one of the most strongly pressed of the complaints by the Opposition was the failure of the Government to find time in this Session for that section of the Gowers' Report which deals with regulating shop and office accommodation. The basic difficulty about shop and office accommodation in this country is that it is far too old, and you will not in the end make much difference to that by putting in a new lavatory here and a fresh coat of paint there. Yet when the builders put up new office accommodation they are attacked by the same critics for using labour and materials which could more profitably be put into housing. The figures are, so far as one can judge, that
196
out of £2,000-odd million of construction estimated for 1961, no more than £55 million to £60 million is for shops, £110 million for offices and £25 million for garages. I would also mention in passing, and I think I should endeavour to return to it in due course, the direct effect on the problems we are discussing of inflation and our ability to contain it. A country which is not able to stabilise prices or to equate incomes and productivity is, in my submission at least, not likely to achieve a rational housing policy, and equally not likely to deserve one.
The immediate and narrower inference which I draw from all this is, as my noble friend Lord Hawke said, the urgent need to expand the various constructional industries of which building is the most important but of which building is only part, and to improve their efficiency, which is not certainly, I think—I would agree with numerous speakers who have said so—as great as it ought to be. If this is not done there will continue to be a desperate need of accommodation of all sorts, and enterprises like shops and offices, schools, hospitals and factories which ought to be in partnership with housing will continue to be treated in Parliament as rivals to housing; the somewhat emotional will continue to exploit human misery; the passionate and sincere will continue to complain of the effect as if it were the cause, and Governments will be urged continuously to adopt palliatives where they ought to be seeking cures.
I would, with respect, seek to spend a few moments talking about this, as my noble friend Lord Hawke, invited me to do: the real problem of the industry, the real extent and shape of the housing need, the effect of speculation, the real problem of the site values and the shortages of craftsmen—in short the real planning problem. I do not propose at any length, since my noble friend, Lord Jellicoe, has already done so, to stress in detail the extent of the housing need. I only venture to say to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who was much concerned to establish that the situation was getting worse, that the facts really disprove this allegation.
The first and most significant of the facts to which my noble friend, Lord

197
Jellicoe, drew attention was the diminution of crude overall shortage of housing at the present time from a crude million to a crude 100,000. These figures are comparable. I quite agree with my noble friend that to some extent they are misleading, because they conceal local shortages of a much more serious kind, and for various other reasons. But to describe a situation which in 1950 was such that there was an overall shortage of units of accommodation for separate units of family of one million, and a reduction to 100,000, as "rapidly getting worse" is something which could not possibly be justified before any dispassionate or objective tribunal.
I do not think it is at all insignificant that of the various different estimates of the extent of the housing shortage, varying from 5 million at the bottom to 8 million at the top, the noble Lord, Lord Latham, without a word of explanation, calmly took the higher, and said it is reasonable to assume that that is the correct one. For reasons which my noble friend Lord Jellicoe explained, my right honourable friend puts the shortage at 6 million over the next 20 years. I do not propose to enter again into these calculations, but nothing that has been said to-day leads me to suppose, or has given any reason to suppose, that that estimate is badly wrong. This would lead to a figure of rather more than 300,000 houses a year to deal with all needs, including obsolescence and a reasonable margin of vacancies; and this figure, compared with a figure of something like 300,000 constructions at the present time, is not one which justifies the kind of wild allegation which came from the Opposition in its concluding speech.
I therefore turn to one of the worst bottlenecks, namely manpower. I think it is disquieting to note that since 1951 the labour force in the industry has fallen slightly from 549,000 to 535,000, and I cannot fail to notice the shortage of skilled craftsmen to which numerous noble Lords have referred. Since the Carr Committee of 1957 reported, the training of craftsmen has been accepted to be a responsibility of the industry and not of the Government. This is contrary to the practice in most other European countries. In the immediate postwar years the skilled labour force
198
received reinforcement numbering 50,000 adults trained in Government training centres. This programme was ended in 1948 at the request, I understand, of the trade unions. The parallel Apprentice Masters Scheme ended in 1952. Since then Government training schemes have been limited to the disabled
From that time recruitment has, of course, depended on apprenticeships. Apprenticeships in this country start normally at 15 or 16 years of age and last for five years. I think it is noteworthy that in France, Germany, Italy and Sweden the period is normally three years and that there is training in State centres in France, where the annual output is 20,000, Italy and Sweden and to a growing extent in Germany. There is no standardised syllabus and external supervision of apprentices in Britain, although there is elsewhere. In Britain most apprentices are not given formal instruction but they work alongside craftsmen, and I would say that this is not considered an enlightened method of training in most modern industries.
A ratio of one apprentice to five journeymen is necessary to replace normal wastage. I am informed that in no one year since 1951 has that figure been reached, although I am glad to say that in 1961 the number of apprentices recruited rose by about 4,000 to 26,000 which is the largest figure in the last ten years. By September, 1961, there were seven vacancies for every unemployed carpenter and ten for every unemployed bricklayer. Moreover, in the very large firms which if the apprentice scheme was to succeed might well carry their share of the apprenticeships, the ratio of apprentices was not one in five—the replacement level—but one in sixteen. I state these figures with considerable distaste, but I am happy to say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour has recently personally initiated a series of discussions with the building industry on both sides, and that the industry itself has recently appointed a special committee to review apprenticeship.
I do not want it to be thought that this side of the matter should divert our attention from the subject of management. This has been referred to by several of my noble friends—the

199
noble Lords, Lord Bossom, Lord Hawke and Lord Wolverton. It is, of course, very difficult to obtain quantitative figures to support generalisations in this field, and certainly there is undoubtedly a wide range of different standards within the industry itself. But, broadly speaking, it is only the largest firms at the present time which are adequately served by qualified technical staff; and what is equally important is that there is a corresponding weakness in management in all but the largest firms. I should think the only longterm solution to this is better education in management and technology. I hope that this will improve in the next few years.
I would agree that there is at least as much scope for reducing costs and improving efficiency in building as has been suggested by various noble Lords in the debate. I do not want to follow my noble friend into the dispute about modules. I have inquired of the Building Research Station as to whether they still fail to accept in full the case which he argued, and I am sorry to say that they do fail to accept it in full. However, although I am responsible for them I do not intend to influence their scientific conclusions, but I should be most happy if my noble friend would pursue his argument with them.
My Lords, an excellent example of what can be done is given in the Report of the Committee on the Management and Control of Research and Development which describes the success of the development group of the Ministry of Education—and I was glad to hear my noble friend this afternoon refer to a similar group in his own Ministry which is developing. But what is needed is a change in the general attitude to innovation. Probably the major factor in such a change is the level of technological education. My noble friend referred to the Building Research Station. It is, I think, significant that the tower crane, which one can see so much in evidence on building sites at present, was introduced into this country almost directly as the result of the work of the Building Research Station. In fact, I wish they had had equal success in ensuring a wider spread use of the hollow brick which they introduced several years ago
200
and which saves about 30 per cent. of the labour in building with bricks, but which has not been adopted by the industry at all. Indeed, a number of largely imaginary objections to its use are constantly being advanced by those who claim to know, and who ought to know better.
This brings me to various questions of finance and first site values. Here again, I feel bound to start with what I regard as some of the facts of life. The first fact of life is that, as and when the prosperity of a country rises, land values in that country are bound to rise too. I do not think that this part of the situation is either unhealthy or undesirable. It is not only not reasonable, but it is not economically possible for land to be sold at pre-war rates in a country where 1960 wages, wealth, profits and products obtain. If some attempt were made by the Government to interfere with the process it could well create a certain amount of injustice, but in one way or another the facts of life would continue to emerge.
But on top of a natural and healthy rise one has to set an unnatural and unhealthy and, to my mind, broadly speaking, an unnecessary rise in consequence of inflation. If you get inflation in any country you will get a rise in all material values. This is unhealthy, but it is not confined to land. The important thing to recognise is that the nature of the cure may not follow from the nature of the disease. The way to stop it is not to control land values, or to tax them for that matter, but to control inflation. If this is not done no palliative will work. My feeling is that there have been too many demands for palliatives and too little recognition of the real nature of the disease.
This brings me to the question of speculation and, I am afraid at long last, to the admirable Motion and speech of my noble friend Lord Gage. Of course, after any rise brought about by inflation, where there is inflation, one must reckon with the effects of speculation. I personally agree with my noble friend Lord Gage, that the effects of speculation are probably exaggerated as a factor of the situation. Again I would agree that speculation is a thoroughly unhealthy sign. But the cure is also a return to steady prices. Speculation, as

201
my noble friend pointed out, only appears when other factors exist and are at work causing prices to fluctuate. Speculation can make a bad situation worse, but it cannot make an inherently good situation bad. That it exaggerates and accentuates and accelerates fluctuation in prices there is no doubt, but any action which counteracts the tendency of fluctuation in prices defeats any tendency to speculate. One cannot speculate in stable values and prices. Therefore, legislation is not a cure and is not a real method to control speculation, because the real method of steadying prices is to control inflation, to increase the availability of land and the productivity of industry.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, is not that the very problem which the experts in the City seem to have been examining?—and judging by the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, the Chairman of the Midland Bank, that is a problem that you have not begun to solve. If you have to obtain extra supplies and further services and the rest, there has been no way yet of finding how they can be provided while you are restraining inflation; and the more you require increases of productivity and services the more you are in danger of inflating prices.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is one of the reasons why we are so anxious to engage the co-operation of noble Lords opposite in our National Council for Economic Development.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: After ten years!
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would hope that the noble Viscount will urge his right honourable and honourable friends to give us the co-operation that we want.
My Lords, may I say now that there can, at any rate in our judgment, be no justification for paying less for 'a particular site which is wanted for public purposes than would be paid by a private buyer for private purposes. If we cannot or do not keep site values down, there can be no justification for punishing the owner of a particular site which is wanted for a school as against the owner
202
of the next site which is bought for a shop. Whatever excuse there may be in principle for confiscation—and in my view there is none whatever—there can be none for capricious confiscation as between different owners of the same class. The only way to avoid this is to pay market values. I would say that if we cannot control inflation we have no right whatever to penalise an individual owner for the results of our own collective shortcomings.
Whilst think I have gone a long way with those who argue against inflated land values, I am not myself prepared to concede at the end of the day that high land prices reflecting genuine value are necessarily a bad thing. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, we cannot afford the grave waste of land which took place between the wars. We cannot afford to continue under-occupation. We cannot afford to hold down values in the capital of the country when we are trying to pursue a distribution of industry to attract people out of the capital. We cannot normally afford great residential areas in the heart of many old industrial centres, although in the capital itself we are in fact seeking to introduce new residential property with office accommodation.
My noble friend Lord Gage, in addition to raising the question of speculation, spoke about planning restrictions. As my noble friend pointed out, obviously planning restrictions in themselves can only tend to increase the cost of land which is not subject to the restrictions. But it does not follow from this, as both my noble friends Lord Gage and Lord Molson said, that such restrictions are unnecessary. In particular, the Green Belts are, I should have thought, a necessary safeguard which we ought to seek to preserve. But there are a number of ways in which both local authorities and private owners can help—this, I think, may help to answer the question which the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition sought to put to me a moment ago.
We must, of course, bring more land into the market at the right places. We can improve the actual use of land by treating each plot of land available as far too valuable a commodity to waste. Here, design and layout can play a much

203
bigger part than is realised. We can look round for under-used or misused sites, and for this purpose also bring, more land forward into development. If building accelerates, land which has previously been held back—it may be properly held back—should be brought forward in good time to prevent the creation of artificial shortages. My Lords, we can look through existing development plans which are now several years old for plots of land the allocation of which is now out of date. We can again, pace the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, insist on realistic densities to deal with this human problem. We can redevelop obsolete areas as well as slum areas. This can be done by private as well as by public bodies. I think there are areas not so far from the area in which we are debating which come well within this description.
Lastly, on the rise in the price of land, it is, I think, at least modest comfort to say that this has been checked. In the last six months at least the market has been steadier. The demand has decreased and the present trend of prices is not upwards. Builders are using up their stocks of land and making fewer purchases in advance.
I sympathise deeply with the difficulties of local authorities and others who have to compete in an inflated market for building services and land. This is why, so far as local government is concerned, the Government provide the expensive site subsidy of £60 per annum for every developed acre the cost of which, as developed, exceeds £4,000, together with another £34 per annum per acre for every £1,000 in excess of £5,000. We must, however, be careful of framing remedies which either aggravate or are worse than the disease. I was very interested in Lord Gage's suggestion of a weighting of the general grant. Of course, I will report it to my right honourable friend. My present thought is that it would be unjust to the local authorities at a distance greater from London unless the burden were simply transferred to the Exchequer, in which case it would be a subsidy to the South-East (where I live myself) at the expense of the taxpayer; and although dwellers in the South-Eastern counties have to bear these rather heavy burdens, they do have some
204
advantages through living there to compensate for that.
I am a little suspicious of requests that local authorities should be allowed to borrow at exceptionally favourable rates of interest, for the reasons broadly given by Lord Molson, and, a fortiori, of the suggestion made by Lord Meston, which I understood to be that private builders should be allowed to borrow at exceptionally favourable rates of interest. So far as local authorities are concerned, this is just as likely to be a subsidy to the ratepayer as an incentive to more building. As my noble friend, Lord Molson, pointed out. the history of incentives to more building is not a happy one. The high rates of interest at present current are in fact a reflection of our inability to retain demand within the compass of our productivity. The only radical and proper cure is to hold inflation. An intolerable situation is created if we attempt to encourage demand by low interest rates at a time when high interest rates are required to deal with inflation. That would only aggravate the disease.
I would therefore appeal for general support for a housing policy designed to deal with the actual evil. Let the capacity, let the manpower, particularly the skilled labour force available to the building industry, be increased. Above all, let its efficiency and productive capacity be improved. Let the unions and management look together at the training schemes. Let management change its attitude to innovation. I should think that there is enough building work to keep the building industry working busily for 20 years, and there is no question of a policy of "Stop-Start" inhibiting its activities.
Secondly, we must control inflation and hold prices steady, because only so shall we hold down site values and interest rates. In no field more than housing is there a greater scope for the policy of restraint for growth which we are trying to induce the country to adopt. Thirdly, Government and local authorities, and private enterprise too, must seek by one means or another to bring more land into economical use without violating the principles of planning or losing our essential Green Belts and open spaces. Fourthly, however serious aspects of the problem may

205
seem, let us determine not to decide on panic measures designed to aggravate the evils we are trying to cure, or cause others which are as bad as the disease. My Lords, if this policy is followed we can cope, I think, with the housing shortage. If not, I do not think we shall deserve to do so.
I cannot sit down without thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for giving us the opportunity of debating this highly controversial and very interesting problem. I think this House has an important contribution to make to the solution of this problem, and the large number of well-informed speeches to which we have listened I think have offered a contribution of which Her Majesty's Government will not be slow to take advantage.
10.5 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I think I can say at least one thing about this debate, and that is that it has been a far better debate than the one we had in 1955. Secondly, I am very glad to find that there was no attempt on the part of the Government, or on the part of the majority of the speakers on the Government side, to minimise the gravity of the housing situation. On that I think the House is at one. We have, of course, had a controversial discussion in many respects, not least, as one would expect, from the noble and learned Viscount himself. But I make no complaint about that. That is what we are here for: to raise controversial issues, in good faith, and, to try to get them resolved.
I should have liked to continue the discussion, but time is passing, and I think it would be right, after a debate of seven and a half hours, to be merciful to the House and forgo the luxury of dealing with the speeches that have been made. I should like to mention just two speeches, without prejudice to the excellent speeches Which other noble Lords have made, particularly on my side of the House. I would mention the speech of the right reverend Prelate, which was, as I understand it, a concealed maiden speech. I myself thought that it was, but the right reverend Prelate made no mention of it. It was certainly an excellent speech, and I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that I hope we shall hear more of him.
206
I would also refer to the speech of my old friend—I must not say "my noble friend"—Lord Bossom. We have worked together on various bodies for very many years, and I congratulate him on having made a really constructive speech. I hope that the many ideas he put forward will be seriously considered by the Government, because he speaks from vast past practical knowledge and experience, and I think that there is a great deal in what he said. I will not say that from the point of view of his speech alone this debate has been worth while, but, at any rate, there is something concrete in what he said which may very well help to produce more houses, which is what we all want. With those words, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not propose to add anything more, except to thank my noble friend for his speech.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  THE COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE
  THE COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE
  SOCIAL AND PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORKERS
  SOCIAL AND PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORKERS