Sitting of 23 January 1962

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 21st December, 1961, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker:I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Group Captain Clifford Arthur Bowman Wilcock, O.B.E., A.F.C., Member for Derby, North, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members may have noticed that Questions Nos. 9 and 10 do not appear in their proper place on the Order Paper. Questions to the Secretary for Technical Co-operation should have come after Questions to the Postmaster-General, and I therefore propose to call them after Question No. 25, which is the last to the Postmaster-General.
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    MINISTRY OF WORKS

      Banqueting House, Whitehall
      Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works whether he will now make a further statement on the proposal to remove the museum from the Banqueting Hall, Whitehall.
      Sir P. Agnewasked the Minister of Works if he is now able to make a statement about the future of the Banqueting Hall, Whitehall.
      The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): The Royal United Service Institution has expressed its readiness to vacate the Banqueting House. Her Majesty The Queen has approved and has granted the use of the Banqueting House to the Government.
      In future the public will see this masterpiece of Inigo Jones' as it was meant to be seen, for the first time for over 250 years.
      Mr. Parker: Is the Minister aware that there will be general satisfaction on both sides of the House at his Answer? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what arrangements have been made for furnishing the building in its new rôle?
      Lord John Hope: I shall have to consider the details of what to suggest with regard to that. The first stage is to know that one is able to get in there, and I should like to take this opportunity, as I am sure the House would

      3
      like me to, to thank the Institution for its great co-operation over this. No one could leave the Banqueting House without reluctance, and I am deeply grateful to the Institution. It will, of course, be continuing its educational work from its adjacent headquarters.
      Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this result is the outcome of a very long cherished wish on the part not only of his own Department at present but of his predecessors in it as first Commissioners of Works that this historic and great building should come to a worthy use with the free acquiescence, of course, of those who are now giving up their Royal Charter? Is not the Council of the Royal United Service Institution deserving of some thanks for the action it has now taken?
      Lord John Hope: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I entirely agree.
      Sir K. Pickthorn: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any notion of what is to become of the contents of the museum and can we be assured that they will be kept together and be not much less accessible to the public than they have been?
      Lord John Hope: That is entirely a matter for the Royal United Service Institution.
      Sir K. Pickthorn: In that case, then, my right hon. Friend can—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent as much time as we can on that.

      Broad Sanctuary (New Building)
      Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Works whether he will take steps to see that the new building to be erected in Broad Sanctuary is faced with stone of a quality fitting to its surroundings.
      Lord John Hope: I have invited the architect whose design was placed first in the competition to submit proposals for the use of stone and to estimate the additional cost involved. I will consider the matter when I receive these proposals.

      Capital Works
      Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Works to what extent the capital works of his Department have
      4
      been reduced or slowed down in the last six months as a contribution to the overall policy of Her Majesty's Government.
      Lord John Hope: There has been a reduction of over 4 per cent. in the original programme of capital works for 1962–63.
      Mr. Hamilton: Has any reduction been made in the capital development for the current year? Is the Minister aware that the country as a whole has been led to believe that we are in such a mess that everyone has to make his contribution to getting us out of it; and that we should like to know whether his Department is making such a contribution this year?
      Lord John Hope: Yes, Sir. I am giving what help I can in that direction.

      Prince of Wales' Gate, Hyde Park
      Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Works for what reason the Prince of Wales' Gate in Hyde Park was closed; and why this exit from the Park was not available to traffic for a long time, in view of the fact that the traffic notices described the closure as temporary.
      Lord John Hope: The gate was closed for repairs to the road surface which have taken longer than expected, partly due to unfavourable weather. I hope to re-open the gate on 1st February.
      Mr. Dance: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the closing of this gate caused great disruption of traffic? It took place just about a fortnight before Christmas. Will he see that a suitable "rocket" is given to the contractors concerned?
      Lord John Hope: I am very sorry that this work has taken as long as it has. It has been a great nuisance, but I am glad to say that it is nearly at an end.

      Bernhard Baron Pavilion, Regent's Park
      Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Works what progress he has made with the rebuilding of the Bernhard Baron Pavilion in Regent's Park.
      Lord John Hope: I have approved a design which is acceptable to the Royal Fine Art Commission. I hope that, subject to the availability of funds, the

      5
      work can begin next autumn and be completed by the end of 1963.
      Sir W. Wakefield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to many organisations and individuals who have been deeply concerned at the long delay in rebuilding this pavilion? When the pavilion is rebuilt and fit for use, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that the running track and ground around it in Regent's Park is fit for greater use than at present?
      Lord John Hope: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

      1a, Kensington Palace (Repair Work)
      Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Works what progress has been made in the repair work on Kensington Palace; and whether the work will be completed by the end of the current financial year.
      Lord John Hope: A contract has been let. The work will begin shortly and is expected to take about twelve months.
      Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister recognise that an announcement was made yesterday by his Department about the extravagantly increased expenditure on this house? Is this part of that contribution he is making to the solution of our national economic problems of which he spoke in answer to Question No. 3? Does he not think it a deplorable priority sense that at this time, when there are thousands of homeless in London, this kind of money should be spent on this apartment?
      Lord John Hope: I do not believe that I should be making any contribution at all to the national interests if I let a building like this deteriorate any further. It has been deteriorating for over twenty years, and it is high time something was done to restore it.
      Mr. Paget: Is any contribution being made by the prospective tenants, in view of the fact that they appear to be fairly amply provided for both publicly and privately—
      Mr. Speaker: I think that supplementary question is out of order.
      Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is out of order in my supplementary question?
      Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question implied, in its use of the adverb "amply" a reflection upon the occupants of that building. That is why I thought that it was out of order.
      Mr. Paget: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, is it out of order to ask whether a contribution is being made by the prospective tenants, in view of the fact that provision is being made for them by this House and, as we learn, by private contract?
      Mr. Speaker: If, by the use of the adverb, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not making the type of reflection I thought he was, I accept it entirely from him and, in that event, the supplementary question is not out of order.
      Lord John Hope: The answer is, as was stated in the relevant notice to the Press, that private contribution will be forthcoming above the sum of £85,000 so long as this is not the result of what we call building hazards. If we find dry rot or anything we do not know is there, that would not rank for private contribution; anything else would.
      Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one has suggested that this building should be allowed to remain in its present state; that what we are complaining of is that it is to be used to house someone who is already housed—and that in a city where there are thousands of people still waiting for houses but with no prospect of getting them?
      Lord John Hope: I must answer for what I am constitutionally responsible, and nothing else. It has nothing to do with me what use is made of grace-and-favour buildings. I am responsible, as far as I can be, for putting a building like this into repair, and I am sure that it is right to do it now rather than to wait longer.
      Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

      Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park
      Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Works what improvements he intends to make at the Alexandra Gate of Hyde Park, near the Albert Memorial, in order to relieve traffic congestion.
      Lord John Hope: None, Sir, at present.
      Sir Richard Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is one of the worst bottlenecks in London at present? Is there not a good deal of room for a roundabout to be put there, and will he look at this problem, which has been outstanding for a long time?
      Lord John Hope: I am aware that my hon. Friend and others have given considerable thought to this problem, but I think he would agree that it is better now to wait until the Park Lane scheme comes into operation, as that may be very relevant to what we do there.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE

      Aberdeen
      Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of applicants for telephones in Aberdeen who are on the waiting list; and what steps he is taking to reduce this number.
      The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): In the City of Aberdeen there were 109 applications on the waiting list at 31st December, and a further 233 under inquiry or in course of being met. Most of these applicants live on new housing estates.
      New cables are being laid, and I hope that those at present waiting will be given service in the summer.
      Nearly 1,500 telephones were installed in Aberdeen last year.
      Mr. Hughes: Is not that a terrible confession of failure by the Postmaster-General? Does he realise that the engineering labour force is inadequate to meet current needs, that his failure to remedy the men's grievances can only lead to further delay in providing the service required; and that he owes a duty, not only to the men in his service
      8
      but to the business community to see that the telephone service is maintained to its fullest extent? Will he take steps to that end?
      Mr. Bevins: I have not the exact figures by me, Mr. Speaker, but I should be very surprised if there were more than one or two business people in the City of Aberdeen waiting for telephones. As for a confession of failure, I should like to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the present waiting list represents less than half of 1 per cent. of the total number of people in the City of Aberdeen who have telephones.

      Old People
      Mrs. Butlerasked the Postmaster-General what action he proposes to take to assist old people living alone with the cost of their telephones where this involves financial hardship.
      Mr. Bevins: I have considered this idea sympathetically on several occasions and I should very much like to respond to the hon. Lady's suggestion, but the practical difficulties are very real—I will write to the hon. Member about them—and I am afraid I cannot at present agree to differential charges.
      Mrs. Butler: Is the Postmaster-General aware that being able to get in touch quickly by telephone with family and friends—or, in an emergency, with the doctor or the police—plays a very large part in enabling elderly people to live happily and safely alone; and that many are now being forced to give up the telephone because of the increased cost? The right hon. Gentleman says that he has looked at the question several times, but would he please look at it again? If he did, I am quite certain that he would find a way round the problem, and help these people who most need it.
      Mr. Bevins: As the hon. Lady knows, the difficulty here is to know where to draw the line. If this concession were to be made to elderly people who are housebound and living alone I am quite sure that we should get demands for similar concessions from the disabled, the blind, charitable organisations, and so forth. But I am perfectly ready at any time to discuss this quite freely with the hon. Lady.
      Mr. W. R. Williams: May I press on the Postmaster-General that despite the difficulties, of which I am quite aware, there is a real case for re-examination here? I myself have received quite a number of letters which lead me to believe that many of these old people are denying themselves the basic essentials of life in order to retain this, the only contact they have with relatives and friends. Would he be prepared to discuss with some of us the possibility of starting this, on a limited scale first of all, and, if that is possible, to see how it could be enlarged?
      Mr. Bevins: I have already referred to some of the practical difficulties, but I also implied that my mind is certainly riot closed on this very human problem.

      Emergency Calls, Country Subscribers
      Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Postmaster-General, whether emergency calls from country telephone subscribers, obliged to dial O in order to make them, have been delayed by the policy of work-to-rule; and what effect it has had on the time taken for a call to reach the police, fire and ambulance services.
      Mr. Bevins: I am glad to say that the telephone service has not been significantly affected by work-to-rule, and I have no knowledge of any delays to emergency calls of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend. If, however, he has any particular case in mind and will let me have details I should be very glad to make inquiries.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend explain how such callers in need of the fire brigade or the ambulance or police are given priority over callers who merely want a gossip?
      Mr. Bevins: Whether or not we had working-to-rule in operation at the moment, it would still be necessary on certain exchanges for a person wanting to make an emergency call to dial O. It is after a caller has dialled O and the operator knows that the call is an emergency call that priority is given.
      Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of his hon. Friend's supplementary question, consider further whether it is possible for this way of signalling for priority and
      10
      emergency services to be introduced on private telephones and even on manual exchanges?
      Mr. Bevins: Yes, most certainly, we are moving in that direction all the time.

      New Kiosks (Design)
      Mr. Hollandasked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the design of the new telephone kiosk.
      Mr. Bevins: I have obtained some of the prototypes of a new kiosk designed by Mr. Neville Conder which I propose to put on trial. With the agreement of the authorities of the House, one will be placed in the Upper Waiting Hall this coming weekend for Members to see, and others will be available for public use from Monday next at Grosvenor Gardens and at the rear of the Royal Exchange.
      Mr. Holland: While regretting that my right hon. Friend has not found a site in Acton for one of these prototypes, can he say over what period of time he is proposing to spread the replacement of existing telephone kiosks if this new one proves successful? Can he give us some information, either now or next week, when we get a sight of the new one, about costs, so that when we assess the aesthetic and functional advantages of the new kiosk we can have some idea of assessing the value for money which it represents?
      Mr. Bevins: I will see what I can do about Acton. There is no intention that these new kiosks should be put in place of existing ones within a very short period. The fact of the matter is that this new kiosk is very much more expensive than the old ones. If they are to be adopted for further general use over a period of years, they will have to be put mainly in the new call offices and in replacement of kiosks which are more or less obsolete.
      Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when replacing these kiosks, he will pay some tribute to his predecessor, Fred Jowett, who introduced them and who obtained the greatest co-operation of the leading architects in this country, including Sir Edwin Lutyens, in designing them?
      Mr. Bevins: Most certainly.

    POST OFFICE

      Mail Deliveries, Christmas Day
      Mr. Martenasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now make permanent the suspension of mail deliveries on Christmas Day.
      The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): My right hon. Friend intends to review the future of the Christmas Day deliveries as soon as the results of last year's experiment have been collected and analysed; and he will make an announcement as soon as he can.
      Mr. Marten: Can my hon. Friend say whether so far there has been any violent reaction to the suspension of deliveries on Christmas Day?
      Miss Pike: No, we have had no serious complaint about the suspension of deliveries.

      Accounts
      Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Postmaster-General what surplus he anticipates on the Post Office General Account, and on postal and telecommunications accounts, respectively, at the end of the current financial year on the basis of prices, rates of pay, and tariffs current on 1st December, 1961.
      Mr. Bevins: I estimate a surplus of about £17 million in the current financial year of which about £15 million will come from telecommunications. These figures do not take into account the effect of working to rule, since the duration of this is not yet known.

      Parcels, West Riding
      Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Postmaster-General what new arrangements his Department has made for the handling of parcels into and out of the West Riding.
      Miss Pike: Experimental road services carrying parcels between Leeds and Manchester, and between a number of towns in the West Riding, have been introduced. These are part of a study of ways of improving the parcel post service, and follow on a recommendation of a study group which my right hon. Friend set up to advise on the handling
      12
      and conveyance of mails between Post Offices.
      Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Lady aware that so far these arrangements have given considerable satisfaction in the West Riding and that the activities of herself and of her Department are in striking contrast in this matter to the inactivity of the Minister of Transport and of Dr. Beeching?
      Miss Pike: We are watching this experiment very closely.

      Conveyance of Mails (Study Group)
      Mr. Boydenasked the Postmaster-General, if the study group, appointed in July, 1960, to find out whether the arrangements for the handling and conveyance of mails between post offices were the most efficient and economical that could be devised, has yet reported; and what were its recommendations.
      Miss Pike: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on 3rd August, 1961. Copies of the study group's Report are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

      Post Office Employees (Dispute)
      Sir R. Pilkingtonasked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the effect upon the national economy by the Post Office workers' policy of work-to-rule.
      Mr. Bevins: I regret that work-to-rule has brought about some deterioration of Post Office services. My aim has been to keep this to a minimum and, while some businesses have been affected, I do not think that there has been any significant effect on the national economy as a whole.
      Sir R. Pilkington: While most people regret the methods chosen by the Post Office workers, is my right hon. Friend aware that the public are very grateful indeed for the efforts made to carry on the service?
      Mr. W. R. Williams: Surely the Postmaster-General cannot accept all the implications of that supplementary question? Is he aware that many people

      13
      amongst the Post Office workers and others are satisfied that if he himself had not been so stubborn and intractable over this issue there would have been possible a compromise means of coming to some interim settlement of these disputes between the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union, and that there is a general feeling in the country that he has been sitting back and has not been active enough?
      Mr. Bevins: First, I should like to say that I am indeed grateful to the public and to the business community in particular for the forbearance that they have shown in the last three weeks. As to my attitude to this claim, I have always sought to avoid provocation. I have at all times sought to be reasonable. But, having said that, I have also sought to be firm and I shall continue to be firm.
      Mr. Swinglerasked the Postmaster-General what is his estimate of the increased expenditure to date in overtime payments, employment of temporary staff, and diversion of mails, resulting from his dispute with the trade unions.
      Mr. Bevins: About £¼ million.
      Mr. Swingler: There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. Did I gather that the figure is £¼ million?
      Mr. Bevins indicated assent.
      Mr. Swingler: Is it not absolutely ridiculous, from the point of view of economy, that the Postmaster-General is spending more money on maintaining a less efficient service in the Post Office entirely due to the Government's obstinate refusal to discuss wages in a reasonable manner?
      Mr. Bevins: No, the hon. Gentleman takes far too parochial a view. A quarter of a million pounds, or even ten times that amount, is really a row of beans compared with the damage to the national economy that my submission to pressure might involve.
      Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has denied the unions concerned the right to negotiate on the disputes between the various departments and themselves? He is seeking to force them to arbitration on
      14
      conditions that he himself is imposing, and, in fact, he is acting precisely in the same way towards Post Office workers as his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has been trying to do with regard to the transport workers.
      Mr. Bevins: No, Sir. The claim of the union of Post Office workers, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, was based on comparisons with all outside manufacturing industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because that is not the basis upon which Civil Service pay is determined. It is determined on the basis of fair comparisons with outside employment. Therefore, I took the view that the claim was not established. The basis of fair comparisons, which is the accepted method of determining Civil Service pay, is at present being worked out by the Pay Research Unit. I have said repeatedly that once that information is available I shall be prepared to negotiate, but that if the union is not prepared so to wait, then I will be willing to join with it in an application for arbitration. The union is opposed to both of these courses. What it is insisting upon is an interim payment in advance of the end of the pause, and that is something to which I cannot agree.
      Mr. W. R. Williams: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair with the House on a dispute of this sort. I sincerely hope that, in response to what I am about to ask him, he will issue a White Paper reproducing the correspondence and the notes relating to all the agreed discussions that have taken place with the respective unions, in order that this House can itself assess the relative values of the arguments of the Postmaster-General and the unions. If the right hon. Gentleman does that, will he also give us an opportunity to debate the whole issue in this House?
      Mr. Bevins: I think it would be a most unusual course to issue a White Paper while a dispute is still in progress, but I shall be content to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman at the end of these proceedings.
      Mr. Swinglerasked the Postmaster-General what is his estimate of the loss of revenue to date from cancellation of

      15
      parcel post and other measures resulting from his dispute with the trade unions.
      Mr. Bevins: I estimate the loss of revenue on posts at about £¾ million, but of course this will be partially offset by increased revenue from telephones.
      Mr. Swingler: Is this another row of beans? Is it not absolutely clear that sooner or later the Postmaster-General has got to negotiate wages with the postal workers? In the interests of the national economy and of most people in the country, and in order to avoid this wastage, ought it not to be sooner rather than later?
      Mr. Bevins: It may well be that the time will presently come when we shall be able to resume discussions, but what I have been trying to make clear is that those discussions cannot be resumed while industrial action of this sort is in progress or on terms dictated to me by the trade unions concerned.

      Post Office Employees (Working Rules)
      Mr. H. Hyndasked the Postmaster-General whether working rules for Post Office employees are being revised.
      Mr. W. Hamilton: Come on. Working to rule?
      Mr. Bevins: I do not.
      In general, I am satisfied that our rules, if interpreted with good will and common sense, should not cause delay. I have, however, very much in mind the points raised in the hon. Member's Question, and I shall presently be reviewing these rules.

    TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

      Overseas Information Services
      Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will now make a statement on the future development of the overseas information services.
      The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I have been asked to reply.
      We shall be proposing that expenditure for 1962–63 on these services should, subject to the approval of the
      16
      House, be rather higher than this current year. This is because risen costs and expansion at home outweigh the £600,000 of savings overseas referred to by my right hon. Friend on 19th December. For detail I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Civil Estimates.
      Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that this represents a welcome retreat from the position taken by the Secretary for Technical Co-operation on his last appearance, no doubt, in response, we hope, to the pressure of the Opposition? Is not the Minister aware that when allowance has been made for costs, this still means a considerable cut in the activities of our overseas information services? Is it not rather a strange moment to cut these services when our influence and reputation abroad have been damaged by the Government's policies?
      Mr. Thomas: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is fair. When my right hon. Friend answered the Question on 19th December, he said that the issue of risen costs remained to be decided, and that is a very important part of the Answer I have given. As well as the cuts overseas, to which he has referred, and which are in response to my right hon. and learned Friend's call in July, there have been increases at home.
      Mr. Kershaw: Is not my hon. Friend aware that in services like these, sudden changes of policy like a cut one year and an increase the next, are very harmful to these services? Will he do what he can to maintain an even flow?
      Mr. Thomas: Certainly. I do not know that one even wishes to keep an even flow. I hope we can continue to expand these services, but that, like so many other desirable developments, depends on economic progress.
      Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that, in practice, certain projects, like those of the British Council, were actually begun and have had to be suddenly closed, with a great loss of good will as a result?
      Mr. Thomas: Some of the savings in overseas expenditure announced recently will be met by the Council, partly by postponing things which it intended to

      17
      do rather than by stopping existing work, but generally the Council will share in next year's increases.

      B.B.C. Overseas Services
      Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether he has yet received the report of the working party on the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas services.
      Mr. P. Thomas: I have been asked to reply.
      Yes, Sir. The Government, after consulting with the British Broadcasting Corporation, have now completed a comprehensive review of external broadcasting. We have worked out a long-term policy based on two fundamental principles. First, that our effort should be concentrated on those areas where sound broadcasting is the most effective of our information media and, secondly, that the broadcasts should be heard there without difficulty even on the cheaper types of set.
      The Government have therefore approved a major programme of building new transmitters. This will cost over £4½ million and should make it much easier for people to hear the B.B.C. in those areas where we believe sound broadcasting to be most valuable, particularly in Asia and Africa. Meanwhile, we have also decided on a minor redeployment of effort. The British Broadcasting Corporation's services in Russian, in Hausa and in English for East Africa will be expanded, and the Thai service resumed. At the same time the British Broadcasting Corporation will curtail its services to the United States, and discontinue a small service for South Africa and the use of a transmitter in Western Germany. Some further economies will eventually be needed to help meet the heavy cost of running the new transmitters. These are being discussed with the British Broadcasting Corporation.
      Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that, as far as they go, these announcements are welcome? Can he say what the total budget for broadcasting will be in the coming year?
      Mr. Thomas: No; I am afraid I cannot give the exact figure at the moment.

    TRADE AND COMMERCE

      Exports
      Mr. Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade which foreign countries treat United Kingdom exports more favourably than exports of countries which are not contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
      The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Sir Keith Joseph): The information is not available. Our main competitors are all contracting parties and our exports are treated in general as favourably as theirs.
      Mr. Russell: Will my hon. Friend, therefore, say what is the advantage of belonging to this organisation compared with the sixty-odd countries which now do not belong to it?
      Sir K. Joseph: The G.A.T.T. secures us fair treatment in overseas markets, safeguards us against unfair discrimination, is a forum for the discussion of fair practice, and is constantly seeking successfully to reduce tariffs. As a major international trading country, these are all to our advantage.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT

      London County Council Development Plan
      Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now publish his provisional conclusions on the inspectors' report on the public local inquiry held to consider the revision of the London County Council Development Plan.
      The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): My right hon. Friend hopes to publish his provisional conclusions early in February.

      Greater London (Staffing Requirements)
      Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what estimate he has made of the saving in staffs of Metropolitan, borough and district

      19
      councils in the Greater London area which might result from the amalgamation of councils as proposed in the White Paper.
      Mr. Rippon: The new London boroughs will be responsible for important services now provided by the county councils and this, as well as the amalgamations, will affect the staffing requirements. These cannot be reliably forecast at this stage.
      Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend say when a reliable forecast can be made? Otherwise, how are we to judge between the White Paper proposals and the proposals of the Royal Commission?
      Mr. Rippon: The Royal Commission dealt with this question of economy in staff and other matters, and pointed out that the best guarantee of economy is the provision of efficient and effective local government areas. That is our purpose.
      Mr. C. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety amongst many local government officers likely to be affected by the plan for the reorganisation of London local government, and will he consult with his right hon. Friend on the desirability of giving firm assurances in the cases of any officers displaced who cannot find comparable appointments outside the London area, that adequate compensation will be paid to them?
      Mr. Rippon: We well appreciate that point and my right hon. Friend has it very much in mind, but I ought to make it clear, as my right hon. Friend did to my hon. Friend the Member far Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) before Christmas, that any legislation would, of course, provide for proper compensation on loss of employment or reduction in pay.

    NORTHERN RHODESIA

      Constitution
      Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on his proposed new Constitution for Northern Rhodesia; and on what principles it is to be based.
      Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the Northern Rhodesia Constitution.
      Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now give particulars of proposed constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia; and when they are to be introduced.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 19th December.
      Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is great public dismay because this statement has been made as a result of a split between the Ministers responsible, which has now been revealed for the whole world to see? How long is this to be held up? How long are the interests of Rhodesians to be sacrificed because of a feud in the Tory ranks? Does the Under-Secretary know that it now appears that his right hon. Friends have lost control?
      Mr. Fraser: No; that is absolutely untrue. I read everything which is written, including some of the speeches made by my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). Of course, I recognise the need for an early decision on this matter. I am sure that there will be one available to the House and the country soon.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the Government make what we were given to understand and what Northern Rhodesia was given to understand was their final decision in the summer of 1961? Has not the result of the Government's shilly-shallying since then and their apparent reopening of that final decision been to lead extremists in Northern Rhodesia to believe that the Government can be blackmailed and to encourage them to resort to violence and terrorism?
      Mr. Fraser: No, Sir; that simply is not true. What we said, and said quite correctly, in September was that we should review the situation, especially in certain sectors of what had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I believe that that is perfectly proper, and the review has been carried out.
      Mr. Brockway: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this crisis in Northern

      21
      Rhodesia may be determined upon issues between African and European populations over a large part of the continent? Will he convey to his right hon. Friend the desire of many of us in the House that the Northern Rhodesia issue may soon be settled and that the great African majority in that community will feel that it has been dealt with justly by the Government?
      Mr. Fraser: This will be settled, I believe, in the best interests of the communities as a whole and of the territory as a whole.
      Viscount Lambton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that knowledge of what is happening in Africa is confined to this side of the House illustrates the extraordinary paucity of the Opposition?

    THE WEST INDIES

      Minister's Visit
      Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his official visit to The West Indies.
      Mr. H. Fraser: My right hon. Friend does not return until 28th January from The West Indies, where discussions are still proceeding.
      Mr. Brockway: In view of the regrettable vote by Jamaica against federation, will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend the desire of very many in the House that federation may still be established between Trinidad and neighbouring West Indian islands and extended to British Guiana in South America, and will he seek to facilitate an arrangement by which such a Federation might have independence at the date originally planned for the wider Federation?
      Mr. Fraser: These are precisely the sort of problems which my right hon. Friend is now discussing. Of course, there are much more intimate and individual problems with which he has to cope during his visit to The West Indies.

    EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET
    Mr. Pentlandasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give an assurance that he will lay before Parliament before
    22
    ratification the proposals whereby the United Kingdom agrees to join the Common Market.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Stonehouse: May we have an assurance also that a General Election will be held before these agreements are entered into?
    Mr. Heath: That is an entirely different question.

    UNITED NATIONS
    Mr. Wallasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about the recent Anglo-American discussions in the United States of America about the future of the United Nations and other matters of joint concern.
    Mr. Heath: These talks were part of normal Anglo-American consultation on United Nations matters. No decisions were reached but there was a detailed and useful exchange of views.
    Mr. Wall: Could my right hon. Friend say what discussions took place about the purchase of United Nations bonds? Will he bear in mind that at a time when we are asked to exercise economy in this country many people think it undesirable to make this investment?
    Mr. Heath: Both the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government supported the motion when it came before the United Nations and Her Majesty's Government are now giving consideration to the matter.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Are not the United States Government working out proposals for reform of the United Nations in various ways, and were these matters discussed in the talks which the right hon. Gentleman had with the Americans?
    Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir; those taking part had a general discussion about the future organisation of the United Nations. I think that both the United States and we recognise the difficulty in bringing any of the proposed changes about. Some of the proposals, of course, we have put forward in the past, for instance, for the reconstruction of the Security Council and of the Economic and Social Council. We are faced with the difficulty of the Russian veto.

    JAPAN (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his postponed visit to Japan.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): For reasons which the House knows, I was compelled with great regret to postpone the Asian tour which I had planned for last September, including my visit to Japan. But I regard this tour as postponed, not, I hope, cancelled.
    Mr. Ridsdale: That reply is most encouraging, but will not my right hon. Friend agree that Princess Alexandra's visit last year showed that there was a great deal of good will and friendship in Japan towards this country and that a visit to Japan by himself would do a great deal to help the growing friendly relations between our two countries?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I recognise the growing good relations, and, if I may do so without impropriety, I pay a tribute to the work which Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra did in that respect.
    Mr. Callaghan: When the Prime Minister visits Japan, will he inquire into the reasons why those small islands without any natural resources are able to pursue their export and production policies with such marked success and without a pay pause?
    The Prime Minister: Although there is a certain similarity in the character of our islands, there is, alas, a certain similarity in the balance of payments difficulties which both countries are suffering at the moment.

    PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Prime Minister what was the nature of his talks in Bermuda with President Kennedy about a resumption of British nuclear tests.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement about his talks with President Kennedy regarding proposals for solving the German problem;
    24
    (2) if he will make a statement about his talks with President Kennedy regarding the resumption of nuclear test explosions.
    Mr. Gordon Walkerasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent talks with President Kennedy in Bermuda.
    Mr. Reynoldsasked the Prime Minister why it was decided at his meeting with President Kennedy in Bermuda to resume atmospheric testing; and what estimate he has made of the military value of such testing.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister what conclusions were drawn by President Kennedy and himself from their joint study at the Bermuda Conference of the Bethe report on the recent Soviet nuclear tests.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent during his meeting with President Kennedy he discussed the possibility of nuclear tests being resumed.
    Mr. John Rankinasked the Prime Minister what arrangement he reached in his recent talks with the President of the United States of America at Bermuda about making Christmas Island available to the United States Government for the testing of nuclear weapons.
    The Prime Minister: Hon. Members will have read the joint communiqué which was issued on 22nd December by President Kennedy and myself after our meeting. Our talks were private and it would not be proper for me to enlarge further upon them.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Prime Minister realise that ordinary people in this country, who are very concerned about nuclear tests and who have entrusted him with very great power over their lives, would welcome his assurance that in no circumstances will he resume nuclear tests and that in no circumstances will he make available Christmas Island or any other British territory to the United States for a resumption of nuclear tests?
    The Prime Minister: I note what the hon. Lady says, but I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 31st October.
    Mr. Allaun: Since atmospheric tests can be detected by existing means, could not the West suspend these tests so long as Russia did the same?
    Turning to my Question about Germany, if negotiations are further delayed, will there not be a real danger of Khrushchev being replaced by more intransigent men? In other words, is not he the best Soviet Prime Minister we have?
    The Prime Minister: Those supplementary questions raise rather large issues which it is difficult to deal with by question and answer.
    Mr. Reynolds: Since all the experts seem to agree that the Russians obtained no military advantage from their last series of tests, can the Prime Minister tell us exactly what it is we have got to try to catch up with, and, in view of the fact that it has been repeatedly stated by American spokesmen that the Western Powers already have a second strike force equivalent at least to anything which can be delivered from the East at the first strike, what exactly is the purpose of continuing with tests?
    The Prime Minister: The evaluation of the effect of the Russian tests is still going on among the experts, and I would not accept as accurate the phrase which the hon. Member used.
    Mr. Warbey: As the Bethe report, to which I refer in my Question, shows that the Soviet tests produced very little fall-out and were of very definite military value and that even the 50 megaton bomb could have a military use, and since this contradicts not only the declaration of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) but also that of the Prime Minister himself at the time, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that these tests are all a part of the nuclear arms race and that the real answer is to get on urgently with multilateral disarmament?
    The Prime Minister: Regarding the first part of that supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer questions about an unpublished report made to the United States Administration. Regarding the second part, no one is more anxious than we are, all of us, to see if we can make
    26
    progress with disarmament, properly organised and properly inspected.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the horror and indignation which the Prime Minister expressed at the Russian atomic tests, will he give a definite assurance that Christmas Island will not be given to the Americans for the purpose of these tests?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the testing of nuclear weapons as being of military necessity? If so, does he not agree that these tests should be carried out within the boundaries of the nations that think that way, and not among peoples with whom at no time has he had any consultation as to whether or not they want the tests carried out in their territories?
    The Prime Minister: I really have nothing to add on the military side to what I said on 31st October. With regard to the general question, I will make a statement at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister answer two questions arising out of the communiqué issued after the talks? Firstly, can he say whether the discussions about the possible resumption of nuclear tests were concerned with joint testing by the United States and the United Kingdom, or with testing by the United States alone? Secondly, can he say whether, in fact, a request was made by the United States Government for facilities on Christmas Island?
    The Prime Minister: I should not like to go further than the communiqué at the present time. At the earliest possible moment I will make a further statement.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister nevertheless aware that there has been a great deal of speculation in the Press? Is it not most desirable that these points—and at least the ones I have put—should be cleared up at the earliest possible moment, especially the points about whether we are involved in this and whether a formal request was made for Christmas Island? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no further steps will be taken either by ourselves or by the United

    27
    States, so far as atmospheric tests are concerned, before further negotiations on disarmament have begun?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that I will be able to make a statement shortly on this whole question, but I should prefer to wait until the terms of it are ready. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]

    UNITED NATIONS (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister whether the speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berwick on 28th December, on the subject of the United Nations Organisation, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berwick on 28th December, 1961, about the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berwick-on-Tweed on 28th December about the future of the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Berwick-on-Tweed on 28th December concerning the United Nations represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware of the grave concern felt not only in Northumberland but throughout Britain and the world about the statement made by the Foreign Secretary? Will he consider replacing the occupant of this post with someone more fitted to voice the aspirations and hopes of the British people in the second half of the twentieth century?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Foreign Secretary's speech. I thought it very well-balanced and I would call
    28
    attention to the final words when he gave all the difficulties and advantages and said
    "Having drawn up the balance sheet between pessimism and hope, I come down decidedly on the side of hope".
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary openly called into question Britain's continued support of the United Nations? Is he further aware that his speech has been quoted with glee by the enemies of the United Nations all over the world? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to correct the disastrous effects of the Foreign Secretary's speech by saying that in future Britain's moral influence in the world will be used to enhance the United Nations and not to denigrate it?
    The Prime Minister: I will have a copy of the full text of the speech placed in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman will study it he will see that it is exactly what I have said—an extremely well-balanced speech pointing out the difficulties, and the reforms and advances which we hope to make. I think that this is the view of the House and, I am sure, of the country as a whole.
    Mr. Warbey: As the Prime Minister supports the Foreign Secretary's speech, does not that mean that Her Majesty's Government have lost interest in the United Nations now that the "wind of change" is blowing in the General Assembly? As the Foreign Secretary is so far behind the times and wants to see the world ruled by a concert of imperialist Powers, is it not time that we had a Foreign Secretary under the control of a democratic assembly?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has so wholly misrepresented what the Foreign Secretary said that I hardly think that he will expect me to answer him.
    Mr. Longden: Is the Prime Minister aware that blind devotion to the United Nations does not serve its cause and that most people in this country believe that my noble Friend did very well indeed to set out frankly its obvious dangers and effects before summing up, as he did, the reasons why Her Majesty's Government intend to continue to give it resolute support?
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend has said very well sums up the purpose the Foreign Secretary had in mind.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that this speech aroused great consternation among our friends and allies all over the world, all of whom have read every word of the text of the Foreign Secretary's speech, just as we have? Is the Prime Minister aware that the references in the speech to the anti-colonial resolution in the United Nations, which was supported by the vast majority of the United Nations—including the United States—has suggested to the world that Britain is content to ally herself to Portugal and two or three other ex-colonial Powers?
    The Prime Minister: That is a complete misrepresentation of the speech and also a misrepresentation of the effect it has had both in this country and overseas.
    Dame Irene Ward: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a valuable thing to have a Foreign Secretary who has both the knowledge and the courage to speak out both on the faults and on the successes of an organisation which we want to strengthen and make available for maintaining the peace of the world and not just as a sort of organisation which is used for propaganda purposes?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite clear that there is a wide difference of opinion about this speech? Is it not highly desirable that the matter should be cleared up by an early debate, and will he use his authority with the Leader of the House to ensure that the Government provide time for a debate on this subject?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that matter, concerning the debates of the House, is best dealt with through the usual channels.

    UNITED NATIONS (NORTHERN RHODESIA AND THE CONGO)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Prime Minister what consultation he has had with the Prime Minister of the
    30
    Federation of Central Africa regarding the stationing of United Nations observers on the frontier between Northern Rhodesia and the Republic of the Congo.
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister what consultation he has had with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland regarding the United Nations and the situation in Katanga and the United Nations' request for facilities within Northern Rhodesia; and whether he will ask Sir Roy Welensky to visit London to discuss these matters.
    The Prime Minister: Our consultation with the Federal Government is close, but, as the House will know, it is not our practice to reveal the nature of such confidential exchanges.
    Direct Ministerial discussions will be held whenever necessary, either in London or Salisbury as may be convenient.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the Prime Minister aware that it does a great deal of damage to Britain's reputation in the world to appear to be giving way to the obstinacy of Sir Roy Welensky over the issue of stationing United Nations observers on the border? Will he not make it clear that part of the foreign policy in Central Africa is in the hands of Her Majesty's Government here, and will he not say unequivocally that we accept the request of the United Nations Secretary-General to station observers on the frontier to try to ease tension there?
    The Prime Minister: What we were hoping possibly to arrange was for useful discussions to take place in which some of these difficulties could be resolved.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Would the Prime Minister say what there is to hide in this matter? Why does he not agree to this request? Will he not make it clear that the Government recognise that, both constitutionally and in our foreign relations, it is the Government in Whitehall, in Westminster, that has the responsibility here, and not a Government with very restricted powers in these matters? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the last

    31
    two years of this Government, it would be rather nice if we had the Prime Minister operating in Westminster and not delegating his responsibilities to another Prime Minister in Southern Rhodesia?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the constitutional position is that the British Government have entrusted responsibility for external affairs to the Federal Government to the fullest extent possible consistent with the responsibility that we must continue to have in international law so long as the Federation is not a separate entity.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Prime Minister answer the second part of my Question in order to conclude these useful discussions to which he referred and to bring an end to the contradictions which have existed between pronouncements in Whitehall and pronouncements on the part of Sir Roy Welensky in Salisbury? What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to check the very strong reports that mercenaries and arms have been allowed to cross Rhodesia into Katanga?
    The Prime Minister: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is another matter. I tried to answer the first part, but perhaps he did not hear what I said. I said:
    "Direct Ministerial discussions will be held whenever necessary, either in London or in Salisbury as may be convenient."
    That was intended to reply to the suggestion that there should be a meeting of Ministers on this matter.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister clear up the constitutional position? Would he say whether or not in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it lies within the functions and powers of Her Majesty's Government to agree to the request made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: I would rather not get drawn into a constitutional discussion, but all history shows that there is a difference between constitutional rights and the wise way to exercise them.
    Mr. Gaitskell: That is really a most inadequate answer. This continual sheltering behind obscurity is doing the country no good at all. Why does not
    32
    the right hon. Gentleman give us an honest answer to the question whether the Government accept their responsibilities or not?
    The Prime Minister: Had the right hon. Gentleman lived at that time, he would have been a supporter of Mr. Grenville or Lord North.

SMALLPOX
Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the out, break of smallpox.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): Five persons infected with smallpox are known to have arrived at London Airport from Pakistan between 16th December and 11th January. All five had valid international certificates of recent revaccination. So far as is known, there have been no secondary cases to date from three of these persons and only one from the fourth.
The fifth was a girl of nine, who had been successfully vaccinated in infancy. She arrived on 16th December, was admitted to the Bradford Children's Hospital on 23rd December with malaria and died on 30th December, with no clinical signs of smallpox, which was deduced on 11th January as soon as secondary cases occurred amongst her contacts in the hospital. Ten of these have been confirmed so far, and two are suspected; four have died.
All known contacts have been vaccinated and placed under medical surveillance.
Mr. Robinson: While thanking the Minister for his statement, may I ask whether he will join us on this side in deploring the exploitation of this unfortunate outbreak in the interests of racial prejudice and in an attempt to justify the Government's Commonwealth Immigrants Bill?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions arising out of his statement? While we agree that the precautions now in force at points of entry seem both reasonable and adequate, may I ask him why he was so slow to apply these emergency arrangements, since the existence of the epidemic in Pakistan had been known for many

33
weeks and no change was made at London Airport or elsewhere until more than a week after the first diagnosed case in this country?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why we in Britain do not adhere to the recommended code of procedure of the World Health Organisation? Will he consider, as normal practice in future, demanding an international vaccination certificate from all travellers, without discrimination, who come at least from endemic smallpox areas?
What precautions will the right hon. Gentleman take against the travellers who come not direct from such areas, but via European ports and European capitals, and what can he do against the risk of forged vaccination certificates?
Further, while we on this side would not support the reintroduction of compulsory vaccination and a return to the farcical situation which existed before the Vaccination Acts were repealed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we feel that both he and his predecessors have neglected their opportunities for persuading people to be vaccinated voluntarily?
When the present scare is over, will the right hon. Gentleman use every means in his power to stimulate voluntary vaccination, especially of infants? And, finally, will he confirm that there is in this country sufficient vaccine in stock to meet a real emergency should this, unfortunately, arise?
Mr. Powell: I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary questions in the order in which he asked them.
I am not aware of any effort to exploit what is, in any case, a situation which must rightly have attracted public attention and given rise to public anxiety.
Concerning the controls on entry into this country, so far as I know all five people would have entered any other country under the controls which they operate whether or not they were applying Regulation 83 of the international agreement. The controls now in operation are believed to be more stringent than are enforced anywhere else, and they cover people entering this country from Pakistan by indirect as well as by direct routes. They were progressively
34
put into effect as evidence came to hand that re-vaccinations taking place at Karachi were not taking effect in an appreciable number of cases.
With regard to the policy on vaccination, the evidence of recent years is that acceptance rates have broadly been increasing, and I believe that the increased importance which is attached to immunisation, not only against smallpox but against other diseases with which we in this country are much more threatened, will help to increase the degree of immunity against smallpox.
There has at no time been a shortage of vaccine in this country generally, although sudden large demands in particular localities caused temporary difficulties which were promptly overcome. All demands are now being met in full, and over 2½ million doses have been distributed in the last week alone. Reserves and supplies in sight are large.
Dr. D. Johnson: I thank my right hon Friend for his very full statement. Is he aware that there has been no question whatsoever of a colour bar or anything like that on the part of those of us who have been raising this matter? Questions identical to those that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has asked were raised, but they were raised a week to ten days ago. Is my right hon. Friend aware that any hesitancy at London Airport properly to inspect people who came in from Pakistan has been due to fear of the accusation about this being a colour bar matter by hon. Members opposite and has been due to delay in introducing a proper health check through a Bill such as that which is at present before the House?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that a complication in the problem is that the figures for vaccination have fallen largely due to the abolition of compulsory vaccination in 1948, combined with anti-vaccination propaganda prior to that in the Socialist movement—for instance, in the writings of Mr. Bernard Shaw? Will my right hon. Friend consider taking steps on both those counts?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must observe that the same rules govern supplementary questions to Private Notice Questions as supplementary questions to any other

35
Questions. The House has much to do. We cannot have speeches.
Mr. Dugdale: The Minister referred particularly to Bradford, but can he assure the House that all necessary precautions have been taken in the Midlands and the neighbourhood of West Bromwich, where there has been a reported case of smallpox?
Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir, and I should like to take this opportunity of emphasising the great service which the public health authorities and the medical officers of health throughout the country have performed with such promptitude.
Mr. Gower: If, as we all hope, the present outbreak and the anxieties soon pass away, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the more stringent safeguards which he has described, not only against smallpox, but against other diseases, will be sustained at all times in the future and that they will not be overlooked?
Mr. Powell: They will certainly not be overlooked. I must, however, tell the House that I do not think that it would be reasonable or practicable, except in special circumstances, to enforce the stringent procedure which is being applied at present.
Mr. Wade: In view of the anxiety which has been felt in certain parts of the country owing to the temporary shortage of supplies of vaccine, may we have an assurance that supplies of vaccine have been available for all suspected contacts?
Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. The difficulties are entirely related to distribution and I have no reason to doubt that any essential purpose has not been able to be carried out at once.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is there any power to act in the case of a Pakistani seeking to enter the country if he does not have a valid international vaccination certificate? If he were to refuse vaccination. is there any power to force him to be vaccinated or to refuse him admission?
Mr. Powell: There is no power to force a person to be vaccinated. Isolation in the event of refusal of vaccination can be, and is being, imposed, although to date there has been no case
36
of refusal. Without notice, I would rather not say whether there are any circumstances in which, under the port health regulations, a passenger might be returned to a ship or aircraft, but in general this rests upon measures taken at the port of arrival.
Mr. McLeavy: Is the Minister aware that his tribute to the magnificent work of the doctors and nurses will be very much appreciated in the whole of Yorkshire? When this trouble has died down, will the Minister tell the House what permanent safeguards will be applied in future from a health point of view regarding immigrants to this country?
Mr. Powell: From a health point of view, there is no essential difference between one person and another entering the country and there is no reason in the history of recent years to believe that the normal safeguards which this country applies are inadequate or unsatisfactory.
Mr. K. Robinson: Will the Minister say a word about the serious delay that took place before the more stringent arrangements were introduced at London Airport and elsewhere? Will he, at the same time, confirm that although the current figure of 41 per cent. acceptances for infant vaccinations is not sufficient, it is still considerably higher than the acceptance rate when vaccination under the Vaccination Acts was compulsory?
Mr. Powell: There was great variation over those years, but it is now somewhat higher than the average for the preceding ten or fifteen years. I do not accept that there was serious delay in bringing the present measures into force, because, as I have explained, they are of great stringency and, as far as I know, are unparalleled anywhere in the world. Very clear justification and reason were required before steps were taken to put them into force.
Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that in Cardiff, last Wednesday afternoon, when thousands of people were offering themselves for general vaccination, the medical officer of health and others of us had to go along the queues and tell them that there was no more vaccine and that general vaccination was

37
to be stopped? Can the Minister imagine the difficulties with which officers of the Health Department of the Cardiff Corporation were faced in that situation? Is there now sufficient vaccine in the country and in the affected areas, such as Bradford and Cardiff, to ensure that anyone who asks for vaccination may be vaccinated in order to safeguard himself from danger?
Mr. Powell: No system of distribution can cope immediately with a sudden large and unforeseen demand in a particular place, but the quantities available are amply adequate and the distribution is rapid. It is inevitable that if there is a sudden rush steps must be taken to secure that the vaccine, in the first few hours, is available first to the cases of priority. I am, however, informed that in all cases the initial delay was rapidly overcome and that at present all demands are being met currently.
Mr. Callaghan rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.
Mr. Callaghan: May I, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: We have a great deal to do.
Mr. Tiley: As I live in Bradford and the Bradford Children's Hospital is in my constituency, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to say a few short sentences in connection with this grave problem.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. As far as I know—and I am under no obligation—I have worked through those hon. Members who had Questions on the Order Paper, whether they live in Bradford or elsewhere. We have a great deal to do, however, and, I am sorry to say, we must put a limit to the matter.
Mr. Tiley: Further to that point of order. I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to put a new point which has not been put before.
Mr. Speaker: I have much sympathy with the hon. Member but I hope that he, too, will have sympathy. I have to consider the interests of the House as a whole and we really have a lot to do.
Mr. Tiley: In view of the unsatisfactory answers, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND COURTAULDS (PROPOSED MERGER)
Mr. Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up a public inquiry into the effects on the public interest of the proposed merger between Imperial Chemical Industries and Courtaulds.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I fully recognise the interest of the House in this important matter. The House will realise, however, that the issues involved are complex. I am not in a position to make a statement today, but hope to be able to do so very shortly.
Mr. Jay: Will the President of the Board of Trade agree that he cannot leave the matter like that very long, as this is the largest and most important merger ever proposed in British industry and has aroused a great deal of opposition within the industry and anxiety on both sides of the House? Can he tell us how soon he will make his statement and whether it will contain definite proposals by the Government?
Mr. Erroll: I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House generally that I fully appreciate the importance of the issues and also their complexity. I hope to be able to make a statement on Thursday, but if this is not possible I shall try to do so as soon as possible next week. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish me to anticipate my statement in any way.
Sir C. Osborne: Before my right hon. Friend makes his statement, may I ask him to look at the position from the point of view of exporters? In view of the fact that Courtaulds asked I.C.I. to co-operate in the production of a new synthetic fibre, which ultimately became Courtelle, which is the most rapidly increasing man-made fibre in the industry, that the supply of raw materials for making this fibre has been coming previously from I.C.I. and that Courtaulds now can buy it at 50 per cent. of the price that I.C.I. is charging, and since control of the raw material is such an important factor in the price of the yarn and this will affect the exporter, will my right hon. Friend consider the matter from that point of view?
Mr. Erroll: I can assure my hon. Friend that this is one of the matters of which we must take account in considering the matter.
Mrs. White: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the workers in the industry, of whom there are some thousands in my constituency, would very warmly welcome an impartial, independent inquiry into the facts put before both sides, and that we have reason to think that Courtaulds have no objection to such an inquiry?
Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for informing me of the interest among the workers in her constituency.
Mr. Gaitskell: Did not the President of the Board of Trade tell us shortly before the Christmas Recess that he had no powers to intervene in this matter? Are we to take it from his remarks this afternoon that he has had second thoughts on that point, and are we to conclude that the Government are now seriously considering the appointment of a committee of inquiry as requested by my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Erroll: No, I am not going to be drawn by the right hon. Gentleman. I would ask him to await my statement.
Sir A. V. Harvey: In considering this matter will my right hon. Friend take careful consideration of the letter in The Times today, representing the views of the users of these fibres? Would he further understand that many of us believe in competition?
Mr. Erroll: I should like to reassure my hon. Friend that I have read the letter in The Times this morning very carefully.
Mr. Albu: Will the President of the Board of Trade bear in mind that it is not a question whether this merger should or should not take place? It is by no means the first and will probably not be the last. The question at issue is whether the public should or should not understand the conditions under which it takes place and the economic arguments for and against it, so that the public can judge, because in the end it is for the public, as represented through their Members of Parliament, to decide whether a merger of this sort should
40
take place. As this is likely to be the growing trend in these matters, they must be absolutely open and above board. When the President of the Board of Trade gives his final consideration to it, will he bear these points in mind?
Mr. Erroll: I shall certainly note what the hon. Member has said and see how far it can be covered in my statement.
Mr. Thorpe: As a result of the informal discussions which the President of the Board of Trade has had with the leaders of these two companies, can he say with confidence that nothing irrevocable will have occurred by Thursday, when he is to make his statement? Can he also say whether or not he has received any assurances that nothing irrevocable will happen till such time as the House has considered the matter?
Mr. Erroll: I can say that nothing irrevocable, as matters stand at present, will have taken place by next Thursday, because if the matter takes the normal course it will be for I.C.I. to circulate its offer to Courtaulds' shareholders. The preparation of the documents will necessarily take some time. It is, I gather, a matter of some three weeks rather than a few days. Therefore, I would not expect anything irrevocable to take place by next Thursday.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind before he makes his statement, whether on Thursday or early next week, that there are a great many Members of this House who believe that where monopolies turn out in the end to be either inevitable or desirable they should be publicly owned and publicly controlled? Will he take this into account in whatever statement he makes?
Mr. Erroll: I would merely say that I note what the hon. Member says.

RAILWAYS (WAGE NEGOTIATIONS)
Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport what communication he has sent to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding today's wages negotiations.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): As the text of the communication to which the right hon. Member refers is a lengthy one, and has already appeared in full in the Press, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The main purpose of this communication was to ensure that, without departing from the machinery established under the Agreement on the Machinery of Negotiation for Railway Staff, full regard should be paid to the financial and economic difficulties with which the nation, and the railways themselves, are faced at the present time.
Mr. Strauss: Does not this mean, as it appears to mean, that the Guillebaud Committee's principle has disappeared and that in future the railwaymen will be penalised by the fact that the railways have suffered losses for which they are not responsible?
Secondly, as the claims of the railway unions have been before the Commission for many months, why did the right hon. Gentleman intervene only 24 hours before the day arranged for the Commission and the unions to meet?
Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman's intervention at this late stage indicate, as it appears to, that he is not prepared to trust Dr. Beeching, whom he has recently appointed because of his wide knowledge of industrial matters, to negotiate prudently in this matter in the interests of the railways and the nation?
Lastly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's action in preventing the normal discussion from taking place between employer and employee on this wage claim is unprecedented, and that this disruption of long-established negotiating practice is bound to infuriate the union members and make it far more difficult to reach an acceptable settlement of this dispute?
Mr. Marples: The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question referred to the Guillebaud principle. The Prime Minister said in the House:
"The Government accept the objective underlying the Report of the Guillebaud Committee—that fair and reasonable wages should be paid to those engaged in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 643.]
42
That does not mean that after a mathematical exercise in comparability that is that. The Prime Minister never said that.
The second part of the supplementary question was whether I trusted Dr. Beeching or not. That does not really arise, because it is not a question of agreement or disagreement with Dr. Beeching. It is merely the fact that the Government felt it right and proper to make their statement frankly in the light of the economic circumstances of today, because not only have we to consider each wage claim in isolation but we have to consider what will happen to the economy as a whole if all these wage increases are granted and they are greater than the amount of productivity which we have from year to year.
Therefore, I think that the Government have been frank in setting their view before the final stage of the negotiating machinery was arrived at, which is arbitration. All we ask is that when they go to arbitration the arbitrators will take account of what is the Government's view.
Mr. G. Brown: Are there not two things involved in the Minister's statement? First, that he has decided to prevent the negotiating machinery from being allowed to proceed through its normal processes, and secondly, that he has laid down the conditions under which arbitration can apply, meaning that it is no longer free arbitration? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the only conclusion the workers can draw from it is that they should proceed to industrial disputes as the only way to settle their problems?
Mr. Marples: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on either point. First, the established machinery can go ahead. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. The Government have not laid down any terms or conditions. What they have done is to state what they think about the economy in general and what they think the arbitrators should take into account.
Mr. G. Brown: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to believe that? What was the point of his intervention 24 hours before the negotiators were to meet when he issued an instruction, or ukase, that the employees' side was not to make an offer? Is it not clear

43
from that that the negotiating machinery cannot proceed, since he has insisted that any reference to arbitration shall be limited in a way which he has stated in advance? How can that be regarded as free?
Will the Minister please consider the consequences of his action, because if there is no free negotiation and no free arbitration, what is there left for those who have a claim to urge beyond seeking to enforce it by power? Is that what the Government say that they want the workers to do?
Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has based his supplementary question on two quite false assumptions. The first is that there was an instruction of any sort to anybody and the second is that there was any mention in the statement, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will read, that Dr. Beeching or anybody else is not to make an offer. All we wished to do was to say what was the Government's point of view, as freely, clearly and frankly as we possibly could, on what we think is the position.
Mr. Steele: Is the Minister aware that he himself is misrepresenting the situation? Is he not aware that he has instructed the Transport Commission that this matter should go to arbitration, which is the second stage, before the first stage is completed? Secondly, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon, what assurance can he give to the railway workers that the Government themselves will accept what the arbitration tribunal will give them? Does he not realise that he is making it completely impossible for the trade union leaders to say to the workers "You must accept this", and that he is taking away from the trade union leaders power over the workers in so far that they will be able to take power into their own hands because of the Minister's high-handed action?
Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but the hon. Member is wrong. He said that the Government had instructed the Chairman of the Commission. They have done no such thing. The last sentence of the communication reads:
"…the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration."
Hon. Members: That is an instruction.
Mr. Marples: We could have put instructed" if we wished, but we did not. We "asked".
As to the second part of the supplementary question, whether the Government would accept arbitration, under the agreement which was signed by the Transport Commission and the unions neither side is formally bound to accept the results of arbitration. Just as the unions have the right to reserve their position, we as a Government have a right to reserve ours.
Mr. Monslow: Is the Minister not aware that responsible railway trade union leaders have taken all possible steps during these negotiations to obviate any unofficial action being taken? Is he not now aware that the decision which he has taken will be disastrous and that it is certainly no way to create what is necessary at the moment and what we regard as essential in industry—the right industrial human relations? May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that pending reversal of this decision he can expect difficulty within the industry?
Mr. Marples: I do not see why that should arise at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, because paragraph 17 of the agreement signed by the unions and the Transport Commission reads:
"In no circumstance shall there be any withdrawal of labour or any attempt on the part of the staff to hamper the proper working of the Railway until any matter in dispute has been submitted through the proper channels to the higher Management…"
The final stage in the negotiating machinery was this arbitration and the Government have suggested that Dr. Beeching should go there to avoid a deadlock.
Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has disrupted completely the agreed scheme of negotiating machinery such as has operated since 1921 and that never in the history of the railways since then has there been an action such as has been taken by the Minister in this case? Is the Minister aware that he has suggested arbitration, which need not be accepted by either side, before the negotiating machinery on wages has been exhausted and when either side can go or both can agree to go to arbitration?

45
Is the Minister further aware that he has short-circuited all that and that it is inevitable that he will now be confronted with great difficulty on the railways? Is he aware that the railway trade unions have enormous difficulty in applying restraint on their men not to take unofficial action?
Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but I have not altered the third stage of negotiation at all, and that is arbitration.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the railways and the Transport Commission as a whole are at present losing about £140 million a year? Is he further aware that those workers in other industries who have shown restraint in the last few months in holding back their claims would not want to see an immediate settlement in favour of the railway workers at present? Is he aware that a large body of opinion is behind him that independent arbitration on this question is far the best way to settle it?
Mr. Marples: The main thing that the Government were seeking to do was to place their point of view about the economy as a whole before the nation so that it could be taken into account in settling these wage difficulties.
Mr. Ross: Why not address the nation then, instead of the Transport Commission?
Mr. Collick: Is the Minister aware that in passing the last Transport Act the Government gave a pledge to the House to respect the existing railway negotiating machinery? Is he further aware that his action yesterday is a complete interference with that machinery? Does he not appreciate that it is nothing short of nonsense to try to pretend to the House that he has not interfered with it? The right hon. Gentleman knows very well, and Dr. Beeching will tell him if he does not know, that his action has prevented the normal functioning of the machinery. What action does he expect the railwaymen to take in the light of that?
Mr. Marples: I hope that both sides will go to arbitration, as the Government have suggested.
Mr. G. Brown: Since the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly says that he has
46
not issued instructions, may I ask two simple questions? Is the Chairman of the Transport Commission free to make an offer and, if so, if the railway unions accept the offer, is he free to enter into agreement?
Mr. Marples: The Chairman of the British Transport Commission has not received any instructions and, therefore, he is a free agent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The point is that if any award is made my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to raise that money by taxation. Whatever offer is made there is the question whether and how it can be implemented.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have so much to do that we cannot pursue this now.
Following is the communication:
The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission at present has under consideration.
In the Government's view, two considerations are paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961 has exceeded £140m. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government are bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.
The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor has explained in Parliament on several occasions in recent months, and in his letter of the 10th January, 1962, to the T.U.C., the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in incomes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962. when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.
Against this background it cannot be easy for the Government to ask Parliament to find additional funds at this time to provide any increase in railway wages. But the Government recognise that there are special factors which warrant some limited increase in the remuneration of railway workers which should in no event take effect before 1st April, 1962.
In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned

47
above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration.
The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission at present has under consideration.
In the Government's view, two considerations are paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961, has exceeded £140m. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government are bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.
The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor has explained in Parliament on several occasions in recent months, and in his letter of the 10th January, 1962, to the T.U.C., the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in incomes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962, when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.
Against this background it cannot be easy for the Government to ask Parliament to find additional funds at this time to provide any increase in railway wages. But the Government recognise that there are special factors which warrant some limited increase in the remuneration of railway workers which should in no event take effect before 1st April, 1962.
In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration.

BRITISH HONDURAS
Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the armed invasion of British Honduras territory by Guatemala.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): On the 21st January, about 30 armed Guatemalan civilians entered the Toledo district of British Honduras. In the village of Pueblo Viejo they are reported to have burnt the Union Jack and hoisted the Guatemalan flag. Some of them went on to the village of San Antonio and beyond.
48
Troops of the Royal Hampshire Regiment arrived in Punta Gorda yesterday morning and went inland to deal with the situation. This morning it is reported that the band has broken up and for the most part is returning or has returned to Guatemala. The search for any of the persons remaining continues.
Her Majesty's Minister in Guatemala City has been instructed to make representations immediately, and to ask for an assurance that there will be no repetition of such an incident.
Mr. Thomson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is at present in the Caribbean? Will he consider recommending him to pay a visit to British Honduras to investigate this matter on the spot and to reassure the people of Honduras that we are concerned to preserve their right to self-determination and to seek a peaceful solution to this very old problem?
Mr. Fraser: I hope that what I have said will give the people of British Honduras this assurance. Meanwhile, it is a matter for the Foreign Office to make proper approaches to the Government of Guatemala to ensure that there is no repetition of such incursions or incidents on our frontier.

MR. BRAGANZA (DETENTION)
Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will admit into this country Mr. Aires Braganza, an Indian subject and citizen of the Commonwealth, formerly of Goa, who is now detained at London Airport.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): This is a case which presents some difficulties, but after reviewing all the circumstances my right hon. Friend has decided to give instructions that Mr. Braganza should be allowed to enter the country.
Mr. Stonehouse: May I ask how it was that this arose in the way it did on Sunday, namely, that the immigration

49
officials at London Airport refused admittance to this man although he was carrying a valid Indian passport?
Mr. Renton: The doubt arose because the last time he was here he carried a Portuguese passport. He came here as a student. He did not study and was eventually asked to leave the country.
Mr. Brockway: How was it that this man, carrying Indian documents, was permitted to leave London Airport, was allowed to enter a West German port, and, when he came back from there, was refused admission to this country? How could such a thing possibly have occurred?
Mr. Renton: I am not aware of all the facts which the hon. Gentleman mentions, but now that he has referred to them I will consider the matter.
Mr. Stonehouse: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware of all these facts, why does he make such facetious remarks to the House?
Mr. Renton: The decision which has been made has been made on the facts as known to us. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has produced some further facts which do not alter the present decision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, I should like to make a statement about business.
It will probably be for the convenience of the House to know that the business proposed for next Monday, 29th January, is a debate on London local government, which will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper, Cmnd. 1562.
Mr. Gaitskell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this important and complex subject really merits a two-day and not a one-day debate? Is he aware that, although we want, of course, to have a debate on this subject, we do not regard it as nearly as urgent as a number of other subjects, some of which have been raised in Private Notice Questions today? Therefore, I ask whether he
50
would reconsider the matter and discuss through the usual channels changing the business for next Monday?
Mr. Macleod: If the Leader of the Opposition, who has a number of Supply Days at his disposal at this time or Session, would like to put forward alternative proposals through the usual channels we would, of course, look at them. On the assumption that the business stands at the moment as I have announced it, I think that we could have an excellent debate and take the House's view of this matter in one day. If there is a general wish in the House—it sometimes happens—that the time should be extended by, say, an hour, that is, again, a matter which we can discuss.
Sir L. Heald: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give this matter further consideration? It seems very short notice. Certainly, the Surrey Members, who are very much concerned with this matter, will be very surprised to hear—I do not see them all here this afternoon—that it is proposed to debate this subject on Monday. It is hoped to have a discussion about the matter with the county experts and authorities, and it will be impossible to arrange that before Monday. I am sure that we shall all be very much better prepared to discuss the matter, and that it will possibly be more reasonable in some ways, if we could have an opportunity of being fully instructed beforehand. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.
Mr. Macleod: I entirely understand that point of view. I am as much affected by these proposals as any other hon. Member of the House. But, of course, it is also desirable that the Minister of Housing and Local Government should explain the Government's point of view in relation to these proposals at an early date. The House will not, of course, be asked in this debate to take final decisions. It will merely be asked to take note of the White Paper. There will be a considerable number of discussions following that, and also, no doubt, a number of inquiries. I should have thought that it was the general view of the House that it would be as well to take the sense of the House on the general proposals at a fairly early date.
Mr. S. Silverman: While the right hon. Gentleman is discussing business questions, could he give the House any idea when he proposes to bring forward his threatened Motions on a Guillotine for the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and the Army Reserve Bill?
Mr. Speaker: Order. On this limited business statement, we cannot have a general discussion about other business, else we shall be here too long.
Mr. F. Harris: May I support the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald)? I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, before the Recess, when this matter was to be debated, and the reply that he gave me seemed to indicate that it would not come forward with the undue haste with which it appears to be coming forward on Monday. Many of us want quite considerable discussions and consultations to take place before we debate the matter. If it is his intention to get the views and opinions of hon. Members, surely it is better to wait and obtain them when hon. Members have had an opportunity of full consultation with their authorities.
Mr. Macleod: What I said in reply to my hon. Friend on Thursday, 30th November, was:
"We shall certainly discuss it in the House, but I am sure that it should not be this side of the Christmas Recess. There are many hon. Members who want to study it before they express their views."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 629.]
That is getting on for two months ago.
There have been a considerable number of local discussions on these matters. I shall be glad to consider the matter if the Opposition wish to have discussions through the usual channels, but I should have thought that, without commitment—we are asking the House merely to take note of the White Paper—there would be considerable advantage in having at this early stage the Minister of Housing and Local Government expound the details of the Government's attitude towards these proposals.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there seems to be quite a feeling on both sides of the
52
House that the debate would be rather premature if we were to take it as soon as next week and that this really does not fit in with what I recollect he told the House a little before Christmas—at least, the general impression that he gave us? Did I understand him to suggest that we might discuss the matter with a view to substituting a Supply Day on Monday and taking the debate on London government a little later? Will he also bear in mind later what I said about the desirability of a two-day debate when hon. Members have had a chance to study and consult on these tremendously important issues?
Mr. Macleod: I shall be glad to discuss the possibility of substitution through the usual channels, but I cannot undertake, though I have said that I would be prepared to consider whether we should discuss it next Monday or at a later date, to offer two days of Government time for the subject, although an extension of time might be permitted.
Dame Irene Ward: If my right hon. Friend finds himself in any difficulty about next Monday's debate, is he aware that the North-East Coast is waiting to hear about the Boundary Commission's Report on its problems? If he really wants to discuss local government then, would it not be possible to tell us what is to happen to us?
Mr. Macleod: I cannot tell my hon. Friend what is to happen to her at this precise moment.

EXPORT CONTRACTS (FINANCING)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With permission, I wish to inform the House that as a result of discussions between the Bank of England and leading banks and insurance companies, details are being announced today of new arrangements for the finance of export contracts which are covered by a direct bank guarantee given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
The London Clearing Banks and the Scottish Banks have agreed to provide finance for export contracts at a fixed rate of 5½ per cent. for terms between three and five years, while a group of member companies of the British Insurance Association have agreed to lend up

53
to a total of £100 million at a fixed rate of 6½ per cent. where finance in excess of five years is needed.
The effect of this arrangement is twofold. First, it means that medium-term finance for exports will now be available at fixed rates more favourable than the present rates. Second, it means that substantial funds will be available to fill the gap between the period of up to five years post-shipment, which the banks are normally prepared to cover, and the longer terms which are normally more suitable for insurance companies.
These arrangements represent a notable advance on the present position. For the first time the banks as well as the insurance companies will adopt a general practice of providing export finance at a fived rate, irrespective of fluctuations in Bank Rate. Moreover, the rates will be markedly better than those obtainable at present. Thus, whereas bank credit would at present generally cost 1 per cent. above Bank Rate and would change as Bank Rate changed, it will, if it is provided under these arrangements, cost 5½ per cent. fixed. Only, therefore, if Bank Rate were to fall to 4 per cent. or lower would the normal overdraft rate be better than the rate now proposed; and even then the borrower might well prefer 5½ per cent. fixed to 5 per cent, fluctuating with Bank Rate.
The participation of the insurance companies in these arrangements will not only, as I have said, provide a significant amount of longer-term finance, but will also ensure that it is available at about 1 per cent. less than is at present the case. They are to set up a special company to handle this business for them.
These arrangements are to run for a period of five years in the first instance. The Government warmly welcome the action of the banks and insurance companies in making them possible. I hope that other institutions, including, for example, those responsible for pension funds, will feel able in time to participate, so increasing the total amount of finance available.
Mr. Mitchison: I have three questions to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If this means that the Lazard Consortium, formed in April with the banks advancing, in that case,
54
up to seven years, has broken down, or has proved insufficient, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether that situation has arisen over a question of interest or over a question of finding enough money?
Secondly, is it not the position that, if the Bank Rate were anything like what it was before the right hon. and learned Gentleman's emergency measures, exporters would be paying a higher rate of interest under this arrangement than they would be paying on the fixed rate and, therefore, is this not merely a measure for protecting exporters against the Chancellor's own emergency measures and against the Government's continual use of the Bank Rate as a weapon in their financial arrangements?
Thirdly, while we welcome any help that can be given to exporters, and see the reason for it, does this mean that the Chancellor is to do nothing about other suggestions that have been made—such as that, for instance, made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for a central export agency to help small exporters in the exporting and marketing of their products, or for arrangements for dealing with those trades whose reluctance to export is extraordinarily marked?
Mr. Lloyd: These new arrangements are meant to improve upon and to supplement existing arrangements. It is not the case that even if the Bank Rate were what it was before I introduced the emergency measures these arrangements would not be advantageous. They will be advantageous even at a time when the Bank Rate is 4½ per cent. This represents a definite step forward. It marks definite progress. The help to exporters is that they will be able to have fixed rates for a period of years. The other important point is that, for the first time, the insurance companies are coming in for the period of from five to ten years.
Certainly, the other proposals mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be looked at. These arrangements do not exclude a variety of other proposals which are being discussed.
Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether a switching of banking and insurance funds on

55
this scale for export financing means that there will be more limited facilities at home, particularly in the City of London, for money for the large speculative operations that have been going on for some time?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that it is for me to speculate on that position. These arrangements are, for me, a welcome diversion of funds for export purposes.
Sir J. Duncan: While welcoming the statement, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make it clear that there is no element of Government subsidy in this, so that there will be no reason for foreign countries to extend export credit facilities to their nationals?
Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that point to the attention of the House. There is no element of public subsidy in these arrangements. That is an important point to their advantage.
Mr. Jay: While these rates may perhaps be lower than they were previously under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's régime, does not he agree that they are still higher than those in many of our industrial competitor countries? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, during our last debate on this subject, promised to look into this matter of interest rates. As they still remain a handicap on our exports, cannot he look again at this matter from that point of view? Even if he cannot change his whole interest rate policy, cannot he at least make it not hamper our exports when compared with other countries?
Mr. Lloyd: I think that these arrangements will put our exporters in a reasonably competitive position. There are some countries where interest rates for exports are cheaper than in other countries, but I should point out that in those countries the interest rates for home investment are very much higher. It is quite untrue to say that at the present time we are overall, comparatively, a very high interest rate country.
Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by heavy industry, par
56
ticularly the shipbuilding industry, which often has to face interest rates as much as 2 or 3 per cent. higher than those in other countries? May I ask him whether he is satisfied that the figure of £100 million is sufficient for large capital items which are financed for more than five years?
Mr. Lloyd: I am advised that this sum of money will go a long way to meet the need. As I have already said, I hope that other institutions, including those responsible for pension funds, will in time be able to participate and add to the £100 million.
Mr. Albu: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that there is no element of subsidy in this mean that his request to other institutions to contribute is an invitation to pensioners to subsidise British exports?
Mr. Lloyd: Not at all. I am really putting this forward as a suggestion for the wise use of funds available. I would hope that those responsible for the management of pension funds may find this a suitable rate of interest to earn on their funds, and that they may use their funds for this purpose.

INDONESIA (SUSPENSION OF ARMS SUPPLIES)
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on arms for Indonesia.
Her Majesty's Government are gravely concerned by the dangerous tension between Indonesia and the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea. It is the firm hope of Her Majesty's Government that a negotiated settlement will be reached and they are supporting the steps being taken to this end. They are accordingly most anxious not to do anything at this delicate stage which might increase tension in the area or in any way add to the possibility of armed conflict.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided, as a temporary measure and until the situation over West New Guinea has clarified, that, apart from completing an outstanding order for

57
ground radar, they must suspend the export of arms and military equipment from Britain to Indonesia.
Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all recognise that the fact that these shipments have been going on until the last few hours has been the result of muddle rather than malice on the part of the Foreign Office, and that there is no intention to exacerbate the situation in the Far East? In view of the fact that this sort of thing is always happening, as was evidenced by other matters before Christmas—for instance, the Swiss Agreement and the case of the Swedish newspapers—will the right hon. Gentleman have an inquiry undertaken into the efficiency of his Department to see how this sort of situation can come about?
In view of the great concern about this situation, will Her Majesty's Government make it clear that they strongly support the efforts made by U Thant, the acting Secretary-General of the United Nations, to mediate in this matter?
Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. We strongly support the efforts made by U Thant in this case and will do everything we can to assist them. We hope that they come to a speedy and successful conclusion.
I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means by his accusation of muddle in this matter. The basis on which arms have been supplied to Indonesia for the past few years has been perfectly well understood. As far as I know, neither he nor his right hon. Friends have challenged it. If he is referring to the question of two aircraft which have been delivered to Indonesia recently, the facts are that, at the time of the naval incident on 15th January which has led to the Government's decision, these two aircraft were already the property of the Government of Indonesia, and, in weighing up the matter, Her Majesty's Government have decided that, as this was the case, the aircraft should be delivered to Indonesia. That was the reason for that decision. There is no muddle whatever.
If the right hon. Gentleman is ever so fortunate as to hold office in the Foreign Office, he will be proud of the efficiency of the service he receives.
Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that the Foreign
58
Office knew all along, right from the time when this West Irian problem became an acute issue, long before Christmas, that these shipments were continuing and that it did nothing about it until the action today? Is he saying that the Foreign Office decided to allow the shipments to continue until today? As on Boxing Day the Ministry of Defence moved so fast in view of a rumour about Kuwait, without any evidence, why has it taken so long to act in this case?
Mr. Heath: The problem of West New Guinea has been a problem of tension for many years, not just for the past few weeks. In these cases it is always difficult to decide whether Her Majesty's Government should supply arms in a limited manner to the Government concerned. The general view on both sides of the House has been that, rather than exert pressure of the kind which automatically leads the Government concerned to get its arms from the Soviet bloc, the Western Powers should continue to supply arms to Indonesia. That situation remained until the incident of violence on 15th January.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Did the conditions for the supply of British arms to Indonesia, which he mentioned, include an assurance that they would not be used for aggressive purposes?
Mr. Heath: As my hon. Friend knows, members of the Indonesian Government have repeatedly given assurances in public, not only to our own Government but to the Australian Government, that they would not try to solve this problem by force.

RAILWAYS (WAGE NEGOTIATIONS)
Mr. Strauss: I seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the disruptive intervention of the Minister of Transport in the negotiations between the British Transport Commission and the railway unions.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) asks leave to

59
move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of public importance, namely,
the disruptive intervention of the Minister of Transport in the negotiations between the British Transport Commission and the railway unions.
I would like some help about the facts. Is it not the fact that the relevant parties are meeting today to discuss whatever it is they discuss?
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): It might assist you and the House, Mr. Speaker, if I say that the Transport Commission and the unions are due to meet this afternoon to discuss the matter.
Mr. Strauss: The unions and the Commission are meeting because they arranged to meet, but, quite plainly, when they meet both will be aware that they will have to adjourn, because the Commission has said that instead of there being discussions there is to be arbitration.
Mr. Speaker: I follow the argument, but it presents a difficulty for the Chair. I have no doubt that the appropriate or inappropriate character of the epithet "disruptive" is a matter in issue, so I cannot treat that as something definite. I assume that at the moment no one is in a position to say, with sufficient definition to assist the Chair, what the effect of the intervention is, or will be, while the parties are actually meeting. No doubt that is a matter for argument between the two sides of the House.
I cannot find anything approaching a precedent for allowing an application of this kind while the parties are still in apparently active discussion. I am definitely not ruling about it, in order that the right hon. Gentleman should hear what I am saying in case he should want to submit something about it. At present, it appears that the parties are meeting—for what reason it would not
60
be right for me to speculate. While they are, the effect of the Minister's intervention would seem to be quite indefinite from my point of view.
Mr. Strauss: Supposing it is found that, as a result of the Minister's intervention, discussions are abruptly brought to an end and no effective meeting takes place today, would I be in order in submitting to you tomorrow, Sir, a similar Motion for the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: I would rather rule about that when the occasion arises, that is to say, tomorrow, in the light of the circumstances then. I hope that nothing I say will give any encouragement to anybody to think that some disruptive process is going on. I do not mean that. I would not like by contrast to have committed myself to saying that this is the only point on which it may be that this application would have to be rejected today. My view is that in present circumstances, for the reason I have indicated, I should not put the matter to the House.
Mr. Albu: May I put to you a further point which is relevant to the difficulty in which you find yourself, Mr. Speaker? I gather that if the Minister had given a direction which had made it quite clear what the actions of the Commission were to be, that would have been a definite matter on which you could have ruled, but that you find yourself in difficulty because the Minister has given only advice and so the matter is still open, as it were. May I put it to you that that is not the case? The Minister's advice has been shown time and time again, for instance, by a Select Committee to be equivalent to giving a direction to the board of a nationalised industry.
Mr. Speaker: I have not been proceeding on the kind of distinction which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has in mind. I am sorry if I did not make myself plain.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.37 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is designed to effect a number of changes in the administration of criminal justice in the courts of England and Wales. It would not be right to describe the changes as revolutionary; but they are important. As the majority of them will have the effect of expediting the trial of criminal charges, I hope that they will meet with the approval of the whole House.
  The changes are based on the recommendations of an Inter-departmental Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Streatfeild. That Committee was appointed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has always taken a keen interest in this subject. Its Report was presented to Parliament in February, last year. I think that it is an indication of the thoroughness with which it did its work that we are able to bring to the House a Measure giving legislative effect to those of its recommendations which require legislation within less than twelve months of the Report's presentation.
  I should like to express our gratitude to the Chairman and members of that Committee for the excellent work which they have done. Governments are from time to time criticised for failing to act on the recommendations of the committees which they set up. Indeed, it is sometimes alleged that Governments set up committees merely to avoid taking action. No such charge or criticism can be made of the Government in this instance.
  The Committee's terms of reference fell into two parts. It was asked to review the present arrangements in England and Wales for bringing persons to trial and, no less important, to review the arrangements
  "for providing the courts with the information necessary to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders, and to
  62
  consider whether, having regard to the desirability of ensuring that cases are brought before the courts and disposed of expeditiously, any changes are required in these arrangements or in those for the dispatch of business by the courts."
  The Committee made some ten recommendations under the second part of its terms of reference, and several of those ten recommendations were sub-divided. In all, there were some 25 separate recommendations that fell to be considered by the Government. The Government welcome and endorse the Committee's approach to its terms of reference as it is reflected in these recommendations, and we are now studying ways and means of giving effect to them.
  Only one of them, however, requires legislation, and that is dealt with in Clause 14, the effect of which will be to enable a court of assize or quarter sessions which adjourns a case to enable inquiries to be made in order to determine the most suitable method of dealing with a convicted person to order the case to be resumed by another competent court if this will enable it to be disposed of more quickly.
  Under the existing procedure there is difficulty about adjourning a case after conviction before a court of quarter sessions which sits four times a year, and sometimes in doing so after conviction at assizes. A three months' adjournment to the next quarter sessions may be unnecessarily long and if the case is tried at the last town on an assize, the adjournment may have to be of too short a period to serve a useful purpose.
  The difficulty with regard to quarter sessions will be largely overcome by the proposals to which I shall refer later of having what I may call "continuous" quarter sessions, but the Streatfeild Committee felt, and we feel, that the court of assize or quarter sessions should have power, if it will enable the case to be dealt with more speedily, to send it for sentence to another competent court.
  I have mentioned this Clause first, not because I think it is entitled to pride of place, and still less because I wish to brush it aside, but to clear the way for the review of the other provisions of the Bill which form its main content.
  These provisions give effect to the recommendations made by the Committee under the first of the two heads of its terms of reference, namely, to review

  63
  the present arrangements in England and Wales for bringing to trial persons charged with criminal offences, by which, of course, is meant trial at courts of assize and quarter sessions.
  Under this head the main preoccupation of the Committee was with the length of time which accused persons spend awaiting trial and sentence, and the Committee had before it the results of an inquiry by the Home Office Research Unit which disclosed that in some cases these periods are at present far too long.
  The figures which the Streatfeild Committee give in its Report relate to 1957, but, as the Committee says, it is not thought that the general pattern has changed significantly since then. These figures, which are set out on pages 4 and 5 of the Report, show that the average waiting period before trial was five weeks; but it can range from less than two weeks to over four months.
  In 1957 over 1,200 people waited more than three months, and 400 for more than four months before being tried.
  Forty per cent. of those committed for trial are committed in custody and not on bail. Of those committed, 76 per cent. pleaded guilty at their trial. Of the remaining 24 per cent. who pleaded not guilty, 7 per cent., that is to say, 1,700, were committed in custody. Of these 1,700, 300 were subsequently acquitted after having spent varying lengths of time in custody awaiting trial.
  We can all agree that the time spent in awaiting trial should be reduced so far as is consistent with the need to secure a fair and proper trial and proper administration. I refer to administration, because, as the Streatfeild Committee points out
  "a criminal court is a complex mechanism and careful arrangement of the business is necessary to ensure that the work is done with efficiency and economy. A trial involves not only a court with the necessary jurisdiction but also jurors (who have to be summoned some time in advance) witnesses, counsel and solicitors, prison escorts, police and court officials."
  Some delay in bringing a man to trial after the committal proceedings have concluded is usually necessary, for the defence wants time to prepare the
  64
  defence after it has heard the case for the prosecution at the magistrates' court, and sometimes the prosecution too wants time to do further work. But the delay should, in my submission, be kept to the minimum, for, as the Streatfeild Committee points out,
  "all the benefits which flow from justice being done will be more potent if it is done quickly."
  The longer the wait, the staler the evidence and the more clouded the recollection of witnesses. Finally, it is in principle undesirable that the accused, whether in the event he prove guilty or not, should be kept waiting for the court's verdict any longer than is necessary.
  The Streatfeild Committee came to the conclusion, which the Government accept, that the object to be aimed at was a procedure which resulted in no man being kept waiting, save in the most exceptional cases, more than eight weeks. For this purpose the Committee recommended changes both in the procedure of the courts and in their jurisdiction.
  The changes the Committee has recommended in procedure derive from the conclusion, reached in the light of the evidence presented to it, that the waiting period of eight weeks was in fact as a general rule achieved in respect of proceedings brought before what may be called the courts in continuous session, that is to say, the Central Criminal Court, London and Middlesex Sessions, and the two Crown Courts at Liverpool and Manchester.
  The Committee reached the conclusion, natural in the circumstances, that similar results would follow if assizes and quarter sessions were, so far as was practicable, also converted into courts which sat throughout the year. It did not, however, take what might seem to be the obvious course, namely, of recommending an extension of the Crown Courts.
  I do not want on this occasion to go in any detail into the objections which the Committee saw to that system or to balance them against its undoubted merits. I will only say that a radical extension of the system—and a radical extension would have been inevitable—would have involved discarding the traditional assize system in the form in which we know it; and it did not seem to the Government that so drastic a

  65
  step as this was necessary if the assize system itself could be reorganised and brought up to date. We are satisfied that this reorganisation is practicable. Indeed, arrangements have already been made for revised itineraries to be brought into force during the next legal term, provided, of course, that this Bill has by then been brought into force.
  The arrangements that have been made require the legislative changes which are made by the first three Clauses of the Bill. First, Clause 1 increases the number of High Court judges by adding five to the present statutory maximum of 48. It is not the intention that all the five judges to be appointed by virtue of this provision should be assigned to the Queen's Bench Division for the purpose of working what my noble Friend in another place called the new Streatfeild itineraries, or even that all five vacancies should necessarily be filled at once. But, as my hon. Friend said, it is important that there should be some reserve for contingencies, and that he should be in a position to take account of the needs of the other Divisions of the High Court, in particular the Divorce Division, where, as the House knows, it is the intention to replace the divorce commissioners by High Court judges as opportunity occurs.
  Clause 2 provides for the appointment of assistant clerks of assize which will be necessary when the circuits are split into two. Clause 3 enables a high sheriff to be appointed for the Sheffield Assize Division which will be known as Hallamshire, and the need for it springs from the new arrangements which have been made for the assizes on the North-Eastern Circuit, as a result of which Leeds and Sheffield Assizes will be sitting simultaneously.
  The procedural changes proposed for courts of quarter session are made by Clause 4, the principal effect of which is to enable those courts to be free to arrange their sittings to the best possible advantage and to dispose of cases with the least possible delay. The only condition—I will not call it a restriction—to which they will be subject is the provision in subsection (1) that they should be held at least four times a year. Although these courts will, therefore, sit as often as is necessary—some may even be virtually in continual session—it will continue to be appropriate for them to
  66
  retain their ancient title of "quarter sessions".
  The other procedural changes designed to expedite the trial of persons committed by magistrates' courts are contained in Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill, which deal with the committal itself. Clause 12 implements two recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee. Subsection (1) permits committal of a case to a sitting of assizes or quarter sessions already in progress. Subsection (2) extends the power of magistrates to commit a case to assizes instead of quarter sessions so as to include among the grounds entitling them to take this course the fact that the trial is likely to be a long one.
  Clause 13 extends the procedure known as the "convenient court procedure", in the first place by extending it to committals for sentence and in the second place by imposing on the magistrates the duty to commit to a more convenient court if the case would be unlikely to be dealt with within eight weeks if it were committed, in accordance with the general rule, to the assizes or quarter sessions for their area.
  I have now dealt with the principal Clauses of the Bill altering the procedure relating to committal to assizes and quarter sessions and to trial at assizes and quarter sessions. I will now turn to the provision dealing with the jurisdiction of the courts.
  These provisions are contained in Clause 10 and the Second and Third Schedules of the Bill. Their effect is to give quarter sessions jurisdiction to try some offences at present triable only at assizes, thus relieving the work of the assizes; and to give courts of summary jurisdiction power to try cases at present triable only on indictment, thus relieving both assizes and quarter sessions. The Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee, and I do not think it necessary for me, at this stage, to go in any detail into the reasons, set out in the Committee's Report, for the changes which it is proposed to make.
  These, then, are the principal changes which it is proposed to make in the procedure and jurisdiction of the criminal courts. The Bill also contains a number of miscellaneous reforms of the law. Clause 5, for example, provides that no

  67
  one may be elected chairman of county quarter sessions unless he is legally qualified, and Clause 7 deals with the appointment of deputy recorders and assistant recorders, enlarging the power of the recorder to make such appointments. Clause 8 changes the law relating to the remuneration of recorders, chairmen of County of London Sessions, and their deputies and assistants. One feature which I am sure will be particularly welcome to those Members of the House who hold recorderships is that the onerous duty of paying their deputies will no longer fall upon them but on the council of the borough concerned.
  I should also mention, in this part of the Bill, two Clauses which do not follow recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee, although they are not in any way inconsistent with them. The first of these is Clause 6, which transfers from the Home Secretary to the Lord Chancellor the responsibility for regulating the arrangements for sittings of quarter sessions for the County of London and is a natural consequence of the changes made by Clause 4 in relation to other quarter sessions. The second is Clause 9, which enables the Lord Chancellor to remove a recorder, chairman or deputy-chairman of London Sessions for misbehaviour. These appointments are held during good behaviour and the power of removal therefore is not in substance a new one.
  Finally, there are two minor but useful reforms of the law, in Clause 11, which generalises the power conferred on magistrates' courts to resume proceedings as examining justices after they have begun to try an indictable offence summarily, and Clause 15, which provides that a sentence imposed by a court of assize shall take effect from the day on which it is imposed, unless the court otherwise directs, instead of from the first day of the assize, as is now the case.
  The remaining provisions of the Bill are of a consequential or formal character, but I should mention that special provisions are being made for the allocation of costs where a case is committed from the area of one court into that of another. That is Clause 16.
  At the beginning of my speech, I said that the Bill was designed to effect
  68
  changes which would have the result of expediting the trial of criminal cases and to ensure that courts should have all proper information before sentence is passed. These are objects which I am confident will commend themselves to the whole House, irrespective of party. I am confident that these objects will be achieved by the Bill and that they will be achieved at additional expenditure which, as the House will see from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, is not very substantial.
  It is on that basis that I commend this Bill to the House, as a useful and uncontroversial Measure, and I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.
  4.56 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: I agree with the right hon. and learned Attorney-General that this is a very useful Bill. Its introduction has been made possible by the extremely comprehensive and valuable quality of the work of the Interdepartmental Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Streatfeild, upon which the Bill is based. It is a legal Bill—the sort that might tempt lawyers to take their traditional holiday in this House—but it has its human aspects. On looking at it, and on looking through the technicalities of it, which have been so clearly explained by the Attorney-General, I discern two major motives on the part of the members of the Committee—both legal and non-legal members—who must have worked extremely well together.
  First, they were confronted with the problem, which is of concern to everybody, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, of the delays which sometimes ensue before persons accused of crimes are finally brought to trial and either acquitted or sentenced, and their motive was to solve that problem. The second motive, of a wider character—not of peculiar technical import—is that described in the second part of the Report, which centres upon the provision to judges sentencing persons who have been convicted of offences with the appropriate information about the individual they are sentencing—information about his background and his general circumstances; in other words, everything which, according to modern concepts of appropriate penalties, would be thought of relevance by a tribunal sentencing a criminal.

  69
  Views upon the awarding of sentences have changed very much in recent years. What is perhaps somewhat disrespectfully referred to in the Report itself as the "tariff system" of penalities—that is to say, the giving to a criminal of an appropriate dollop of years or months proportionate to the quality and culpability of his crime, has been superseded by what I think we would all regard as a more enlightened and contemporaneous approach, which not merely takes into account the moral quality of the transgression for which the criminal is being sentenced but also his character and antecedents, and the circumstances of his upbringing and his early and middle life, the endeavour being to make the penalty more appropriate to the broad objects which courts seek to achieve by the imposition of penalties—in other words, not merely to punish the criminal but to do what is best to protect society and to bring him back, in due course, as a useful member of society when he has suffered his punishment. That is the second human objective which the Committee obviously had in view.
  I shall briefly review the Bill and offer some observations, not of a controversial character, because I entirely accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about it. It is shocking for the ordinary person when he is told that large numbers of people have to wait three months—and in many cases four months—before they are brought to trial. The right hon. and learned Gentleman analysed the figures which are set out in the Report and gave us the figures which appear in the tables of the Report, reminding us that, according, to the Home Office Research Unit, in 1957, about 1,200 persons had to wait for three months and over, and about 400 persons in that year had to wait for over four months before they were finally brought to trial. I should like to supplement the figures which he gave by one other figure which appears in the Report. Eight weeks are taken by Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his colleagues as the proper period which should elapse before the trial takes place, but in that same year no fewer than 5,000 persons had to wait for varying periods over eight weeks before they were brought to trial.
  70
  Faced with that problem, the Committee, as I read its reasoning, really had to face the problem in this way: the Committee said, "We could achieve speedy trial if we enlarged the system of permanent criminal courts." That is, in other words, extending over a national network, as I think the Committee called it, the existing system under which the Crown Courts of Liverpool and Manchester are organised, and, indeed, the Central Criminal Court, London Sessions and Middlesex Sessions. That was one way in which it seemed to the Committee that it might compass the object of bringing about speedy and regular final disposal of criminal cases brought before courts of quarter sessions and courts of assize. That method the Committee rejected. When this matter was discussed in another place it was thought that this rejection was quite right, and I also take the view that the Committee was perfectly right in deciding against the wholesale extension of criminal courts permanently in session. I think that was a wise decision.
  When this House, only a few years back, set up the Crown Courts of Manchester and Liverpool, which are permanent criminal courts, and when we have before us the example of the Central Criminal Court, London Sessions and so on, all of which courts are accepted as having operated admirably over the years, it may, in a sense, be rather inconsistent now to say that that is a system which we do not think should be extended. When I think of that, I remind myself of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) said on the Licensing Bill. When dealing with the intervention of an hon. Member who asked if he were not being rather inconsistent with something that he had said before, his answer was that "consistency weighed upon the human intellect like an alp". I think that is perfectly true. I do not think that one can aim at complete consistency in the conduct of human affairs. I support the view, which I have ventured to offer, that the Committee was right in not deciding to extend the system of permanent criminal courts by the reflection that the administration of justice by a judge is a very human proceeding. It requires a broad and sympathetic view of human affairs and a full and sensitive understanding of human motives.

  71
  As was pointed out by the Committee in paragraphs 128, 129 and 132 of the Report, it is difficult—I do not say that it is impossible—for a judge, who is trying criminal cases day in and day out and who is in an area in which e necessarily must be, as it were, somewhat socially aloof, to maintain that sensitive, quick and alert understanding of the way in which people react which is so necessary to a full discharge of the functions of a judge.
  I do not offer any criticism of any permanent criminal judges at the moment. I think that they discharge their functions admirably, and I can speak only with admiration of the way in which they have surmounted the difficulties to which the Committee point. The Committee itself points to the danger of a judge in that aloof position dealing only with criminal cases and not being, as the Committee puts it, refreshed by contact with litigation of an entirely different type, raising utterly different types of situation and human problems becoming—it is the Committee's own word—"stale". It imposes a great burden upon the judges, and one which, speaking for myself, I think that it is better, if some other system can be devised, not to call upon judges to undertake. For that reason—I really re-echo the findings of the Committee itself—it decided that the better course was to adapt the existing procedure for the sittings of quarter sessions and assize courts in such a way that we get, as the Attorney-General indicated, the equivalent in effect of a constant and regular administration of justice, which makes it unnecessary for the delays with which the Committee was concerned to occur.
  The Attorney-General indicated the various ways in which the Committee sought, by changing the existing arrangements, to bring that about. There are the most elaborate provisions with regard to the sittings of the Assize courts. They are to be divided, in the terms of the Committee's proposals, into special and general itineraries. I understand the proposal to be that certain circuits, the busy towns where there is a heavy flow of criminal business, should be grouped together, and assize judges should go around these towns, as it were, on a special visit. That they should do no less than four times a year, although the
  72
  normal assize takes place three times a year, and, I suppose, will continue to do so for the ordinary visits.
  Concerning the business of quarter sessions, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, the business of the magistrates' courts, the petty sessional divisional courts, is to be enlarged to remove from assize courts and quarter sessions some of the types of offence with which the petty sessional courts cannot deal at the moment, and there is also to be a general rearrangement of their sittings and the way in which they transact their business. Notably the system of referring cases to what are described as convenient courts is to be enlarged, in my opinion very properly, and, I hope, in such a way as to achieve the objectives which the Committee have in mind.
  In putting my views on this Bill before the House, I do not think that I should be serving any useful purpose by going into the minutiae of the intricacies of what must necessarily be a very technical Bill. Having said that I welcome the Bill and desire to be joined in the thanks repeatedly expressed in another place, and again here, to the Committee for the admirable work it did, I should like to put two broad questions to the Attorney-General. They centre on the propositions advanced in another place by Lord Goddard.
  This Bill would abolish appeal committees. Clause 4 (5) implements the recommendation of the Streatfeild Committee, contained in paragraphs 197–201 of its Report, that appeal business should be done at ordinary quarter sessions and that the appeal committees at present existing, set up under Section 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act, 1933, should be brought to an end. In his speech in another place—which I am not allowed to quote, but I think it is in order for me to give the effect—Lord Goddard raised the question whether it was wise to abolish the existing appeal committee procedure. The objective which it was sought to accomplish by Section 7 of the 1933 Act, as he explained it, was that for the purpose of dealing with appeals we should have, as it were, a specially selected panel of experienced justices.
  Lord Goddard pointed out that when dealing with appeals at quarter sessions from petty sessional courts it was a

  73
  matter of dealing with cases in which there was an appeal from justices to justices, from magistrates to magistrates, and the burden of the noble and learned Lord's argument, that being the case, was whether there was an adequate reason for dispensing with a procedure which had worked admirably, and which had been designedly conceived not so long ago, in 1933?
  I ask the Government whether they have thought carefully over the argument used by Lord Goddard and have come to a final decision. The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in his Third Reading speech, in another place, dealt with this argument and, as I read his speech, came down against the proposition of Lord Goddard, but not very strongly. The reasons he gave were that there are now more legally qualified chairmen and deputy-chairmen than in 1933, and that no doubt is a fact. The Lord Chancellor said further that it is the case that now justices are better trained because of the procedure for training which has been introduced. No doubt those are arguments which deserve careful consideration, but they do not leave me altogether satisfied, and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think again. I do not say necessarily to reverse the view held so far on the matter by the Government, but to think again whether they are right to abolish this appeal procedure.
  The reason the Committee recommended that appeal committees should be abolished was to avoid wastage of time. I am not sure that that is not too great a sacrifice. I simply pose the question; I have still rather an open mind about it. But I think it is a matter which should be considered further by the Government. No doubt during the Committee stage discussions, which will follow if the Bill be given a Second Reading, hon. Members will desire to probe the matter further.
  The other matter raised by the noble and learned Lord was his proposal that boroughs with a population of 65,000 persons and upwards which had no separate commissioner of the peace and no separate court of quarter sessions might he required by the Lord Chancellor to petition Her Majesty for a separate commissioner and a separate court of quarter sessions. He further proposed that if within three months of
  74
  the Lord Chancellor requiring them to do so they did not present a petition, the Lord Chancellor himself might present a petition on their behalf.
  There are a number of boroughs, as the noble Lord pointed out, which have populations very considerably in excess of the limit of 65,000 and which still have not their own separate court of quarter sessions or recorder. This leads to rather ludicrous results. For example, Lord Goddard pointed to Swindon with a population of 83,000 which has no court of quarter sessions. Offenders from Swindon have to go for trial to the Wiltshire Quarter Sessions which are held at Salisbury or Devizes. This means a difficult, inconvenient and somewhat expensive journey. It would seem to be quite unnecessary for that to have to take place.
  Another example is that of Ilford, with a population of 178,000. Offenders from Ilford go to Chelmsford, which seems an arrangement not easy to justify. It was quite recently that Parliament took the recorders from boroughs with a population, I think, of under 65,000 where recorders existed. It would seem a reasonable extension of that rearrangement that boroughs with a population substantially above that limit with no recorder should be able to petition to be granted a recorder.
  Lord Goddard was supported by Lord Silkin, who instanced the 15 new towns, notably Basildon, where the population would he likely to be very large. According to his argument Basildon and similar towns should have their own recorders and try their own offenders. I have no interest to declare in this respect as this does not apply to my constituency. That was dealt with especially in debate. County sessions sit at Newport although we have not our own quarter sessions and recorder, so I have no personal interest to declare. Newport does not come within the scope of the criticisms advanced by Lord Goddard.
  The Lord Chancellor replied for the Government, and, as I understood his speech, again somewhat hesitantly he said he would still think about what was proposed by Lord Goddard. I gather that Swindon had decided to present a petition, but the Lord Chancellor pointed out that possibly, in view of the

  75
  impending reorganisation of local government, any such proposition would be somewhat premature. I understand that the matter is one on which the Government have not closed their minds. They are influenced by the consideration that it is perhaps better to use persuasion rather than to use on the boroughs, in the Lord Chancellor's words, "the big stick". I think that is what the Lord Chancellor called it.
  In putting my considerations to the House, I ask the Attorney-General what is the present thinking of the Government on these matters and whether they have come to a concluded view. Certainly I think this a matter which will be further explored during the Committee stage discussions, as no doubt will many of the other Clauses in the Bill.
  Another matter on which I have no personal interest to declare is the question of the salaries of recorders. I realise that some hon. Members will have a particular concern about this, and it is perfectly right that they should. But, as the Committee pointed out, recorders are the linch-pin in a great deal of the administration of justice at quarter sessions, and it is unreasonable that the present system should continue which requires them to make financial sacrifices in order to discharge their duties. The position of recorder is one of great honour and is valued. The post is sparingly conferred. But I put it to the Government that the time has come—I think it is recognised by this Bill—that there should be some more sensible assessment of the remuneration payable to recorders; and possibly a slight adjustment in the Income Tax law which makes it impossible for them to charge their hotel and travelling expenses as expenditure against income, and therefore singles them out for treatment in a manner which seems harsh compared with the treatment accorded to many other taxpayers in the matter of expenses.
  I have not so far said much about Part II. Part II, in a sense, is the most important part of the Bill, because it is the part which deals with the question of punishment. I say little about Part II because, with one exception, I understand from Government spokesmen, the proposals in Part II can all be imple
  76
  mented by administrative means and, except in one particular case in Clause 14, do not require legislative change. However, such legislation as is required is now in the Bill.
  All I desire to say about that is that a large number of separate and specific proposals are made with reference to the furnishing of information about convicted persons. In Committee we shall all probably want to know in considerable detail what administrative arrangements are to be made to implement those proposals. I think they are of the greatest value, but, as they do not appear in the Bill and this is the Second Reading and not the Committee stage, I do not think it would be useful to seek to discuss them further.
  I certainly hope that the House will be ready to give the Bill a Second Reading. We shall want to examine its specific provisions much more carefully in Committee, but I think that it is a very useful and excellent Measure. In that respect, I wish that it did not stand out in such marked contrast with other Measures introduced by the present Government.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rawlinson: I share with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) the welcome given to this Bill. The only thing on which I disagree a little with him is that he said that this was a legal Bill on which lawyers would have their traditional holiday. Undoubtedly lawyers will speak in this debate, but the part we play nowadays is stressed a little too much compared with economists and financiers who get a far greater share of the opportunity to address the House.
  This, as the Attorney-General said, is a useful Bill. I think it is also a very important Bill. The administration of justice—particularly criminal justice, but generally all justice—is a matter which touches us in this House very closely and touches everyone throughout the whole country. This is an important Bill, because it produces a much-needed review, based on the great work done by the Streatfeild Committee, of the administration of criminal justice.
  As we all know, pressure of business has increased tremendously in the past

  77
  few years and undoubtedly the system was beginning to creak. It was creaking to such an extent that it needed the additional appointment of extra judges. But flowing from the appointment of extra judges, there must come a review of the court accommodation and other such matters resulting from having more courts to be able to deal more speedily with offenders. I recollect an occasion when on the hottest day of summer the winter assize was being wound up by a commissioner who had come to deal with civil cases because the judges had been so pressed by criminal business that they had little time to devote to civil business. In those circumstances civil litigants had to wait long months before their cases were tried.
  I share with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport the fairly common view of the Committee, which is held generally among members of the profession, against the establishment of more Crown courts. The right hon. and learned Member spoke about inconsistency and quoted what the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Iorwerth Thomas) had said. Emerson said:
  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
  I quite agree that this was an experiment worth making in Manchester and Liverpool, but one which it would not be satisfactory to extend generally throughout the length and breadth of the country. There is the special case, which is quite obviously different, of London where there are a number of permanent judges—not single judges but a body of judges—who sit at the Old Bailey and London Sessions. They have the opportunity to mingle with members of their profession and the breadth of the kind of cases which come to be tried at those courts makes London distinct and separate from other cities in this regard.
  I think the ordinary litigant in civil matters certainly wishes to have his case tried by a High Court judge. In crime also it is essential that they should be the judges who try the cases. Very useful work has been carried out by commissioners who have been sent to assist judges in clearing the gaols, but in principle it is a task to be done by a judge. Therefore, although on occasion there
  78
  will be need for commissioners, nevertheless the principle to be aimed at is that nearly all the cases should be tried by judges.
  Following from the appointment of these judges, and though it seems that extra circuits will be arranged and that the judges will be sitting in courts which otherwise would be empty nevertheless, with the amount of criminal business there is a tremendous need for a considerable review of the proper accommodation of the courts. Courts are places where large numbers of people foregather. The accommodation for members of the public is essential; there should be proper accommodation for witnesses waiting to give evidence, and proper arrangements for bringing prisoners up from the cells for their trial and taking them away. In some cities throughout the country the accommodation needs considerable overhaul.
  We should also not forget the pressure which the amount of criminal business has brought to bear on members of the public. There is a tremendous amount of extra work which has to be done by those called to give their services as members of juries. I personally regret that juries are not used more often in civil actions. Apart from this House, I believe juries to be one of the great standbyes and safeguards of an Englishman's liberty. This involves no reflection on Her Majesty's judges, but formerly juries played a part in civil cases in which they were able by verdicts to express views which may not have been the views of the judges or persons practising in the courts; but they were able by their individual idiosyncrasies to influence and indicate what public opinion was about the law in another way different from that through their elected Member of Parliament.
  We have had to call many more citizens to service as jurors, and it should be appreciated that a great burden has been put on men and women called away from their homes or offices to do this very essential work. Although speed is an important facet to criminal administration, I sometimes think that it can be over-emphasised. Although one looks with horror at the delays in certain other countries in regard to the administration of justice, nevertheless speed can be over-emphasised. There

  79
  can be occasions when the procedure is too speedy between trial and committal.
  It is a time when very hard work often has to be done by the defence. Sometimes very difficult inquiries have to be made. The trial should not be rushed upon too speedily after committal. This is also a period when a great attempt should be made to obtain from the person awaiting trial information which may be necessary should that person be convicted and have to be sentenced by the appropriate court. I should like that time to be used more than now by the court—not by the prosecution—to find as much information as possible about a person not on bail but in custody awaiting trial.
  I, too, look forward to that provision of information referred to in paragraphs 9 and 12 of the Streatfeild Report. I think it essential nowadays when the great task, the first task, is to try to prevent first offenders from becoming second offenders. If we can only cut that figure by 2 or 3 per cent. then the whole back of the problem will have been broken. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to provide those statistics and that information which I personally feel can play in these modern days a great part in assisting the person sentencing to impose the correct and appropriate sentence.
  It would give an opportunity of comparing, of seeing the successes and also the follow-up of persons who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or a certain type of treatment. It is essential that we should see how best we can relate the great task not only of protecting the public and of punishing the crime but also of ensuring that the convicted person never again comes before a court. I think that this is a very important administrative matter which I trust will speedily be available to the advantage of the sentencers.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, that this is a useful Bill, but, in my opinion, it is also a very important Bill.
  5.32 p.m.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Like everybody else, I am sure, in the House, I welcome the Bill,
  80
  and am grateful to the Streatfeild Committee for its admirable Report. I was particularly interested in two of the observations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). Like him, I agree very strongly with the attitude which the Government have taken over the Crown courts. My right hon. and learned Friend, if I may say so, put the position very sensibly and I do not wish to add to or to detract from anything that he said. It is a consideration which applies not only to criminal courts, but also to a certain number of civil courts in the country, but that I shall not weary the House with on this occasion.
  The other remark which my right hon. and learned Friend made was about the recorders. Like him, I am not a recorder and never shall be one, and therefore I feel completely free to make my observations on the matter. I think it utterly wrong that the country should try to get its justice on the cheap by paying for it out of the pockets of the recorders. In a number of cases not only are recorders paid sums which do not cover expenses, but they are not even allowed local expenses, as my right hon. and learned Friend said. They cannot even have the expense of travelling from the Temple to their court allowed for Income Tax purposes. This really is a matter which is scandalous and which ought to be properly reviewed.
  My purpose in intervening in the debate is just to deal with one very limited matter to which the hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) refered—the question of accommodation. I am very much perturbed about the matter of accommodation not only in some places in the provinces, but also here in the High Court in London. I think that the position has really become extremely bad.
  I should like to know whether in the sums referred to in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum any provision at all is made in the budget for improved accommodation. It is proposed to increase the number of judges. I do not know how far that would mean that more judges would be sitting in London, or whether it would mean a greater demand for accommodation in the provinces or what is being done

  81
  about it. As I say, it is about accommodation in London in particular that I wish to make a few observations.
  Some time ago a committee was set up under the chairmanship of former Lord Justice Romer. That committee I believe, submitted a report to the Lord Chancellor, but as far as I know it has never been published. At any rate, I have not seen it. I should be interested to know what that report contains and the first question I wish to put to the Government is whether they contemplate publishing that report or will make it available in the Library of the House. It would be interesting to know what the recommendations of that committee were.
  In the High Court in the Strand we have at present not only temporary, make-shift accommodation inside the stone building, but we have as courts in a yard there a couple of wooden huts which were put up at the end of the First World War and which were supposed to be temporary. I visited them today and these two utterly tattered wooden places are still performing after many years what was supposed to be a temporary function.
  The Government and the people of the country really ought to make up their minds about this matter. Do we really want the dignified administration of justice, or do we not? It is a little foolish to have wig and gown, to have the panoply of the law and the dignity of the law, of which I am all in favour, and, at the same time, to put it into accommodation which is utterly inadequate. Not only is this undignified, but it is insufficient and leads to inefficiency, and this I should like to expand a little.
  The courts with which I am particularly concerned are, of course, the Chancery courts, and we now have one of the Chancery courts put in a temporary room at the top of the building in the Strand. I also visited other temporary courts on the Queen's Bench side and in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. I do not think that any of them has quite all the disadvantages which this Chancery court has, but I have no doubt that all of them have one or more of these disadvantages. To get to this court at the top of the building one has 87 stone stairs to climb if one goes by the shortest route.
  82
  If one goes in from the Strand, as most litigants do, one has over 100 stone steps to climb.
  It is true that there is a lift, but no one who is in a hurry to take part in a case before the court at the top of that building would dream of taking the lift. I have, on occasion, attempted to do so. One has to wait to find someone who will take one up. If there is someone there, one does not know how long it will be before the lift arrives and when travelling in the lift one never knows with whom one may be travelling and that, on occasion, may be extremely embarrassing if one is involved in a case where there is, shall we say, a little tension. I have never gone up to that Chancery court in the lift though on various occasions in the past I have attempted to use the lift.
  My experience applies equally to all the other Chancery practitioners whom I constantly see climbing the stairs to the courts or descending from them. It applies also to the judge. The court itself is a small ordinary room—the dimensions are not the dimensions of a court at all—it was never built for the purpose. It is an obscure room intended for an obscure official who was put in the most obscure part of the building. That room has been converted into a court of the High Court of Justice in which the administration of justice is conducted on the very highest level.
  It really is a ridiculous situation. Once one is in the court one faces the judge behind whom are two vast windows, which are the only source of light. One has to face the glare of those windows for day after day, as any sensitive counsel must, in trying to see how the judge's face is working—which is sometimes an indication of how his mind is working. Anyone who tries to face the glare of those windows for any length of time finds it extremely trying.
  As everyone who conducts such cases knows, there are occasions on which one wants to talk with counsel and solicitors on one's own side and perhaps with the client without everybody else in the court knowing precisely the point one has in mind, the point one wants to make, or the point about which one is ignorant and wants information. It is not advisable to give away points, or expose one's ignorance. But in that small room one is literally cheek by jowl

  83
  with one's opponents, without adequate space, and it is extremely difficult in present circumstances to conduct a case properly. The court is stuffy. If the windows are opened—and they are the only means of ventilation—it is draughty. One has a choice.
  The judge has a small room next to this converted court-room. He has to walk through the well of the court to get to the bench, and anyone who knows anything about the construction of courts knows that that is, undesirable. His permanent room gives immediately on to a public passageway, which means that if any normal care is taken, the judge has to be kept under lock and key. He should have a room which opens on to a passage which is not a public passage and which gives immediate access to the bench on which he sits instead of into the well of the court.
  I know that some of these temporary courts, which have been temporarily converted, are reasonably tolerable for a certain time, but this court, which has all the disadvantages of a temporary court, should not be continued. Even a temporary court should be either on the ground floor or reasonably near it. It should be of adequate size, with proper lighting and ventilation, and should provide a certain amount of privacy for the judge. It should not involve everybody—judge, counsel, solicitors and litigants on both sides and the public—being mixed up together in their approach to the court, inside the court, and in getting away from it. What is needed is a thorough review of the distribution of the accommodation at present available.
  I want to draw attention to one or two further considerations which apply particularly to the Chancery court. There are six Chancery judges and six Chancery courts. The nature of Chancery business is such that it is important that these courts should be grouped together and that it should be easy to move from one court to another. Let me give as an example the regular Monday business in the Chancery court. On a Monday, two courts do chamber summonses, with about 12 cases in each court during the course of the day. In other words, 20 to 30 cases are considered in those two courts in the course of the day. There
  84
  is a third judge sitting in the Companies court, in which there may be 30 to 40 cases. In other words, in those three courts on that one day 50 to 70 cases are considered.
  This means that a number of counsel are engaged in all three courts on the same day and that a number of solicitors are similarly engaged. If the proceedings are to be dealt with properly, it is vital that they should be able to get quickly from one court to another. On two other days of the weeks, Tuesdays and Fridays, although we do not have the short cases to the same extent, we have motions, and therefore a considerable amount of shod case work is going on during those two days in the Chancery courts. Again, it is extremely important that counsel and solicitors, in their clients' interests, should be able to get quickly from one court to the other. On three days out of the five it is extremely important for the proper administration of justice that the Chancery courts should be grouped together conveniently.
  This is fully recognised, and the Chancery courts were built together in the same part of the building. In fact, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays, which are the chambers days and the motions days when these numerous short cases occur, an effort is made to bring down the judge, when he is involved in the short cases, from his top room into one of the collection of regular permanent Chancery courts and to enable him to sit there. Think of it—the judge has to come down, robed, from his own room, by 87 or more steps, or has to borrow, if he can, a room from another judge. That is not the way in which to conduct business. No business organisation would conduct its business in this way. No business organisation would dream of it. Which company director would tolerate his business being dealt with and interfered with in this way?
  The obvious solution is to have all the Chancery courts together in the same part of the building and readily accessible to each other. This is not just a question of dignity, although that is extremely important in the administration of justice. It is also a question of sheer efficiency of organisaiton—the sheer business efficiency test. It does not pass that, let alone the test of the

  85
  proper dignity required for the administration of justice.
  We all know that the difficulty is that although there are only six Chancery judges and six Chancery courts, a seventh judge has been allocated to the Chancery Division who does not do Chancery work. The obvious solution would be for his court to be restored to the Chancery judges so that business can be properly conducted. I cannot understand why that is not done. The learned judge—a very senior judge for whom we all have the greatest respect—could be provided with another regular court in the building. I do not understand why this course is not followed.
  The Chancery Division is "fed to the teeth" with the present position. If this were not so I should not be making these observations in the House. There must be a good deal of feeling about it before one brings this kind of thing forward to Parliament for consideration. I should not otherwise dream of taking up the time of the House upon this limited administrative matter. But, as the hon. and learned Member for Epsom indicated, it is not an unimportant aspect of the administration of justice. We are all concerned that it should be administered efficiently and with dignity and we feel that in the Chancery court and elsewhere in the High Court, let alone in the provinces, the court is not adequately accommodated to enable this to be done.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. W. G. Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity of making a few observations about the Bill. I do so especially because I have the honour to be a member of the Northern Circuit which, solely among the seven circuits in England and Wales, has had experience of the functioning of Crown courts. I shall say something about the functioning of Crown courts later. Before doing so I join with other hon. Members who have already spoken in paying tribute to the Streatfeild Committee for the very valuable work which it has done. Its deliberations lasted over two and a half years. I suppose the greatest compliment that we can pay the Committee is the fact that we have introduced the Bill and are considering it today.
  One of the many sayings of the great Bacon which is frequently quoted to this
  86
  day is that "justice is sweetest when it is freshest." That is something to which the Committee gave particular attention. Its general finding was that the period of waiting for trial is too long. Point is added to this finding of the Committee in that since 1957, the year for which the Committee took its figures, there has been an appreciable increase in the crime rate. Even during 1957—these figures were referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice)—5,000 accused had to wait over eight weeks for trial; 1,200 had to wait for over three months; and 400 had to wait for over four months. This was a deplorable state of affairs.
  One statistic which has not been referred to so far is perhaps more important than any of these. This is the disturbing fact that about 300 people were subsequently acquitted after spending varying lengths of time in custody awaiting trial. Society clearly owes a duty to such people to ensure that the waiting period is kept as short as possible. I welcome the fact, as I am sure every hon. Member does, that the Government accept as a principle that only in the most exceptional cases should the waiting period for trial be more than two months.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in his opening speech, the obvious solution which would commend itself to most people is that the existing system of Crown courts should be extended. This system was established in 1956, as most hon. Members will know. As I have said, I am a member of the Northern Circuit, and I believe that I am right in saying that the principal consideration which led to the establishment of the Crown court system in 1956 was not so much that it should deal with criminal cases as that it should enable the backlog of civil cases to be disposed of at the assizes while the criminal cases, or most of them, were dealt with by the Crown courts. Paradoxically enough, by the time the Crown court came into being in Liverpool the backlog of civil cases had largely been dealt with, though I do not think that this was so in Manchester.
  There is no doubt that the Crown courts have served a very useful purpose, both in expediting the hearing of criminal cases and in preventing the assize

  87
  crime lists being cluttered up and thereby allowing civil business to be dealt with expeditiously. The system is open to criticism. Criticism was, in fact, made of it in another place, and I do not propose to repeat anything that was said by any one else. I am glad to see that the heads of our judiciary have adopted a very human view of the difficulties of judges. The case against the Crown court system could be put in a nutshell in this way: a judge cannot he expected to remain at his judicial best when he is dealing with the same kind of case all the time in the same place, with the same police officers, the same advocates and, very often, even the same criminals, before him.
  As was pointed out in another place—this is a matter of general application—there is much to be said in favour of the system of the anonymous judge who appears in one place relatively seldom and is in no sense bound to the locality. It is only fair to say out of justice to the Crown courts—in this I echo something said by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas)—that these criticisms can be applied to many local courts, including civil courts.
  I pay tribute to the Crown courts for the valuable work they have done, but I am glad that the Government have decided not to extend the system but to deal with the increase in crime, and in work generally, by a system of extended assizes, even though the system may be more difficult to administer than that of the Crown courts as they exist at present. I stress in this connection that a system of extended assizes will help appreciably in the disposal of civil cases. We should not lose sight of this fact, because this was one of the main reasons for introducing the Crown court system.
  I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill which are designed to hasten the trial of accused persons, and particularly the extension of the jurisdiction of quarter sessions and petty sessions. I was rather surprised that in another place some criticism was voiced of the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of petty sessions. Without going into details, these are eminently sensible pro visions. Indeed, I go so far as to say that, if they work well in practice, as
  88
  they no doubt will, consideration should perhaps be given later to further extensions of powers of petty sessions.
  There is also an eminently sensible provision to enable a legally qualified chairman of quarter sessions in appropriate cases to deal with cases by himself without the assistance of another justice. It is, furthermore, a very good thing that the length of the sentence should be reduced by the amount of time an accused has already spent in custody following committal for trial. There is at present no obligation upon a judge either to take this into account or, if he has taken it into account, to say that he has done so.
  As I understood one point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, when he voiced something which was discussed in another place, he wanted some degree of compulsion to be brought to bear in certain circumstances for boroughs to apply for recorders to be appointed. Not to put too fine a point upon it, the suggestion was that in certain circumstances a recorder might be forced upon a borough. If a recorder were to be forced upon an unwilling borough, it could cause a good deal of unpleasantness. As was pointed out by the Lord Chancellor in another place, it is very unlikely that any borough council would decline to petition for a separate court of quarter sessions if it was suggested to the council plainly that it was its duty to do so. Experience so far appears to be that there has been more difficulty in restraining unsuitable applications for such courts than in encouraging petitions to obtain them.
  I should like some information on one matter which was raised in another place, but which has not been referred to here. It is the costs of prosecutions and who shall bear them. This matter was raised, but not pursued, in another place. The point was made very trenchantly that the unfortunate County of Northampton—in which I have no pesonal interest; I cite is merely as an instance—has suffered very heavily and has had increases in rates on two occasions when the offences concerned had only the most fortuitous connection with the county. One case was as far back as 1931—the well-known case of Alfred Arthur Rouse, when quite by

  89
  chance a murder was committed within the confines of the county by someone who was travelling north. It might equally well have been committed two or three counties away. I understand that that led to an increase in the rates. Latterly, there was an Income Tax evasion case which was committed to trial within the county simply because the Income Tax district concerned had its headquarters in Northampton, although the offences were not committed there at all.
  I suppose that some relief will be granted by the provisions of Clause 16, and it may be that those provisions were introduced as a result of discussion of this matter in another place. I also understand that it is possible to recover from the Police Fund up to 50 per cent. of the costs of prosecution. I am rather vague about the present position and would be grateful for some information about it. Would not the Government consider a total change of this policy so that the central Government would bear the costs of prosecutions? I understand that that was, in part, at any rate, the position until the County Councils Act came into force in 1888. It is a matter of some importance, because certain local authorities can suffer quite heavily as a result of criminal offences being committed fortuitously within their boundaries, and I think that some relief is due.
  I welcome the Bill as, I am sure, does every other hon. Member, and I am very grateful for having been given the opportunity of supporting it.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: I join in welcoming the Bill. The Streatfeild Committee, so to describe it, was appointed in June, 1958, reported at the end of 1960, and this Measure is brought before us now after consideration in another place. I am grateful that the whole matter has been dealt with so expeditiously and thoroughly. I could wish for the same stream-lined efficiency and speed in the Government's treatment of other matters.
  It may be thought to be a duty of a member of the Bar who is also a Member of this House to try to discover from the public, and from his constitutents in particular, what requirements the public feel must be fulfilled in the administra
  90
  tion of the law, and then he may be able to bring to bear his experience as a lawyer on the consideration of how far existing practice and proposed changes meet those needs.
  Approaching the matter in that fashion, I would suggest that what is sought most by my constituents and, I have no doubt, by the constituents of all hon. Members, is speedy justice and, at the same time, justice that is dispensed by fair-minded men of unmistakeable and exceptional ability. Those two requirements are reconcilable, but it requires vigilance to ensure that they are reconciled.
  There is no doubt that at present there is too great delay in the treatment of criminal cases. The figures have been referred to more than once, and they are important and significant. We have been reminded that in 1957 over 1,200 people had to wait for more than three months before being brought to trial; that is the lapse of time occurring between committal and date of trial. We have also been reminded that nearly half of those people were committed in custody and not on bail, and that in 1957 a substantial number of them—I think that 300 was the figure—were acquitted after having spent varying periods of time in custody. In the context of circumstances of that kind there is no doubt that there is too much delay.
  I think that an important part of the Committee's recommendations consists of the proposal to reorganise the itineraries of judges of assize. It is important for the House to bear in mind that it is this plan, I understand, which particularly requires and is made the occasion for the proposed appointment of extra judges to the High Court. When the statutory maximum of High Court judges reaches 53 the question inevitably arises as to whether there is any threat to the very high standard of the English judges.
  That matter has given rise to discussion under two heads, in particular, with which I will shortly deal. First, it has been said that it is time to see whether there can be found recruits for the judiciary from sources other than the Bar alone. On that, perhaps I may be permitted to say, with great respect, that the proven capacity of English judges in criminal matters to sum up at

  91
  the end of the evidence and of speeches, and of judges in civil cases to deliver judgment immediately at the end of counsels' speeches—there being comparatively seldom any need or occasion to reserve judgment—is a factor that contributes in a very real and practical way to the speedy administration of justice. I am led to think that those qualities are the envy of foreigners. As I well remember, for any student coming to the Bar and for any member of the Bar recently called, it is a capacity that fills him with well-warranted awe.
  I think that if judges were asked about this they would probably acknowledge that the faculty of thus summing up a case without delay, or of delivering judgment in complicated matters without requiring to reserve judgment, derives from their training and experience at the Bar. This is really the nexus between the two functions that are performed in court. The duty and function of an advocate may be very different from the duty and function of a judge, but they still have this in common: that they both call for a capacity to marshal facts, and long training undoubtedly greatly contributes to this.
  The second line of discussion to which this part of the matter has given rise relates to the concept of the ladder of judicial promotion. I understand that it has been suggested that there should be a more regular ladder of promotion; In particular, perhaps, from the county court bench. We have been assured more than once, and in another place, that this field will continue to be surveyed when occasion demands or requires it. Some of us, however, are not altogether happy about the concept of the judicial ladder.
  It has been said in another place that the underlying principle of our system is that judicial decisions are not to be influenced, on the one hand, by fear of dismissal or, on the other, by hope of promotion. I speak cautiously on a subject of this kind—I recognise its importance—but it seems to me that this is a correct view and one with which many will agree. It has been regarded as fundamental that the fear of dismissal because of a decision unpalatable to authority should not be allowed to affect
  92
  judges. I suggest, in that connection, that it is rather difficult to distinguish in principle between the fear of dismissal and the hope of promotion.
  As has been said, the Bill might have provided for more Crown courts. For my part, I am glad that it does not. Such a course was not recommended by the Streatfeild Committee. There has been reference to the risk of staleness and of a sense of isolation in these continuous courts as they are sometimes called. My view is that there is some evidence to support this. These features and the undue concentration upon criminal cases are precisely what Our assize system avoids.
  I was very glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) went on to deal with certain matters affecting the jurisdiction and administration of quarter sessions. I think that the association of lay justices with qualified chairmen is an invaluable feature of our system, spreading the idea of doing justice, as it were, throughout the community. I would not want anything to be done that would diminish the proper sense of justices of their significance in the whole system.
  From this point of view, I should have thought that the provision that a qualified chairman of county quarter sessions may sit alone to hear a case if no lay justice is available needed watching. I can see, of course, that at first sight that is an obvious enough method of avoiding one amongst many possible sources or causes of delay, but one cannot help wondering whether it may not possess rather more significance than appears at first sight. May it not perhaps be the thin end of the wedge and tantamount to an intimation that the presence of lay justices is not required?
  Similar considerations affect my mind with regard to the proposal that appeal committees of county quarter sessions are to be abolished. That, as has already been said, has been referred to in another place. I have always understood that the justices had a way, in conformity with our traditions, of sorting themselves out, as it were, so that the ablest and most experienced of them sat on the appeal committee. I should have thought that that was useful and had good results, and that justices might be discouraged by what is now proposed.

  93
  Henceforward, under the new dispensation, a person may be convicted at quarter sessions before a bench consisting of a qualified chairman and two or three justices of ability and experience, and then, on appeal, under this new system he may find himself before a chairman of equivalent qualifications but before justices of less ability and less experience. This would seem—although I am open to hear any defence of the proposal covering this point—to be a possible and undesirable consequence of the change that is proposed.
  A voice of great authority in another place has spoken of the value and importance in this respect of the appeal committee; and, as I say, if there has been built up this practice by which the most experienced magistrates come together on the appeal committee for their own benefit and for the benefit of the administration of justice, we would want to be assured that that factor had been fully weighed before the proposed change is finally decided upon.
  Attention has been drawn to the fact, also, that many boroughs which are centres of large populations have no recorders. Some emphasis has been laid upon the obvious difficulties in the way of making it, in effect, mandatory upon boroughs to ask for recorders. But surely we can find an appropriately diplomatic, constitutional and correct way round that kind of difficulty. It is desirable that where we have these great centres of urban population there should be courts of quarter sessions. Where this is not so, a great deal of time is undoubtedly lost—travelling time and time expended by all concerned in the trial. It may well be—I know not—that some of these boroughs prefer that the expense of mantaining a court of quarter sessions should rest upon the county, but this is surely not a factor that should carry decisive weight.
  It seems rather unsatisfactory that, when so much time and trouble are given, as in Appendix C of the Committee's Report, to working out elaborate and complicated plans for the reorganisation of the itineraries of judges on assize, anomalies such as those to which I have referred in the large boroughs where there are no courts of quarter sessions should be allowed to continue and survive.
  94
  However much I welcome the Bill, we shall not have an entirely streamlined system of administration of criminal justice so long as anomalies of that kind are allowed to survive, with the very real, practical and important difficulties and complications to which such arrangements are apt to give rise. I would not, however, wish these comments to be treated as derogating in any substantial way from my welcome to this most useful Bill.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I decline to be overawed by the fact that during this debate the House has heard only from right hon. and learned and hon. and learned Members. I believe that so far every speaker is a member of the Bar. I at once declare my interest as being from the solicitors' profession and I hope that I can give a different slant to some of the arguments in favour of the Bill.
  May I join at once in the praise and congratulations to the Streatfeild Committee and for the most valuable Report on which the Bill has been based. As has been said, the objective of the Committee and of the Bill has been, first, to see how the administration of criminal justice can be more expeditiously carried out so as to avoid delays, and secondly, to see how full information of the background of convicted persons can be provided to the courts so that the courts may know the appropriate penalties to impose.
  In dealing with criminal justice, one is always apt to think only of the housebreakers, the personal assault cases, robbery with violence, and so on, but a great deal of the time of the criminal courts is taken up, on the one hand, with serious motoring offences, and, on the other, with very long Revenue cases, conspiracy cases, or cases arising out of company law. I think that a very useful provision of the Bill recognises that fact. It occurs in Clause 12 (2), which empowers magistrates to consider, when committing, the fact that the trial is likely to be a long one and to choose the assizes or quarter sessions appropriate for it. I think that that will assist in the general speeding up of administration.
  Clause 1 provides for the increase in the number of judges; one is, therefore,

  95
  concerned to see whether the time of the judges is to be properly spent. Unlike other speakers, I regret that the Streatfeild Committee did not recommend, and as a result the Bill does not include, the extension of the system of Crown courts. We have seen the success attending the permanent courts in Liverpool and Manchester, and it seems to me that both the final decision of the Streatfeild Committee and the Bill are perpetuating the rather archaic system and paraphernalia of the assize court, and, indeed, the discomfort and disorganisation of the assize system.
  It is not only a system of a peripatetic judge, but a system of peripatetic administration. To that degree, those of us in the solicitors' profession who deal with these cases from the administration point of view, have great difficulty in dealing properly with a case under the assize system, where even the administration of the court is moving about the country. Surely modern transport makes it wholly unnecessary that the judge should go to the people with a fanfare of trumpets, as he did in the old days.
  May I quote from the Streatfeild Report the paragraph which, when I first read it, made me think that the Committee would recommend the extension of the Crown court system? It is paragraph 124, on page 40, in which the Committee says:
  "We are satisfied that if the need to solve the present problems were the only relevant consideration, there would be clear advantage in setting up Crown Courts in those areas where there was sufficient work to occupy a continuously sitting court. A Crown Court would provide speedier trial, would result in more judge-time for civil assize work and would automatically solve any problems caused by pressure of work at those quarter sessions which it absorbed."
  The paragraph goes on to give further reasons why the Crown court system would provide a more expeditious administration of justice.
  The members of the Committee then put forward, as I read the Report, only one reason why they did not adopt the Crown court system or did not recommend its extension. The reason which the Committee gives is that it would cause staleness in the judge. Frankly, I do not follow that argument. I have never heard it put forward about stipendiary magistrates or county court
  96
  judges. Even if one accepts it, the judge of the Crown court could be changed over a matter of years. There is no need for him to remain the judge of that court for life. The whole administration of justice would, I am sure, as the Streatfeild Committee says, be speedier and more convenient if the Crown court system were extended. However, the provisions in the Bill which extend the jurisdiction of quarter sessions and the provision for magistrates to commit to the more convenient court will be extremely beneficial.
  In general, what the public will look for in the Bill is whether it meets the situation which has arisen out of the increased volume of crime. Many people are most concerned about the attitude of the Government towards crime generally, and they will consider whether this piece of legislation deals with the matter as seriously as the situation demands and whether the Bill treats the administration of criminal justice quite seriously enough.
  I should like to deal now with one or two narrow points. One arises out of Clause 7, which deals with the position of recorders, and the appointment of deputy recorders and assistant recorders. It does not make provision for a solicitor to be appointed a recorder. We already have laid down by Statute the fact that a solicitor can be appointed a stipendiary magistrate, chairman of quarter sessions or deputy-chairman of quarter sessions. If the qualifications of a solicitor are sufficient for appointment as chairman of quarter sessions, I should have thought that they would be sufficient for appointment as recorder, or certainly for appointment as a deputy recorder or assistant recorder. For that matter, why should not the solicitors' profession qualify for judgeships? Some who have sat as chairmen of Commissions or Departmental Committees are well known to this House and would be admirably suited for judicial appointments. However, that is a rather wider point than that which I wanted to make, which was that solicitors should be qualified for appointment as recorders.
  The next point arises under Clause 8, which deals with recorders' salaries, and the unfortunate position in which the recorder has been placed up to the present with regard to his salary. May I remind my right hon. and learned

  97
  Friend that this position applies equally to clerks of the peace of cities and boroughs. Clerks of the peace of both cities and boroughs rely for their salaries on the good will of the local authority. Local authorities do not realise the amount of work which a clerk of the peace has to undertake. The Bill provides that, in future, the Lord Chancellor shall be able to fix the salary of a recorder. Why should not the same apply to clerks of the peace? Why should not the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary be empowered to fix their salaries?
  I have here lists of clerks of the peace of cities and boroughs who are receiving fantastically small salaries. When some of the salaries are worked out on an hourly basis, they amount to far less than a charwoman is paid. A clerk of the peace has to put in an immense amount of work and yet, in very many cases, his services are not recognised in any way by the local authority. In my view, it is time that the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary was given the right to direct the proper salaries, especially since under the Bill the duties of clerks of the peace are bound to be increased.
  My last point relates to Clause 12. By Clause 12 (1) magistrates may commit to assizes or quarter sessions which are already in session. I foresee difficulty here if both parties do not agree. I should have thought it a very reasonable provision if there were a proviso that both prosecution and defence should agree to such a committal. Before the magistrates' court, the prosecution's case is usually complete. The prosecution has very little work to do between committal by the magistrates and the hearing of the case at quarter sessions or assizes. For the defence this is not so. The defence probably does not know the full purport of the case until the magistrates' court proceedings are completed.
  A great deal of time is taken in obtaining the depositions from the prosecution. Sometimes one waits, as defending solicitor, literally for weeks before one can wheedle the copy depositions out of the prosecution.
  The Attorney-General: Out of the court.
  Mr. Page: Out of the court. I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's cor
  98
  rection. At any rate, it takes a long time to get them.
  It may well be that the defence is put in great difficulty if it is forced into a trial as quickly as is contemplated under Clause 12. One must remember also that, very often, at the magistrates' court stage the defendant is not represented and there is then all the business of his arranging for representation before trial. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider this provision again.
  Finally, in general I should have liked to see a far bolder treatment of the subject of the Bill and far more imaginative reforms. I believe that the Bill's provisions could have been more revolutionary and could have brought about far more expeditious and far more convenient administration of criminal justice than will be the case as matters now stand. However, the Bill goes a long way and, of course, I strongly support it for that.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: There has been a delightful spirit of harmony in the Chamber this afternoon which I should be the last to try to disturb. I, too, congratulate the Government upon what must be almost unique expedition in the presentation of the Bill. The Streatfeild Committee was appointed in June, 1958. It reported in February of last year. The Second Reading of the Bill in another place was in November last year. I am very glad to see the Government acting with such expedition. The Bill, of course, implements the recommendations made in Part A of the Report of the Streatfeild Committee.
  The Streatfeild Report revealed what was described, I think, in the Report itself as indefensible, that is to say, the delay which many accused persons suffered before being brought to trial. The learned Attorney-General gave us the figures, quoting from the Report. 'I wish to refer to some of them again because they are, I believe, of very great importance.
  In 1957, 1,200 people waited more than three months from the time they were committed to the time of trial, and 400 actually waited more than four months. As the Attorney-General told

  99
  us, 40 per cent. of that number were in custody throughout that period. More significant still is the other figure which was quoted, of 1,700 people committed in custody. Three hundred were subsequently acquitted. Of course, when a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, the learned judge can take into account the period during which the person has been kept in custody, but of 9,200 who were kept in custody, 2,000 were given sentences which did not involve detention and, therefore, of course, the period of custody could not be taken into account.
  Merely to state these figures is to show how manifestly unjust such a system is. It is unfair to the accused person, of course, that there should be this delay, but it is also unfair in the public interest because the public interest requires that justice should be expeditious. Witnesses have to come along after a long period to give evidence at a time when their recollection is not very clear and they may have forgotten many things. On the face of it, therefore, this reform is plainly necessary.
  I gladly welcome the provisions in the Bill for the increase in the number of judges, for the arrangements for the reorganisation of quarter sessions and assizes, and for the extension of the jurisdiction of magistrates. I am sure that they will help to solve our present problem.
  In another place, reference was made to the recommendations in the second part of the Streatfeild Report. Those recommended provisions were welcomed and it was said that, apart, I think, from one point only, nothing was required by way of legislation to implement them. It was clearly promised that administrative measures would be adopted to deal with the recommendations under Part B of the Report. The discussion in another place was in November last year.
  Can the Attorney-General tell us what arrangements, if any, have been made and whether any of the measures recommended by the Streatfeild Committee under Part B of its Report have yet been adopted? If they have not, what is the intention with regard to them and what measures is it proposed to adopt? This is a matter of very great importance, and
  100
  everyone agree, I think, that the recommendations are well worthy of consideration and adoption.
  I turn now to the question of Crown courts. Apparently, the only criticism of the recommendation made by the Streatfeild Committee and of the course adopted in the Bill has been the criticism offered by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I cannot disagree with him more. I carefully read the arguments put forward concerning the adoption of the principle of Crown courts. There is a great deal of weight in the argument that if one has a Crown court the judge is isolated and tends to become stale. There is a great deal in the idea of having a High Court judge travelling round the country, at times doing civil work and at other times criminal work, bringing a fresh mind to bear. The decision of the Streatfeild Committee not to put forward an idea of a system of Crown courts but, rather, the system now embodied in the Bill, is, in my view, the correct one.
  I must say a word in criticism of Clause 15 (2) of the Bill, which states:
  "The length of any term of imprisonment, corrective training or preventive detention imposed by the sentence of any court shall be treated as reduced by any period during which the offender was in custody before the sentence by reason only of having been committed for trial, remanded after arraignment, or committed (under section twenty-eight or section twenty-nine of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952…)"
  Of course, it was always open to the tribunal to take into account, when sentencing a man, the period during which he has been kept in custody. I am glad to see this is now mandatory, but I wonder why the period a person is kept in custody before committal is not to be taken into account? This is limited only to the period after committal. I should have thought, in principle, that whatever period a person has spent in prison—whether before or after committal, whether it was, in fact, in summary proceedings or otherwise—should be taken into account.
  After all, if the tribunal desires, it can always take the matter into account by adding some period of time to the sentence. It must be remembered that not only does one get a delay, as it is set out in the Streatfeild Report, but one often gets delay in summary proceedings. It was not within the terms of the

  101
  Streatfeild Committee to deal with summary proceedings, but the Committee pointed out that there is the occasional delay in arranging for summary cases to be heard. Therefore, I urge that if it is right to take into account the period spent by a person in prison while awaiting trial it should be the whole period and not merely the period after committal.
  I referred earlier to the expedition with which the Government have dealt with this Report. What a contrast this is to the way the Government have been handling some other necessary reforms in our criminal administration. The Report of the Streatfeild Committee pointed out that the recommendations made by the Byrne Committee on Depositions, in 1949, has not yet been implemented and I would remind hon. Members that one of the main recommendations of that Committee was that a sufficient number of sittings in each week should be set aside to ensure that all indictable cases are dealt with regularly and promptly.
  All who are familiar with the long cases that come for trial know that committal proceedings in the magistrates' courts take a long time. They are often heard with long gaps between them for short periods on different afternoons. What a saving there would be, not only for the accused person but to everyone else concerned, if that recommendation were adopted.
  I notice that the Report of the Aarvold Committee—the Inter-departmental Committee on Magistrates' Courts in London—has just been issued. That deals with many important things in connection with magistrates' courts, but not with the point which I am putting, and I should have thought that the opportunity might have been taken to have dealt with the matter in this Bill.
  The Streatfeild Committee's Report refers to
  "a body of opinion which takes the view that the present procedure is outmoded and that the evidence should no longer have to be heard by the magistrates in every case and then recorded in sworn depositions."
  It goes on:
  "This radical reform, which would result in a substantial saving of time in magistrates' courts,…"
  I realise that the Government may say that the Bill under discussion deals only with the recommendations made by the
  102
  Streatfeild Committee. But, after all, it is a very important Bill carrying out very important reforms—and carrying them out essentially for the purpose of having cases dealt with expeditiously and to avoid delay. Why was this opportunity not taken to adopt these other methods which would certainly have assisted considerably the aims of the Bill, to deal with these matters expeditiously and to avoid delay?
  May I suggest a further necessary reform which should have been dealt with in the Bill? The Tucker Committee was appointed in June, 1957. It reported in July, 1958, and made unanimous recommendations with regard to the publication of detailed evidence in committal proceedings before the examining justices. I know that the Attorney-General supported those recommendations. Indeed, he gave evidence in their favour. That Committee was asked to deal with the matter with a sense of urgency in 1957. The Committee did so. It handled the matter as an urgent and important one. The Committee held a considerable number of meetings, heard evidence and, as I say, reported in July, 1958.
  More than three and a half years have passed and not only has nothing been done to implement any of its recommendations, but there has not even been an opportunity for the House to discuss the matter—a matter which, in 1957, this Committee was told to deal with urgently and as a matter of importance. I emphasise that because I have raised this matter on a number of occasions without receiving any reply. I hope that something will be said today so that hon. Members will know just what are the Government's intentions. I hope that there may be an opportunity of inserting something in the Bill during the Committee stage to deal with the recommendations made by the Tucker Committee.
  I welcome the Bill and the reforms it initiates. I think that it goes a long way to solve the problems dealt with by the Streatfeild Committee.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Antony Buck: It was not originally my intention to participate in the debate, bust there have been so many interesting points raised that I am grateful to have this opportunity of commenting on some of them.

  103
  At the beginning of his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) laid great stress, as have other speakers, on the delay in criminal proceedings and the great improvement that the Bill will make in the affairs of the administration of criminal justice. The Bill should, and almost definitely will, cut down many of the delays about which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North complained, delays, that is, in bringing criminals or alleged criminals to trial. We hope that the Bill will lead to an improvement in the statistics set out in the Streatfeild Committee's Report.
  This is largely to be done by the appointment of new judges, supported by a reorganisation of our circuit system. There is another aspect of delay which, I hope, will be assisted after the Bill becomes law. The judges have, naturally, felt the weight of the number of cases which is placed upon them. This has led from time to time to another type of inconvenience and delay, namely, the gross overloading of lists on circuit and elsewhere. By the appointment of more judges and by the reorientation of the circuit system, the pressure should be taken from the judges so that there will not be the overloading of lists which there has been from time to time on circuit and elsewhere.
  On occasions, witnesses, sometimes medical witnesses, or witnesses with important jobs to do, are kept waiting all day, until perhaps five o'clock in the evening, just kicking their heels in the corridors with virtually no chance of the case in which they are concerned coming on, but they have to wait because some other case might collapse, or the judge might have half-an-hour to spare while a jury is considering its verdict.
  That has been a feature of the past and one which will be alleviated by the Bill. Judges will not feel it absolutely imperative that every moment of their time must of necessity be filled. They may feel that they have greater leisure and are in a position to organise their lists in a way which does not involve periods of substantial delay for witnesses and for counsel, although, of course, counsel are of much less importance.
  104
  In a most interesting speech, the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) expressed his devotion to the proposition of having legally qualified chairmen of quarter sessions supported by lay magistrates. This is a proposition to which I subscribe, and, like the hon. and learned Member, I view with some suspicion the Clause which makes it possible for a chairman of quarter sessions to sit alone if justices are not available. This is a principle of some danger which will have to be watched most carefully.
  The overall proposition of having a legally qualified chairman sitting with lay justices is, as I say, one to which I subscribe. In this context, I would refer to the question of the training of magistrates. It was referred to in another place and, in my submission, it might well have been dealt with in the Bill, although it is not covered directly by the Streatfeild Committee's recommendations. One of the great values of the Bill is that it ties up many loose ends and strengthens the position of the magistrates. Here was an opportunity to put the question of the training of magistrates on a more regular basis.
  During the very few moments that I have been out of the Chamber, I turned up the Report of the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace, the du Parcq Commission, which reported in 1948. It dealt with the question of the instruction of justices in their duties and stated:
  "What we think is possible and should be done is to train justices to understand the nature of their own duties rather than the substantive law that they administer".
  That is a proposition to which I think we would all subscribe. At the moment, there are most admirable training courses organised on a local basis by the committees of the justices and clerks to the justices. There has been an interesting correspondence in The Times on the subject of the quality of such courses. I do not feel in any way qualified to comment on that, save to say that, reading the correspondence, one notices that some doubts are cast on the efficacy and efficiency on some of the courses. But some are of the highest order.
  What is a little disturbing is that so many of the magistrates who attend the

  105
  courses do not need to do so. The keen ones, the ones who know their rules of procedure and rules of evidence, attend, while those who could do with a course do not attend, and there is no compulsion on them to do so. I should have thought that it was appropriate to deal with this problem in the Bill and to make sure that magistrates receive some instruction in the rules of evidence; and particularly in these days, when the means of dealing with a criminal are more manifold than they were in the past, that they should be instructed in what they can do by way of sentencing a person who is found guilty. This would strengthen the position of the magistrates and would thus strengthen our legal system.
  I should now like to comment on some of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and of the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill who took it upon themselves to criticise the Clause in which the appeals committee of quarter sessions is done away with. I have the temerity to take up arms against them secure in the knowledge that I am supported by the Streatfeild Committee and by my own Front Bench. I should like to deal with the arguments put forward on a practical basis. Precisely the same people tend to sit on appeals committees as sit at quarter sessions. With an occasional exception, that is what happens in my experience. In these circumstances, the preservation of the appeals committees is doing no one any good.
  The existence of an appeals committee as a separate entity from quarter sessions leads from time to time to somewhat ridiculous results. For example, recently, to my knowledge, a person was committed from a magistrates' court to a quarter sessions appeals committee under Section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, for sentence. This young offender was put before quarter sessions through another body. The same bench sat as quarter sessions and as an appeals committee, yet it had to go through the farcical business of constituting itself first as a quarter sessions and then as an appeals committee. It had to defer one case and then, in this schizophrenic situation, change itself into an appeals committee. That is the sort of thing which happens in practice. I would give
  106
  my support to the Clause which does away with appeals committees.
  All in all, the Bill has been universally welcomed on both sides of the House. In spite of the fact that he is not present, I should like to comment on the most interesting speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) about the hazards of going into the Chancery Division. As a common lawyer, I have always been conscious of those hazards, but for the first time I realise their degree. Friends of mine who practise in that Division say that it conducts its affairs on the highest level, and the 87 steps to which reference has been made gives even more point to that than I could. One can subscribe to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the need for better accommodation, not merely in the Chancery Division, but in other divisions of the High Court and in courts throughout the country. That is a point of general application.
  Some of the courts—the Probate and Divorce courts, for example—not only have the hazards which are experienced in the Chancery Division, but during the summer months, often at the crucial point of one's cross-examination, the peals of "oranges and lemons" come loudly and clearly through the windows, which, one might sometimes feel, is an interesting comment on one's attempts at cross-examination.
  I know that the Government Front Bench will give close attention to all these matters of accommodation. The Bill does much to streamline and to assist the administration of justice and it will command respect from all sides of the House.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: It was correctly anticipated when the debate began that this would be a lawyer's holiday. I certainly am diffident about creating an atmosphere which would in any way mar the holiday which has taken place. I listened with care to the interesting speech by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), and I noticed his emphasis upon his belief that it would be inappropriate for a solicitor to take a place on the bench in this country. Despite the obvious provocation of remarks of that kind, I do

  107
  not want to pursue that aspect, but rather to pursue an aspect raised in another place by Lord Silkin and which has been touched upon here today, namely, whether the fact that we now create more judges may not in the long run—certainly not in the short run—lead to dilution and to lowering of the quality which is so essential if the great tradition of English justice is to be maintained.
  I am aware that 53 judges is a very small number, but the fact that it is so small means that their responsibilities and their need to be of considerable quality is the greater. When this matter was raised in another place, the Lord Chancellor gave many reassurances and spoke of the fact that there was no difficulty on his part in selecting judges whom he considered to be of suitable quality. I am, however, aware of the disquiet which has been expressed that there seems to be a great change in the quality of those who one day will be expected to be judges and who have entered the profession in more recent years.
  I am aware that there are considerable difficulties which have resulted, for example, in the fact that the statistics prepared annually by the Bar Council show a disquieting decrease in the number of persons called to the Bar or continuing as practising members of the Bar. In 1959 and 1960, for example, 62 barristers who had been in practice for over ten years ceased to practise, while no fewer than 27 who had been in practice for under ten years turned to other occupations.
  Faced with a situation of that kind, and faced with similar dangers which occur among solicitors in an endeavour to attract greater numbers to the profession, it is to the credit of the Law Society that that body has taken considerable action whereby it has recast, or is about to do so, its whole system of education to ensure quality. The Law Society has arranged that grants will be available during training and that payment will be possible after graduation while a clerk is articled to a solicitor.
  And yet, although all of us who are concerned with the quality of our justice must be concerned about the quality of the Bar, we now know that it is four
  108
  years since the Master of the Rolls, Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, in his capacity as Chairman of the Bar Council, supported by the then President of the Law Society, put forward proposals involving some form of common educational and examination system for both branches of the profession. Obviously, he had in mind a scheme which would be likely to attract more people of greater quality to the Bar. I am well aware that the Attorney-General has taken a personal interest in the matter and, if The Times is correct, on 15th June he had some hard things to say about the inability of the Inns of Court to reach collective decisions on this very question of a common legal educational system.
  I would say, speaking not as a solicitor but as a Member, that the Bar must recognise fully that as changes are taking place whereby, through legal aid schemes, the community is paying out most of the incomes of a large proportion of barristers, it has duties and responsibilities to the community.
  The days when Bar students could be maintained for years are over and now, in many cases, the cream of our young men are turning their backs on the hazards of the Bar and will not continue or submit to present arrangements, which, historically speaking, are founded on considerations of wealth and social origin, considerations which are being refuted by the community at large in favour of personal merit and ability.
  The Streatfeild Report has directed attention particularly to another aspect of the need for care to be taken in the education of those who contemplate joining the Bar and, ultimately, the Bench. In paragraph 299 of its Report, the Committee recognises that sentencing is an emergent branch of the law. Some of us may consider it a rather sad comment, if not a bitter one, on the present system that the Report has to recommend judges to visit penal institutions. One would have thought that that would have been done long ago.
  Is it not the case that although a barrister may come to the point of being a judge, well equipped with a vast knowledge of law, it may equally be the case in many instances that he has no knowledge of penology or criminology? A solicitor lacks any formal education

  109
  in these subjects, too. He may know little about the etiology of delinquency, but at least empirically, if he has a sufficient desire he can learn something by his very contacts with the roots of crime.
  By the way that matters are now arranged, however, the barrister is deliberately and completely insulated from any contact with the criminals with whom he has to deal. That is why he can arrive at the position that when he has to impose sentence, he has no knowledge other than a layman's knowledge of the people whom he has to sentence or recommend for this or that treatment.
  Although it would be desirable for these people to have the training long before they get to the bench, I should like to ask specifically whether the recommendation made by the Streatfeild Committee in paragraph 299 that there should be available a standing booklet on sentencing is being implemented. This may seem an elementary matter, and it only shows the gaps that exist in sentencing policy that at this belated stage it has been thought necessary to introduce a booklet. I should like to know whether steps have been taken for such a booklet to be prepared.
  The Streatfeild Committee, too, made a recommendation concerning the creation of a central authority to which a sentencer can notify his interest in a certain case so that he may receive regular reports on the progress of the offender in the institution and during after-care. Is such a central authority in course of preparation?
  It is because of the inadequacies that, by his very training, must often afflict a sentencer that I welcome the recommendation which is intended to provide that fuller guidance and information be given from probation officers to the sentencer. The Committee, however, has certainly not overstated the position in paragraph 363 when it says:
  "…our recommendations will substantially increase the number of enquiries made by an already hard-pressed service".
  These recommendations, as the House knows, would make it mandatory on the probation officer to prepare reports of all cases where the accused does not object or is under 30 or has not been previously convicted. That requires not the probation officer alone but the police, the
  110
  prison authorities, and, ofttimes, the medical officer to make reports.
  Each Session I am in this House I find that there is another Bill placing more and more burdens upon the probation officer It is very easy for us to pass these Bills or to implement these recommendations, but they fall upon the hapless probation officer. I know what happens when one discusses these matters with any city probation officer. Typically, he has at any one time hundreds—at least scores—of juveniles and adults upon whom he has to make reports each year to the magistrates and very often scores of reports as matters stand at present on juveniles in custody, and now to the attendance officers who are in charge of the attendance centres.
  Now, too, we have made him, under the Adoption Acts, the guardian ad litem, and we have given him more recently the duty of after care after a person's release from a detention centre. He has probation orders by the score to follow up. Under the last Act, the Matrimonial Proceedings Act, we even make him a vicarious parent. Now he is having thrown upon him the massive burdens of this Streatfeild Report. I think we are entitled to ask as to what is happening to the Departmental committee which is dealing with the probation officers. I believe I am correct in saying that we were told at the end of November that we should have its report very soon, but in view of the fact that we are told that this scheme is being implemented under the Streatfeild Report we are entitled to know when we may have the report which will deal with the position of the probation service and whether that report meets the needs of the recommendations of the Streatfeild Report.
  There is, however, another factor about these reports which I regard as of such importance that it should not be left, to Committee, as was suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), because the extension of these reports, the reports to come from probation officers, from prison authorities, reports which have to come if necessary from medical officers, introduces, in my view, a new and disquieting if not sinister element into the procedure in our criminal courts.

  111
  It is not, of course, only probation officers' reports which come under these recommendations, and which must be available now, if these recommendations come into effect, to the judge 24 hours before the trial of the accused. So must the police report and the report of the prison authorities, and, if appropriate, of a doctor. It is intended under these recommendations before the trial begins that the judge will have directed to his attention all the previous convictions of an accused, all his domestic and family circumstances, the date of his last discharge from prison, his general reputation according to the police, his associates, his employment record, all, in short, that is to be known about the accused and which may be in any way regarded as related to or relevant to his alleged culpability.
  The innocent man without a conviction or an innocent man under 30 living, perhaps, with someone not his wife, and who will have pleaded not guilty, will be facing a judge who will have full knowledge of all his faults and all his failures. I put the question, does not this recommendation, that the judge should know all this before the trial begins, drive a coach and four through our passionate belief in the principle that a man must be presumed to be innocent till he is proved to the contrary? What is the point of the scrupulous rules of evidence, the exclusion of knowledge of previous convictions, of the questions dealing with character, if the judge is to know all that can be known of an accused man 24 hours before his trial begins?
  Naturally, this point did not escape the notice of the Streatfeild Committee, and it is discussed in paragraph 333, where it puts forward what may be called its apologia for what, in my view, is a serious breach of a great tradition. It says that the fact that this knowledge will come before the judge 24 hours before the trial
  "would not in our view be open to objection on the grounds of possible prejudice. The statement would not be seen by the jury, who are alone concerned with the issue of guilt, but by the judge who"—
  I think many Members of this House would be rather surpised to learn—
  "has already been supplied with a confidential list of the previous convictions of the person for trial."
  112
  In short, it is saying that there is in existence already this knowledge at least of his previous convictions and in these circumstances we should extend this principle and give all this information which is to be called for by order from all these various parties so that the judge knows all about the man when he goes to attend his trial.
  We have listened today to the question, for example, as to whether we should have Crown courts in one place, and it has been pointed out that judges are fallible and so forth, and that a system of that kind may perhaps lead to deterioration in justice which should be administered. I accept the fact that judges are fallible and to ascribe to them Olympian detachment which enables them to give a summing-up completely free from any possible prejudice even although they will know every piece of possible information which can be collected by reports is, in my view, overvaluing the very great capacity and detachment of the judges of this country, and I think it requires great care and thought before we move forward—or backwards—in this direction.
  However, even if we do not accept all that I am saying, I think that if there is not great care shown the whole of these recommendations concerning reports, which, after all, are the main part of Part B of the Streatfeild Report, will fall to the ground, for I would ask this of the Attorney-General: what advice are solicitors going to give to an accused? Even if the solicitor accepts the infallibility of the judge, surely he would be under a duty to explain to any man whom he is defending that he can either object to the probation officer about giving these reports or not; he would have to be told, and I think it would be the duty of his solicitor to explain to him, that if in fact he does object the judge will know nothing except perhaps for his previous convictions, but if in fact he does not object, the judge will have full knowledge of all that, for example, the prison authorities may think of him, or the police may think of him. I think it would be the duty of the solicitor to put it to the accused, and I think the overwhelming majority of those from whom it would be the duty of the solicitor to obtain instruction would decline to give a report, and indeed if they did, it is

  113
  possible the judge would think the accused had no record, or at least he would know very little about him even though it is desirable, according to the Report, before sentence.
  All I am pointing out is that these proposals are self-defeating, and unless much more thought is directed to the question of the timing of these reports the whole of the recommendations about the information to which the judges are to have access on conviction before sentence fall to the ground. I believe—and I stress this aspect—that in any event the recommendation is dangerous, if only because it undermines our principle of the presumption of innocence of the accused. I feel that it cuts across our tradition and the notion of little delay between conviction and sentence—the very thing the Streatfeild Report is seeking—may, as a result of the timing I complain of, be sabotaged.
  A few other matters connected with this important principle require clarification. I should like to know—because I cannot spell it out from the Streatfeild Report as it stands—how the man in custody will indicate his objection to pre-trial inquiries made by the prison authorities. Can I have an assurance that, if these recommendations are implemented, no attempt will be made by the prison authorities to obtain information from the accused, his employers or parents, or other outside sources, until notification has been given by the probation officer that the accused, or his solicitor, has given consent for this?
  As is clear from paragraph 389 of the Report, the preparation of the prison report involves interviewing the accused. It is quite repugnant that any form of questioning should be conducted by prison staff with an accused in custody unless the accused, with the consent of his solicitor, has clearly indicated that he has no objection to this being done. This aspect of the matter is not clear from the Report, and requires clarification.
  I also want to say a few words on the question of medical reports. These will now assume very much greater importance. I welcome this, and I welcome the fact that all these reports will come to the attention of the court. What I do sot welcome is the timing. I hope that these medical reports will be of
  114
  ever increasing influence in helping the person who has to pass sentence to decide how a man should be dealt with.
  For the most part these medical reports will come from prison medical officers. Inevitably, most of them will be directed to the mental capacity or deficiencies of the accused—his aberrations, eccentricities and background; the sort of knowledge one would expect from a psychiatrist with experience in dealing with delinquents. On 15th December, 1960, I asked the Home Secretary about the number of prison medical officers who held diplomas in psychological medicine. In a Written Answer he said:
  "Few prison medical officers who submit reports to court on the mental condition of inmates possesses a recognised psychiatric diploma, though all have experience in the diagnosis of mental disorder and the majority are approved by local health authorities for the purposes of Section 28 of the Mental Health Act, 1959."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 74.]
  This reply caused some comment in the medical Press. A former prison medical officer commented:
  "It is of interest to speculate upon what the Home Secretary meant by ' experience in the diagnosis of mental disorder'."
  I submit that these reports will, unfortunately, come from men who, whatever their intentions may be, are not fully equipped to deal with the matters in hand and which will be of direct importance to the sentencer. The doctor went on to say:
  "It only takes two years working in an approved hospital to sit for the D.P.M. so that many of the medical officers in the prisons without a diploma in psychiatry"—
  and they are the majority, according to the Report—
  "must either be failed D.P.M.s ' or have worked in the psychiatric field for less than two years."
  The doctor, who is a psychiatrist, commented:
  "It also has to be acknowledged that often the first year in psychiatry is spent in the wards with chronic deteriorated schizophrenics, etc., and not in the sort of atmosphere that leads to an interest, and perhaps expertise, in appraising the neurotics, the sociopaths and the inadequate personalities ', this latter group forming the diagnosis in some 47 per cent. of all the state of mind reports made from H.M. Prison, Brixton in 1957."
  There clearly needs to be a reconsideration of the method by which we can induce more psychiatrically trained

  115
  people to enter the prison medical service, if the reports which are to be submitted as recommended in the Streatfeild Report are to be of any real value.
  The prison medical service is an hierarchical structure and the medical officer entering the service with two, three or more years previously spent obtaining psychiatric experience and a diploma is, unfortunately, not granted any seniority or additional pay; nor, indeed, is he certain to be given a full opportunity to work in the psychiatric field. I hope, therefore, that this debate will be brought to the attention of the Home Office, in order to see what can be done to improve the quality of psychiatrists in the prison medical service, so that, in the long run, we shall have doctors who can make medical reports which will be of great value to the judges who have to pass sentence.
  Now I would like to turn to a matter actually dealt with in the Bill before us. Under Clause 2 provision is made for the appointment to the position of assistant clerks of assize of persons other than banisters or solicitors. I assume that such officers will have delegated to them the duties of assessing the remuneration and the fixing of the costs of solicitors both in respect of prosecutions and in cases under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1930. I know it is the view of the profession that it would be a retrograde step to assign such duties to officers whose previous experience does not qualify them to take on such an onerous task. These officers will have no up-to-date experience of work in solicitors' offices, or of the methods of assessing solicitors' costs, or of the ordinary day-to-day expenses and overheads incurred in running solicitors' offices.
  If I were making a special plea in respect of solicitors' costs I might be regarded as very biassed, but I believe that the Law Society itself is going to make a report stating that the present procedure for the taxation of costs by clerks of assize is unsatisfactory. If assistant clerks of assize, who are unqualified men, are also to be allowed to undertake this duty the position is likely to become still more unsatisfactory. It is not only a question of solicitors' costs; it is a question of making certain that solicitors will defend those who are in trouble. In a recent speech the President
  116
  of the Law Society indicated that for every nine vacancies at present only one solicitor is available. Since many solicitors are now in a position where they can exercise a great deal of choice about the work they will do, unless the present unsatisfactory position about the taxation of costs is remedied they will be deterred from acting at all in criminal cases.
  Finally, I want to deal with a very local matter, concerning South Wales. Paragraphs 182 and 183 of the Streatfeild Report deal with the County of Glamorgan. Paragraph 182 says:
  "The assizes for the county of Glamorgan are at present held at Cardiff in the winter, at Swansea in the summer, and at Cardiff and Swansea alternately in the autumn."
  Representations have been made about the great difficulties arising, owing to the fact that:
  "Most of the population of the county is grouped round one or other of these towns, and every term a large number of defendants, solicitors and witnesses travel the 50 miles or so between them."
  The Streatfeild Committee made a most sensible comment. It said that a prima facie case had been made out, and suggested that it should be possible for the judges to start at Swansea each term and then visit Cardiff before going to Newport and Chester. They certainly were directing their minds to the problem.
  It is notorious that a large waste of public funds takes place when herds of witnesses, police officers, solicitors, and counsel all have to track 45 to 50 miles each time the assize is being held in one or other of the towns. The situation could be simply remedied if all the cases which are convenient to be dealt with in Cardiff so far as witnesses and all the other staff are concerned were set down for Cardiff, and those that affect Swansea were dealt with in the same manner.
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has indicated the difficulties of the peripatetic system. It is a view that I substantially share with him, as do most solicitors who have the burden of trying to support it administratively. In this case, in Glamorgan, there is a simple remedy. I am very much disturbed to learn that despite the fact that a large amount of public money is wasted because this system is not yet

  117
  working, certain influences have been at work to make sure that this recommendation is not followed. I earnestly ask, since I know that it is a matter of great concern in South Wales, that it should be reviewed, and that the hint given by the Streatfeild Committee should be taken, so that there is the possibility each term of a judge being both at Cardiff and at Swansea.
  I have spoken longer than is my wont, but if I have made some points of criticism of the Bill and of the Report it is not because I do not believe that in a very substantial way it is a progressive Bill.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: It is not my wish to take up the time of the House for too long, but I speak as a layman and as a citizen of a city which will be affected by one Clause in the Bill. I refer to Clause 3, which relates to the appointment of a High Sheriff for the Sheffield Assize Division, which, for the purpose of the appointment of a sheriff and the execution of his functions, will be known as "Hallamshire".
  Perhaps the House will forgive me, and will not regard it as irrelevant, if I draw attention to the term "Hallam-shire". It is a county that does not exist on the map. Hallam is the name given to the constituency which I represent in this House. The boundaries of this constituency are well known, but it is only part of the shire known as Hallamshire. It embraces the whole of Sheffield and covers the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Sir P. Roberts), part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Walder), and of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winter-bottom), Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths).
  The boundaries of Hallamshire have been rather nebulous. It is, after all, a shire within a shire and the boundaries have always been in dispute. In 1638, the Earl of Shrewsbury's baliff defined Hallamshire as embracing the parishes of Sheffield, Ecclesfield Bradfield, and
  118
  subsequently that of Handsworth. By the seventeenth century the boundaries had become vague, particularly as an administrative area, although geographically the boundaries are still clear in men's minds. In 1624, the Act by which the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire was incorporated specified that its authority should extend throughout Hallamshire and six miles around it. There is a map in the Cutlers' Hall of Sheffield at present showing the boundaries of Hallamshire as such and the extent of the authority of the Cutlers' Company in Hallamshire. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will forgive me raising this, but it is a geographic fact of interest to the citizens of Sheffield.
  The main provisions of the Bill, which are, of course, to speed up the process of justice, will be welcome throughout the country and particularly in my city. My attention in discussions that I have had with people concerned with this matter has been drawn to the note on page 143 of the Streatfeild Report. Note 1 states:
  "This has probably been the most hard-pressed circuit in recent years;"
  This is a reference to the North East circuit.
  "Extra assizes have been held and the commissioners have sat frequently."
  The note goes on to state:
  "In 1959, despite the extra assizes and 20 days' work by commissioners, there remanets at all towns and an estimated 93 judge-days would have been required to clear the work."
  It also states:
  "It may be thought desirable that, with the York assizes regularly clashing that for the Leeds and Sheffield assizes, there should in future be two High Sheriffs."
  This has been brought to my attention and Clause 3 is, therefore, being welcomed. The Bill when implemented could well justify a speeding up of the long prepared proposals by Sheffield City Council for the development of its city centre. In the development plan for Sheffield it is scheduled that one day—it may be many years hence—a road should pass through the area now occupied by the present courts. But development plans can be changed, and it is my belief that the Bill will provide a reason to accelerate consideration of the construction of separate magistrates' courts in the new civic centre envisaged for my own city.

  119
  Comment on one of the general Clauses of the Bill has been brought to my attention during the Recess including comment from this year's President of the Sheffield District Incorporated Law Society to the effect that until a few years ago the congestion was such that Her Majesty's judges spent nearly the whole of their time dealing with criminal work and were left with no opportunity of dealing with the many civil actions which were entered in the list.
  On page 14 of the Streatfeild Report there are two comments:
  "But the judges organise the work as a team. The civil judge may take pleas of guilty on the first few days, and if the calendar is short, the criminal judge may have some time over at the end of the Assize for civil work."
  This has caused serious dislocation and delay.
  When the Sheffield assize became an established fact it was intended that this move would do away with the arrears both in criminal and civil cases. Everyone in my area will support the recommendations of Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his Committee that a person accused of a crime shall be brought to trial as soon as reasonably may be. This has not always been possible in the past. Quite obviously, the rights of civil litigants in the Queen's Bench Division have also to be considered.
  Much expense is involved in many cases where the actions have been entered for trial and had to be adjourned because they have not been reached owing to other business. Surely all Members of this House and all citizens of the country, particularly in my own city, will welcome measures to bring about quicker trials.
  We are particularly concerned with the statement at the bottom of page 5 of the Report that
  "in as many as 5,000 cases a year (nearly a quarter of the total) the waiting period is longer than eight weeks; and it seems indefensible that 1.600 wait for longer than 12 weeks and that 400 of the 1,600 wait for longer than 16 weeks."
  This example was referred to by Mr. Justice Streatfeild.
  I know that this Measure will be welcomed by all hon. Members, particularly the provision that divorce and civil 'proceedings may be dealt with as priority
  120
  matters in the criminal courts. There are many civil cases which have been waiting for years. Only too often have witnesses forgotten all the facts when a case comes up for trial and only too often are they unable to give satisfactory evidence, as it is well known that all those not connected with the law are notorious for having bad memories.
  The Bill will be welcomed by all in industry, and particularly by the representatives of workpeople, as it will mean, I hope, that many of the civil cases which involve problems of workmen's compensation may be dealt with more quickly and the infliction of hardship avoided. Finally, may I take the opportunity of endorsing and welcoming the measures outlined in the Bill, particularly as they affect the people in my own city.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Attorney-General must be gratified at the chorus of congratulation and approval with which this Bill has been welcomed on both sides of the House and not least by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) who, with his special local knowledge, endorsed the proposal to create the new county of Hallamshire and gave the House such an interesting disquisition on the history of that part of Yorkshire.
  The only serious discordant note was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who levelled a sustained barrage of criticism. I noted, however, that his criticism was directed much more against Part B of the Streatfeild Committee's Report than against Part A with which the Bill is primarily concerned. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend was wise, because it is only during the Second Reading debate, and not during the Committee stage discussions or the Third Reading, that we shall have an opportunity to refer to the important recommendations contained in Part B. I should like therefore, as did the Attorney-General, to begin by referring to the most important recommendations in Part B.
  In the second part of its Report the Streatfeild Committee was charged to make recommendations regarding the provision of information necessary to the courts to enable them to select the most appropriate treatment for offenders.

  121
  It emerges from the Report that the Committee realised that in these days the problem of deciding on the appropriate sentence for a convicted prisoner is a much more difficult task than that of determining guilt. Indeed, one paragraph of the Report quotes the fact that nearly all the sentencers who gave evidence mentioned that passing sentence was one of the most difficult judicial duties. It is noteworthy that so much attention is being given today to this aspect of criminology.
  There was a time, as the Attorney-General and others have recognised, when sentences for crime were decided almost by rule of thumb, what the Report refers to as the "tariff system". In recent years it has been recognised, with the advance of penology and the greater variety of forms of detention which are available, that far more care is required in determining what is the proper sentence. I am not sure that everyone recognises that today there is such a wide range of sentences available. In addition to imprisonment of the ordinary type, there is corrective training, preventive detention, Borstal training, detention in a detention centre, attendance at an attendance centre and detention in an approved school. The whole burden of Part B of the Report is directed to ensuring that judges, and all who pass sentences, are supplied with adequate information to enable them to award the most appropriate sentence in the interests of the public and of a convicted person.
  The Report exposes the existing limitations and short-comings of that part of our judicial system. In another place the Lord Chancellor indicated that it was the intention of the Government and the Home Office to give effect to these recommendations by administrative action. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will be able to amplify that assurance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool was concerned about some of the possible disadvantages of requiring probation officers to make pre-trial inquiries. I do not share his disquiet in that regard, but I am very concerned about the additional duties to be imposed on probation officers if, as I understand and hope to be the case, the Government intend to implement these requirements by administrative action.
  122
  For example, in future, according to paragraph 336 of the Report, a probation officer's report will include, as part of the essential details, particulars of the offender's home surroundings and family background; his attitude to his family, and their response to him; his school and work record and spare-time activities; his attitude to his friends; his attitude to the present offence and his attitude and response to previous forms of treatment following any previous convictions; detailed histories of relevant physical and mental conditions and an assessment of his personality and character.
  Moreover, the Report definitely encourages probation officers not to be afraid to express quite definite opinions about the kind of sentence they think appropriate. I mention these matters because it is quite obvious that if due effect is to be given to the recommendations in the Report, the consequence seems to me to follow that the whole status of a probation officer will be considerably enhanced. His duties will be much greater. Far greater reliance will be placed upon him by the judiciary. At present, as stated in the paragraph of the Report quoted by my hon. Friend, paragraph 363, there is a shortage of probation officers. If these new duties are to be faithfully undertaken, it follows as a necessary consequence that there will be a considerable increase in the number of probation officers required, and some consequent expense. I hope that the Home Office will not flinch from the consequences which, as it seems to me, are implicitly involved in the carrying out of the recommendations in Part B of the Streatfeild Report.
  Having said that, may I make a few observations about some of the provisions in the Bill. Most are matters of detail which may be more conveniently dealt with during the Committee stage. But some important points have emerged from this debate. I add my congratulations to the Streatfeild Committee on the thoroughness with which it has reviewed the problem and to the Government on the expedition with which they have carried out the recommendations.
  In a nutshell, the proposals put forward provide for a more expeditious system of dealing with criminal offences

  123
  and in particular for removing the present state of affairs, which the Committee described as indefensible, whereby so many persons have to spend more than two months, some more than three months and a smaller number more than four months between committal and trial. Broadly speaking, the proposals embrace four kinds of change in our administrative arrangements. They enable some cases now triable only at assizes to be taken at quarter sessions. They extend the cases which, with the consent of the accused, can be dealt with summarily but which now have to go to quarter sessions. They involve a considerable extension of the "convenient court procedure". Most important of all, they involve a complete reorganisation of the present system of assizes and quarter sessions with considerable changes in the present system of circuits.
  As one of the incidental consequences of these changes, I support wholeheartedly those provisions in the Bill which transfer to the Lord Chancellor responsibility for fixing the remuneration of recorders, deputy and assistant recorders, as well as paid chairmen and deputy chairmen of quarter sessions. It seems highly desirable that we should take this opportunity of putting an end to the scandalous under-payment of recorders which has existed for so long. All of us know of cases in which it has been a matter of real sacrifice and hardship for a person to accept the office of recorder. I also support the suggestion made in the Report—which has been mentioned by one or two hon. Members—that opportunity should also be taken to put an end to the anomalous—indeed, intolerable—hardship which recorders suffer in having to pay taxation on the inevitable expenses of performing their duties.
  There has been a great deal of discussion about the proposal for the appointment of additional judges. I support the observations made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that this Bill would seem to be an ideal vehicle for making the change which would enable solicitors to be eligible—certainly for appointment as recorders and deputy recorders—and I would go further and say, for any judicial office. Like the hon. Member for Crosby, I
  124
  must disclose an interest because I also am a solicitor. At the same time I would disclaim any ambition for any judicial appointment.
  This problem of the judiciary to which a number of hon Members have referred is obviously a difficult one and obviously an important one. I was not struck by the argument used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who objected to the proposals for strengthening the ladder of promotion whereby there would be more promotion to the High Court from the county court. His objection seemed to be that it would impair the independence of the judiciary to provide more hope of promotion. That seems totally ill-founded. One knows that in practice the independence of the judges to give fearless and impartial judgments in all cases is in no way impaired by the present system under which judges are promoted to the High Court, to the Court of Appeal, and hence to the House of Lords. It seems that the same principle would apply equally if there were greater recourse to the field of recruitment to the High Court from the county court bench.
  In regard to the eligibility of solicitors it seems also anomalous that whereas a solicitor is qualified to act as chairman or deputy chairman of quarter sessions, he should not be eligible for appointment as a recorder or deputy recorder. Some solicitors have had very nearly as much practice in advocacy at county courts as some members of the Bar who become High Court judges. Apart from that, I think all of us know a number of distinguished members of the solicitors' profession who by their general ability, experience in practice and in other fields such as chairmen of Royal Commissions and Commissions of inquiry would be well-qualified to adorn the judicial bench.
  All that is suggested is that opportunity should be taken in this Bill to remove the present bar of ineligibility. On this whole subject of the two branches of the profession I record my view, which I have held for some time. I do not think the watertight division of the legal profession into two branches is in the best interests either of the profession or of the public. I believe that eventually we shall move towards fusion, which

  125
  would be welcomed both by the profession and by the public. Already considerable judicial services that are rendered in the administration of criminal justice by solicitors as chairmen of quarter sessions, as stipendiary magistrates, and in other respects.
  I share the disquiet, which was expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill, and also by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), about the provision in the Bill that a qualified chairman of quarter sessions should be able to sit alone. I think that is an unfortunate recommendation. I do not know whether it is necessary in the interests of expedition. I think it must tend to diminish the significance and status of magistrates generally. I hope that on reflection the Attorney-General may think it an unwise provision in the Bill.
  In this context I endorse what some of my hon. Friends have said on the general question of the desirability of improving existing schemes for training magistrates, I hope some attention will be given to the wider question of recruitment of magistrates. There was an important article in The Times on this subject the other day. No doubt the Attorney-General is familiar with it. A quotation was made from an October number of the Criminal Law Review expressing the opinion of a chairman of quarter sessions that about one-third of the justices on petty sessional benches are competent, one-third are passable and one-third ought not to be there at all. I have heard similar comments in different parts of the country. It is a situation which calls for attention by the Government.
  Various suggestions have been made for widening the field from which lay justices are recruited. One suggestion is that there should be advisory committees. Another is that the Lord Chancellor should make freer use of recommendations by the local county court judge, the local law society and chairman of quarter sessions. Another suggestion is that there might be an increase in the practice of lay magistrates sitting with a stipendiary. Since we are in this Bill imposing additional duties on magistrates and transferring to their competence certain classes of criminal case with which they have not previously been able to deal, it is important that more attention should be
  126
  given to the general recruitment of magistrates.
  That brings me to make two short references to two matters which are omitted from the Bill but which I hoped it might be found convenient to include in it. I should like to stress the Government's failure as yet to deal with the recommendations which were made in 1949 by the Departmental Committee on Depositions. There is a growing body of opinion which takes the view that the present committal procedure is outmoded and that the evidence should no longer have to be heard by the magistrates in every case and then recorded in sworn depositions. I hope that we shall be told that the Government are giving some attention to this.
  Finally, there is the point about insanity which was referred to in the debate in another place but which was not very satisfactorily cleared up. Lord Chorley drew attention to three anomalies where the issue of insanity arises in criminal cases. The first question which he pointed out is whether an appeal should be allowed against a verdict of guilty but insane. I understand that this has been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee under Lord Justice Sellers. The second anomaly arose from the question whether the prosecution should be allowed to raise the issue of insanity where the defence is one of diminished responsibility. I am not sure whether that has been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. There was some suggestion that it might be. Is the Attorney-General in a position to tell us whether this question will be dealt with?
  The third question was the very difficult but important question of whether a person judged unfit to plead should be given the opportunity to test the prosecution's case against him. It was pointed out that there have been cases in which, owing to a finding of unfitness to plead, the defendant has never had the opportunity of establishing his innocence. He is deprived of a finding that he did not do the act alleged against him. He goes through life under a slur. His guilt has never been determined, although it is generally assumed. It is quite likely that this is an obstacle to his recovery. There is the further disadvantage that the police might well

  127
  drop their inquiries on the assumption that the person found unfit to plead had committed the crime. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that this question, difficult as it is, has been referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
  With those observations, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), I cordially support the Bill and hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
  8.5 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): We are all extremely grateful to the House for the virtually unanimous welcome which the Bill has received, and I should like to add my thanks and congratulations to Mr. Justice Streatfeild and his Committee for the first-class job which they did.
  The debate has been almost entirely professional, as was expected, but, quite rightly—we do not object—it has ranged far wider than the matters dealt with either by the Streatfeild Committee or by the Bill. I could not help admiring the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), who managed to give a fervent and interesting exegesis of the hopes and fears of the Chancery Division in a Bill dealing with criminal justice administration. It was a great performance and to me something of an essay in nostalgia when he explained the via dolorosa of the 87 stone steps up which litigants and their advisers have to traipse to get to the pure fountain of justice of Mr. Justice Plowman.
  This Bill does not, and does not purport to, deal with accommodation except very indirectly, but I can assure him and others who have raised the question of accommodation that this is under immediate and urgent consideration by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and that we are by no means deaf, or unalive, to the very serious and not merely inconvenient but very undignified effect which the increase in litigation has had on the accommodation which is available.
  But first things have to come first, with limited resources. The House will probably agree that the provision of suffi
  128
  cient personnel and sufficiently trained personnel in the administration of justice comes before accommodation, just as it does in so many other fields. For example, in my opinion the quality of the teacher is always more important than the nature of the building. Both are important, but one comes before the other.
  The only lay contribution which we had to the debate was by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), and I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not enter into this passionately-held dispute in the South Riding of Yorkshire, if there be such an area, about the exact provenance of the word "Hallam" and the word "Hallamshire". I am glad to know that a dispute which at one time looked as if it might lead almost to wrecking the Bill has been satisfactorily settled.
  In his very warm welcome to the Bill, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) put two questions which he wished to be dealt with, and others have done the same. Without necessarily taking up a position, he questioned the abolition of the appeal committee of quarter sessions by Clause 4. The reasons for this were partly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), whose speech we so much enjoyed. He explained from his personal experience at quarter sessions the tremendous inconvenience, amounting in his words sometimes to a situation of schizophrenia, when a quarter sessions appeals committee had to turn itself into an ordinary sitting of quarter sessions and back again, sometimes quite frequently. It would be no argument that this was very inconvenient if the reform which we proposed would lead to a diminution in the quality of justice.
  However, for the reasons which have already been given in another place that will not happen. In 1933, when appeals committees were set up, things were very different. There were not nearly so many legally qualified chairmen of quarter sessions as there are now. In those days it was difficult to limit the number of justices who turned up at quarter sessions. Nowadays the rota system and other things are operating so much better that my hon. Friend will find that the quality of those who will in future listen to appeals will be just as good as

  129
  that of the old appeals committees. Therefore, the argument of convenience so well put by my hon. Friend seems to prevail.
  My hon. Friend's second point concerned borough sessions. He asked whether it would not be right for the Lord Chancellor to have power to require boroughs to petition for separate sessions if they were unwilling to do so. Other hon. Members have explained the extraordinarily unsatisfactory situation which might arise if a recorder were to be forced on an unwilling borough. We accept that boroughs of this kind should be encouraged to apply. Perhaps there was a time when they were not always encouraged to apply, but that is not the view today. The view today is that they should be encouraged to apply.
  If we were to wield the big stick, if the Lord Chancellor were to require boroughs to apply, we should get into an unnecessarily strained situation which would not be good for justice and certainly would not be good for local government. When the Boundary Commissions have finished their work and we see the picture more clearly, I believe that this problem, because it is a problem at present, will be found to be manageable and the boroughs in question will come forward, with encouragement, and apply for the sessions which they should undoubtedly have.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman was good enough to welcome the increase in the salary of recorders envisaged by the Bill. We all know that some recorders are still paid very little. Some still may be when the Bill becomes an Act. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on his appointment as Recorder of Kingston-upon-Thames. There, he does this onerous job, which very often keeps him up late at night, for the princely salary of two loaves of sugar a year, which, in spite of the reasonableness of the salary, are sometimes not paid. It is not for me to say whether his salary in this post will be increased under the new dispensation.
  As this is an uncontroversial Bill I hope that the House will forgive me if I make the rather boring speech of simply answering as best I can the questions which have been raised. The next speech
  130
  was delivered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), who said that he was a great believer in pre-trial inquiries in the matter of sentencing, as was the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), unlike the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse).
  Mr. Abse: I did not say so.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Pontypool said that this was the most serious inroad into British justice, in that it would in some way prejudice the tribunal and the accused would feel that he was not getting a fair trial if all the details of his life were already known to the tribunal. I think that I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice when I make that comment on his speech.
  Mr. Abse: That is far from my attitude. I am strongly in favour of pretrial inquiries, but I am not in favour of the result of the pre-trial inquiries being provided to the judge twenty-four hours before the trial. They should be given to the judge when the man has been convicted and before he is sentenced, but they should not be known when the man is presumptively innocent.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The difficulty about that proposition is that, unless the tribunal is aware of the results of inquiries in advance, it is very difficult for it to have sufficient time to consider the matter. Altthough there is provision for an adjournment to consider what sentence should be imposed, and adjournments are likely to be more frequent in the future, we do not want them to be too frequent. Although adjournments now take place in about one per cent. of cases at assizes and in about 3 per cent. of cases at quarter sessions, the Streatfeild Committee said that it would not like those proportions to become very much higher. If the tribunal does not have this information and has to make up its mind there and then, it will almost inevitably mean more adjournments.
  I remind the hon. Member that the Streatfeild Committee's recommendation is subject to these safeguards. First, the jury does not know any of these things before a conviction or an acquittal, as

  131
  the case may be, is obtained. It will know none of the results of these inquiries. It never has. Secondly, nothing will be done under the Streatfeild Committee's proposals without the consent of the accused. Pre-trial reports, not merely the factual report by the police which is at present made, but inquiries into the domestic, social and educational origins of accused persons, are essential if we are to expedite the administration of justice and not have too many adjournments between conviction and sentence. Such delays can be very bad from the point of view of the administration of justice, almost as bad as pre-trial delays.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) answered the point of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport about forcing recorders on unwilling boroughs. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the cysts of prosecutions. This is a difficult subject. The Bill does no more than the Streatfeild Committee recommended in that to a certain extent it alleviates the problem to which my hon. Friend drew attention, but only to a certain extent. The Bill adopts this principle. It says that in transferred cases and difficult court cases and in connection with the new flexibility, when a court may differ from the ordinary court which either tries or sentences an accused, an authority shall ultimately bear the costs which it would have had to bear if the normal course had been pursued.
  Therefore, there will be in nobody's mind any inhibition or bar against using this new flexible procedure relating to transferred or convenient court cases because people might think that somehow the wrong local authority would have to bear the burden.
  It goes further than that, because I think for the first time, and certainly to a larger extent than ever before, recovery of costs shall extend not only to the actual costs of the prosecution—that is to say, payment of witnesses, and so on—but shall also take account of the general expenses of holding the court, and a proportion of those expenses shall be refunded. It does not go further than that, and I cannot give my hon. Friend any further answer. He said that the central Government bore a large part of
  132
  the costs of prosecutions in the nineteenth century. I think that I am right in saying that that state of affairs lasted for only about forty-five years. It evidently was not considered very satisfactory, because it was altered in 1888.
  The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) referred to something that has run through this debate: to what extent will the Bar, the traditional source of judges, be able to supply a high standard of recruits to the Bench if the Bench is increased even by as many as five? In support of him, but in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East, I would merely repeat what was said by my noble Friend in another place; that he has no doubt whatever that at present and for the foreseeable future, there is ample talent at the Bar to fill these vacancies, and more.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) asked why the salaries of clerks of the peace in cities and boroughs were not being fixed from the centre in the same way as were those of recorders and deputy recorders. The answer is that in most cases these officers are servants of the local authority, and do other work as well as being clerks of the peace. I believe that two-thirds of them are also town clerks—
  Mr. Graham Page: I can name at least thirty who are not town clerks, and who merely receive this particular salary.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That may well be, but the majority of them are—and most of those whom my hon. Friend mentions are part-time, even if they are not town clerks. Their work is administrative rather than judicial, and it was, therefore, thought more appropriate that their salaries—subject, perhaps, to discussion on questions of appeal if the salaries fixed by the local authorities were ridiculously low—should be fixed by the local authority whose responsibility they are.
  I was also interested to hear that my hon. Friend was not quite so enthusiastic about bringing on cases more quickly—which is, of course, one of the objects of this Bill—on the ground that, in many cases, it would embarrass the defence. I think that I am right in saying that it is no part of the intention of the Bill to bring to trial anyone who wants a

  133
  reasonable adjournment. There are many cases, particularly of fraud, in which there are complicated questions of accounts to be gone into and where the defendants want a long period to prepare, but it was never the intention of the Streatfeild Committee, nor is it the intention of this Bill, nor is there anything in the Bill, to suggest that accused should be tried before they wish to be tried. Many cases, of course, have been just the reverse; the accused wished to be dealt with quickly but, owing to the incidence of the circuit system or of quarter sessions in the past, he could not get to trial as quickly as he wished.
  The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has written to me apologising for his necessary absence, and I am grateful to him for having so written. He asked what arrangements there are to be in practice for implementing the second part of the Report. This question was put to me very forcefully by the hon. Member for Islington, East. I should like to make a statement, because, as other hon. Members have said, Part B of the Report is as important, if not more important—certainly, from the Home Office point of view, it is more important—than Part A.
  We endorse the Committee's general conclusion that every sentence
  "…should be based on reliable, comprehensive information…"
  which is relevant to the objectives that the court has in view. Penal thought has, of course, been moving in this direction for a considerable time, but the authoritative statements of the Streatfeild Committee on the subject deserve attention and add impetus to the movement. When the hon. Member for Pontypool grumbles that this has not been done before—that we have not put out manuals, given instructions, and so on—all I can say is that it would have been premature to have done so. As it is, I think that we have taken the tide on the flood, because had we earlier put out a lot of manuals and circulars we should have had to revise them all since the passage of the Criminal Justice Act last Session. It is only now that in this rapidly developing field of criminology we seem to be reaching some sort of finality.
  134
  We propose to adopt the Committee's recommendation that there should be a general booklet or manual about the different forms of penal treatment available under each type of sentence, their aims and effects. My right hon. Friend fully accepts the need for such a manual of guidance for sentences but, of course, that general guidance is not enough. It will, perhaps, help my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who wanted magistrates to be trained—almost against their will, I think—but, at any rate, there will be some sort of guidance for them on the policy of sentencing.
  The second aspect of the subject covered by the Committee was the provision of information relating to individual offenders. Here, the Committee made a very comprehensive series of recommendations for improving the arrangements by which courts may be given information about the personal characteristics and background of each offender. The working out of this is a task of some complication. The requirements of different courts vary. The Committee was very anxious, just as we are, to avoid duplication between prison reports, police reports, probation reports, and all the rest of it.
  What we always have to remember, as the hon. Member for Islington, East forcibly reminded us, is that we must not put too much responsibility or too much weight on the backs of patient probation officers who, in any case, will have a lot more work under the new after-care provisions. Therefore, we want to see that not too many reports are called for, and that they are not called for automatically in cases where they are not really necessary. It is a complicated matter, but we certainly hope that these arrangements will begin to be put into effect in the course of the present year. I think that we may rightly claim that we are doing all we can to implement all the Streatfeild Report within a creditably short period of its publication.
  I have spoken briefly because I am sure that the other matters raised by hon. Members in this most valuable debate can best be dealt with in Committee. I have not dealt with the omissions to which hon. Members have referred because, of course, we could expand the Bill—not, perhaps, in view of

  135
  its Short Title, as far as to deal with the Chancery courts, but, at any rate, a long way, and if I dealt with all the things with which the Bill does not deal as well as those with which it does deal we should have an unmanageable discussion. I must therefore ask forgiveness if I do not deal with all the omissions that others, including the hon. Member for Islington, East, have suggested. I will say one word about the insanity point that he raised. That, as he said, is being submitted to the Sellers Committee and in due course the terms of reference will be made known.
  With that short and, I am afraid, rather atomised winding up, all in bits and pieces, I hope that we may get on with the work of the Bill, which is not just purring over the Second Reading but in fact getting down to the hard-headed work of trying to achieve what the whole House wants, namely, that we do a good and speedy job in getting good and speedy justice.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [Lords]

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION [MONEY]
    [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
    [Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to provide for the appointment of additional puisne judges of the High Court, and of assistant clerks of assize, and to amend the law relating to courts of quarter sessions and to the administration of criminal justice in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) any increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to any provisions of the said Act increasing the maximum number of puisne judges of the High Court or authorising the appointment of assistants to clerks of assize;

    136

    (b) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland;

    (c) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums payable under any enactment into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.]

    Resolution to be reported.
    Report to be received Tomorrow.

  WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVY)
  8.31 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move,
  That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
  The sole purpose of this Order, which is to be made under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, is to increase by one-third the rates of the levy payable by the wool textile industry for scientific research.
  The research levy was introduced at the request of both employers and of trade unions in the industry, the first Order being made in 1950, and it has been varied from time to time since. The levy is paid by both merchants and processors of wool, payments being based on the amount of wool supplied or consumed, or on the number of persons employed during each six-monthly period. Since 1957 the levy has yielded on average £184,000 a year.
  The levy is paid into a special account held by the Board of Trade, out of which payments are made to meet expenses incurred by the Wool Textile Research Council, the body responsible for co-ordinating research in the industry. Most of the expenses concerned arise from the work of the Wool Industries Research Association at Torridon, which also receives a grant from the D.S.I.R. The basis of the grant has been modified for the present quinquennium which started in October, 1961, so as to require a rather higher industrial contribution in relation to grants. It is the policy of D.S.I.R. that

  137
  industry should bear a gradually increasing percentage of research. Work is also done for the Council by universities and technical colleges.
  The reason for the increase of one-third proposed, to about £245,000 a year—which, in passing, I would say is only one-twentyfourth of 1 per cent. of total turnover—is that without it the Council will not be able to continue to provide for the industry the service it ought to provide. Apart from the change in the basis the D.S.I.R. grant and the rises in costs, a new wing was recently completed at Torridon and has allowed more work to be undertaken there. New inquiries have been undertaken still further to improve the efficiency of the industry and the quality of its output.
  In addition, it is considered desirable to rebuild the reserves held by the Board of Trade for the Research Council, which are likely to be encroached on this year before the levy at the increased rate can be collected. Nobody, I am sure, will dispute the great importance of research to the industry at the present time when technical developments in the textile field are taking place so rapidly and world trade is becoming more and more competitive. To be compelled to reduce the scope of research through lack of funds now, therefore, would be most unfortunate.
  As required by the 1947 Act, the Board of Trade has consulted the various organisations concerned. The Order was requested in the first place by the Wool Textile Delegation, which represents 85 per cent. of employers in the industry. It is supported by the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade and by the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the principal organisations representing employees. Five trade associations sent in objections, the burden of which, with one exception, was more against their being subjected to the levy at all than to its being increased. Although the objectors represent only a very small proportion of the interests affected, their objections have been carefully examined, but they do not appear to be serious enough to outweight the support given to the proposed Order by the majority of the industry.
  The fact that the increase in the levy proposed in the Order has been
  138
  asked for by the largest organisation of employers in the industry and is warmly supported by the trade unions indicates that the industry as a whole values the research work which is mainly paid for by the levy and wishes to see it continued. For these reasons, I hope that the House will agree to approve the Order.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? Am I right in supposing that the increase in the levy necessarily brings about an increase in the grant? Can he give us the figures?
  Mr. Macpherson: The way in which the grant is to be calculated is now changed. By and large, the maximum grant payable at present is £70,000, on an industrial contribution to the Wool Industry Research Association of £170,000. Under the new arrangements, the maximum contribution will be £83,500, against an industrial contribution of £208,000.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Wade: As the Minister has pointed out, this Order is made at the request of the Wool Textile Delegation, which is a very representative body in the industry and is also supported by the trade unions. I therefore think that the Order should be approved.
  The research that is being carried on in the industry in undoubtedly of value, and I think this is widely recognised. We may expect increasingly competitive conditions, and under those conditions the need for research will grow. Research is carried on in a number of different institutes. Perhaps, as one of the Members representing Huddersfield, it is fitting that I should mention the Huddersfield College of Technology, but I am not unmindful of the fact that there are other places, such as the Halifax Technical College, the Bradford Institute of Technology, Leeds University, and—by no means the least important—the research station at Torridon, where, as the Minister has pointed out, a new wing has recently been opened.
  One would expect the cost of this research to increase, and I think that, before we finally approve this Order, it should be made quite clear whether this increased levy is primarily due to

  139
  increased costs or is due to a proportionately lower contribution from the D.S.I.R. May I formulate my question in this way? Is the additional levy due, firstly, to increased costs of carrying on research at the existing level; or, secondly, is it due to the increased scope of research; or, thirdly, is it due to the proportionately lower grant from the D.S.I.R.? I notice that in a memorandum provided by the Wool Textile Delegation it is stated that an industry contribution of the same amount for the year commencing 1st October, 1961, will earn £13,000 less from the D.S.I.R. under the new terms of grant. From the figures which the Minister has just given, I gather that he is in agreement about that, but I think it is only right that the position should be clarified in order that the House should know whether the reason for this increased levy is primarily the reduced proportion of the grant. Notwithstanding that query, I support the Order.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I support the Order. It will, I think, be helpful. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, its history goes back for quite a time. In fact, it was the Working Party in 1947 which paid a particular tribute to the Wool Textile Delegation at that time for putting before the Board of Trade the desirability of a statutory levy for scientific research. Thus, in 1950, the Wool Textile Research Council was born.
  There have been two increases since that date, and this is the third. From a perusal of the terms of the Order, one sees that the sums of money involved, despite the increases, are really comparatively small, bearing in mind the advantages to the industry as a whole.
  I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked his question. The point he raised is important, and we should in considering the matter recognise that the terms of D.I.S.R. grant have changed materially from what they were when first instituted. Not only is a much greater contribution required to earn the level of D.S.I.R. support obtained in past years but a minimum amount of £170,000 is needed now to get any grant at all. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary
  140
  used average figures, which were fair enough, but the fact is that, last year, the industrial contribution was £165,750, which, as the House will understand from what I have said, would earn no grant at all this year were there not to be a change. As my hon. Friend explained, it requires about £208,000—I think that was the figure he gave—to get the maximum grant.
  If no change at all took place, all the funds available would have to go to the Wool Industries Research Association. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) rightly paid a tribute to that Association, but he will, I know, join with me in saying that there are other organisations, such as Leeds University and the technical colleges to which he referred, which also do excellent work. This marginal amount is required if those purposes are to be fulfilled. If I remember aright, at the time when the Working Party reported, it was suggested that something like 25 per cent. of the funds collected should be available for research by organisations such as those I have instanced outside the actual organisation of the W.I.R.A. The £50,000 or so extra in an average year under the Order will be invaluable for that purpose. Those of us in the parts of the country concerned know what excellent work is also done in the other organisations to which I have referred.
  My hon. Friend has spoken about certain of the industries—sometimes people rather unkindly call them fringe manufacturers—which have offered some sort of objection to the proposal before us. It is only fair to supplement what he said by saying that it is borne in mind—and the Board of Trade clearly have it in mind—that the facilities of the Wool Industries Research Association are fully available to them in their own particular branch of manufacture. Also, it is recognised throughout the industry that it is really impossible to segregate the process procedures with which they have particular connection from the products themselves which, of course, are an integral part of the wool textile industry.
  I sometimes feel that my noble Friend the Minister for Science occasionally runs away with himself in—I imagine that I shall have the hon. and learned Member for Kettering with me

  141
  if I say this—his rather more "bell-ringing" type of speeches. Of the particular subject of this Order, among others, my noble Friend made a speech to, of all people, the Scottish Young Unionists. According to the report in the Sunday Times of recent date, after some very purple passages, he said:
  "We have been compelled by necessity to live in an age when all the old props, such as the Empire on which the sun never sets, the primacy in the old technologies of coal and steam, cotton and wool and iron and steel, have been knocked away.'"
  I suggest that that is less than justice to the tremendous, quiet technological work of the Wool Industry Research Association. This organisation has been doing this work for years—without all the flash and excitement—and has been finding out how far technological arrangements can incorporate new fibres, thereby producing more than before.
  The House should pay some tribute to an industry that is well ahead and which deserves not only all the help it can get from this Order and the research that will come out of it but, also, a few kinder words from the Minister of Science.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. David Ginsburg: As an hon. Member in whose constituency wool is the major industry I must add my voice to the debate and take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Wool Industry Research Association for all its work. I had the privilege last year of visiting Torridon, the research association under discussion. I was extremely impressed with everything I saw and I can say confidently that a fine organisation exists there.
  I do not begrudge the association one additional penny that it requires. Nor have I any criticism of the research programme that goes on at that organisation. Quite the contrary. My feelings go rather the other way, for I believe that far more needs to be spent on research in the wool textile industry. Even taking account of the expenditure of the International Wool Secretariat—which is extremely important in the context of wool—more needs to be spent, particularly by the individual firms in the industry.
  I do not have the precise figures, but I believe that I am not incorrect in saying that the total expenditure of the
  142
  individual firms is very low, possibly something in the neighbourhood of £50,000 per annum. As I said, far more needs to be spent on research and development, not only by individual firms but also by the co-operatively financed association we are now debating.
  From time to time in my constituency there is some good-natured controversy between those in the industry who say, "There is no substitute for wool" and those who say, "We must be processers of fibres, of which wool is only one." As a layman, I endeavour to preserve a modicum of neutrality in this controversy, but I think that it would be agreed that if the wool industry is to maintain itself, vis-à-vis man-made fibres, it must spend far more on research than is at present the case.
  As far as I know, expenditure on research and development on man-made fibres—and this is important in the context of another controversy that is taking place at the moment—is £3½ million a year. The total expenditure on research and development in the wool textile industry, to the best of my knowledge, is about £⅓ million per year. Doing a little simple arithmetic, spread among the 40,000 to 44,000 people employed in the man-made fibres industry and the 180,000 or so employed in the wool textile industry, it represents £70 spent on research per head in the man-made fibres industry and £2 per head in the textile industry. I agree that that is pitching the argument in the most extreme terms. As I have said, we should take into account the very important expenditure of the International Wool Secretariat. Even so, there is something here which should cause this House and the Board of Trade considerable concern.
  The possible advent of the Common Market and of greater competition makes the need for research expenditure on wool even more vital. In a survey of British industry, the National Union of Manufacturers, commenting on the wool textile industry, said that, while the Common Market will benefit, for example, the more expensive end, the worsted section, it will have an adverse effect on the cheaper end because of Italian competition.
  The heavy woollen industry, the cheaper end, is preponderantly situated

  143
  in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton). Therefore, our constituents have a very strong interest in maintaining the competitiveness of our local wool industry. I have no doubt that they welcome the contribution that science can make and that they would warmly approve of this Order and would press for even more to be done than is being done.
  Finally, I should like to refer to the Report of the 1947 Working Party an Wool. It is worth noting that it is to the Report of the Working Party that the levy, I believe, owes some of its historical origins. I would draw the attention of the House, particularly that of the Parliamentary Secretary, to the fact that other proposals were made in the Working Party's Report apart from the proposal for the levy, including one in particular of local importance which, from the Government angle, has not seen the light of day. Although the Report recognised that everything should be done to stimulate the efficiency of the industry, it also recognised that in the district with which I am most intimately associated there was a need for new industry.
  I therefore hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take the opportunity of the passing of this Order to re-read the Report of the Working Party and will recognise that, though the levy which we are debating and which I think in general we all support is important, his responsibility to the people who work in the wool textile industry and who live in the wool textile areas does not end with this Order.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Tiley: Briefly, I wish not merely to support the Order, but to support it with enthusiasm. The Wool Textile Delegation has its office in Bradford, and I am glad to see that the city which I represent is notable for other things besides smallpox. If the Order is not accepted, our technical colleges will suffer, because they will not receive the grant, as there will be insufficient money for them to have a share. In our city the Advanced Institute of Technology is doing magnificent work in textiles along with the main research centre at Leeds University.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) paid a tribute to
  144
  textiles. It is right that we should consider this great industry on occasions. In the last few years, country after country and market after market throughout the world has raised barriers against our textile exports. Younger countries, newer countries, are taking on the processes of manufacturing, and even the making of wool tops is being done abroad to a larger extent. Somehow or other, the wool textile industry has maintained its place in the country's export figures. In spite of fierce competition in markets, we still hold our own and play this huge part in the country's exports. These things are essential to that progress.
  It would be interesting to know whether my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has the number of firms who contribute to the total sum. I do not have this information and it would be an interesting fact to consider. I hope that the House will approve the Order.
  8.56 p.m.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: Having started in a woollen mill at the age of 12 and only just relinquished an up-to-date mill within the last four months, I will risk boring the House for a few minutes and at the same time will address a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is responsible for bringing the Order before us. Before doing so, however, I wish to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), who referred to a speech by one of his noble colleagues to the Scottish Junior Conservatives. I follow it up by a speech made by the same noble Lord in another place on 15th November, when he said:
  "In surveying British engineering and British industry as a whole, I see two great needs which ought to dominate our thinking technologically. These are, first that British industry in general should be based on advanced technology so that it may keep abreast or ahead of its main competitors…"
  One has no quarrel with that. He then went on to his second point, and said:
  "secondly, that the traditional craft industries should no longer continue to be craftsman-based but should employ technologists with a more flexible outlook, who will need to keep a continuous watch for new ideas worth applying."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 15th November, 1961; Vol. 235, c. 720–1.]
  If it were not for the craft element in the wool and worsted textile industry, there

  145
  would be no industry. It is no use a scientist coming to an industry like this and expecting, by having a few years' training at a university, to carry on in the industry and to be able to express himself authoritatively, because it is experience that counts.
  I will give a small illustration. Two years ago I started a new dying plant with the most up-to-date machinery I could buy anywhere—stainless steel, chromium plate and all the rest—and I ran into trouble. I applied to my research association, who knew "nowt" about it. I went to I.C.I., which has a large, first-class wool research establishment and sent men along to see me. They were most co-operative, but could do nothing. I then went to a friend of mine, who happened that year to be the president of the organisation of dyers and colourers and who is the head chemist for Courtaulds. I tried them all. He came along, but we had the same sort of result.
  Then, one Saturday afternoon, I thought that I would try something different. So I went to an old friend of mine, who came along and had a look at it. He had a cloth cap on the side of his head and he had a look at the way we were running. After a few expletives, which it would be most unparliamentary to repeat, he gave me the advice that I needed. We had no more trouble. Look at the trouble we should have had if we had been dependent upon technologists with a more flexible outlook who will need to keep continuous watch for new ideas worth applying!
  The wool industry is the sixth most important export industry in this country, despite the fact that it is craftsman-based, and I would remind the House that until recently, until it gave way to the motor industry and the vehicle industry combined, it exported more goods by value to the North American Continent than any other industry in this country. In other words, it earns its keep.
  Being a craft industry means that it has advantages and disadvantages, and a disadvantage is the difficulty of coordination of research to cover the needs and different kinds of work done in 1,500 factories. It is true that the amount of money subscribed or spent on research in a year by individual firms
  146
  in the wool industry comes to no more than £55,000. The total spent in a full year has been told to us several times, but it is a very difficult job for the Wool Research Association to satisfy the inquiries and the different types of inquiries which come from so many members.
  Comparisons have been made between what is spent on research in the wool industry and what is spent by other research associations. I should like to make a comparison with the research which is done in other industries, because I feel I must do so to make my point. Internal expenditure in the wool industry by private firms is £55,000; the Research Association expenditure is £280,000; D.S.I.R. grant is included in the £280,000 and is £70,000; making a total of £335,000, which means that the Research Association is responsible for 84 per cent. of the total research done in the wool and worsted trades.
  Compare that with the contribution through the research association for the chemical industry. That takes care of only 1 per cent. of the total, because in the chemical industry there are gigantic firms like I.C.I. which spend a tremendous amount of money on research. The same sort of comparison applies in the case of rayon. According to the report of the Federation of British Industries, at the time when investigations were carried out in 1960 the rayon industry had spent £4,451,000 on research. There we get the same picture—only 7 per cent. of the research being done by the research association, the remainder being done by the gigantic firms. That is one problem which hon. Members will have to consider when deciding whether it is a good thing to have large mergers and amalgamations and when considering the value of the research work going on in the larger organisations, as distinct from that carried out by the research associations which govern craft industries of this sort.
  Mr. Hirst: I do not disagree with all that the hon. Member is saying, but I would point out that the mere existence of a statutory levy for a special purpose tends to concentrate some research which would otherwise be taking place on a more individual basis.

  147
  I am not trying to kill the hon. Member's case, but that addendum must be added.
  Mr. Rhodes: As the hon. Member knows, a small factory, employing between 100 and 250 work people, cannot stand the cost of a laboratory, with highly paid scientific assistants. It so happens that research associations suit the set-up in this industry better, perhaps, than that of any other industry.
  But what happens is that with 1,500 firms, all making many inquiries, many of those inquiries being practically identical, and with the change-over of personnel from the research association to better jobs, every time the association gets an inquiry from one of its members it has to start again almost at the grass roots. If research associations are to hold their own and develop they must start a system of case histories, which their members can consult when trouble arises in their firms. It is very difficult to cope with the demands of an industry with 1,500 factories, using perhaps as many as 1,750 different types of wool and material, but an immense improvement could be made if research associations made case histories of the problems they were able to solve, so that they could go on to other more important matters.
  Up to comparatively recently there has been very little liaison between one research association and another. I can quote a case from my own experience. When I began to put in a spinning plant in my factory I quickly realised that it would be necessary to analyse the yield of the wool that I was using. That is elementary. But the people in the smaller factories, where they have used the same sort of wool throughout the years, know instantly by the feel and the look whether it is the sort of wool that they want, whether it will do the job that they want, and whether the yield is right. This is where science comes in, and that is why I am supporting the need for a more scientific approach in this industry.
  I sent a sample to Australia to Dr. Lipson, who is the chemist for the Australian wool growers, asking him for his formula for the assessment of yield in the wool that I was using. I made the same request to Torridon. I could
  148
  not get any satisfaction either from Torridon or from Australia. Using the best chemists that I could get put on the job by I.C.I., I found that the Australian formula took three and a half days. The best that could be done at Torridon was a fortnight, and then it was not accurate. So I went to another research association to see what it had got. I went to the Shirley Institute in Manchester where I found that it was using a machine which had been invented to do the same job for cotton that I was trying to do for wool. But because that was over the border in Lancashire, they would not play with it at Torridon in Leeds. So I took 50 samples to the Shirley Institute, and a pattern emerged. I found that it could be done. I then went back to Torridon with my results. There was no action at that time.
  After altering the machine to suit myself and making tests on wool that I had bought, and having some wool delivered, I found that the first sample was 10 per cent. lower yield than that which I had bought. That was proof of the effectiveness of my machine. I contacted the people who had sold me the wool, but they said, "No, that won't do; you do not know enough about it." I asked them to send two samples back to Australia, which they did. The person responsible came to me a fortnight later and said, "You are quite right. They say they have sent the wrong wool." So I made them pay for that installation. It was the cheapest installation that I ever had.
  That was not the end of the matter. The largest exporter of scoured wool in Australia came to this country to find out how I had managed to do it. He brought with him a car full of samples. He asked where I had got the machine and I told him that it was made under licence by Howard and Bullough, of Accrington. I was asked whether I would alter a machine and I agreed to do so. The machine went to Australia and has been followed since by many others. In Australia they were able to tell the Japanese the yield in the wool before it was used in this country. Hon. Members who are interested in the industry will have noticed that a company has been formed at the docks near the wool warehouses and equipped with machines to do the job which I started

  149
  four or five years ago. Had there been better liaison between the research associations surely the cotton method would have been tried in the case of wool. Just because a thing is called scientific it does not mean it is unique. It depends on the application.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) commented on how money was spent. The amount spent is not important. What is important is how it is spent. We ought to examine every penny being voted in such cases before we make legislation. I am saying nothing against research associations which are doing a good job. I am referring only to methods of research suitable for such an industry as this one. I am trying to draw attention to certain matters with a view to improvements being made in the future.
  9.17 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am sure that I was not the only one interested in the practical, sensible and knowledgeable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aston-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). I know very little about wool, or about Yorkshire, but sometimes I have a suspicion that, while Yorkshire is not as bad as Lancashire, it is not as good as Yorkshire says it is. But be that as it may; I do not wish to provoke any "tribal" feeling.
  The Order which we are considering raises broad questions of Government responsibility in these matters. We are asked substantially to increase the levy on the trade, with a corresponding increase in the Government grant of public money. I do not think that the proportion makes much difference. It was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, but if his figures are right I think that it is the other way round and that the proportion the industry has to pay is decreased. But that is a small point.
  We come to the whole question of what is being done about what the F.B.I. call "Industrial Research in Manufacturing Industry", on which it issued a report last month. I found it a fascinating Report. It called attention to many things which have been mentioned in this debate. They seem to me matters which obviously require a great deal more investigation and attention than they are receiving at present. The first thing pointed out in the Report was
  150
  that the limitation on the expenditure on research activities was not only a question of money; it was also a lack of qualified manpower.
  "There is a standing vacancy at the rate of about 13 per cent. overall in industry's research and development departments."
  That includes not only the research association bodies which we are considering particularly today, because of the structure of this trade, but also other industries where there is extensive research activity by big firms.
  I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what the position is. If this additional levy is to be raised and, with it, an additional grant, can we be assured that there is in this case not a vacancy rate of about 13 per cent. overall in the qualified personnel required to make use of the money? If there is some difficulty in that matter—the Report says so very definitely; and the F.B.I. is not exactly a Socialist body—what do the Government propose to do about it? How will they see that this industry is sufficiently provided with personnel to use the money?
  I turn to another matter. I am not suggesting that this Association, which does practically all the research in and for the wool trade, has done anything but an excellent job. All the evidence is the other way. The evidence is that it has done a very good job, but it has a great deal to do yet. What is the only thing I always associate with wool? It is moths. A final solution to the moth problem has not yet been found, or had not been in the last Report of W.I.R.A. There is a passage in that Report dealing with moths. It tells how a particular remedy was tried. It was found to have all sorts of faults and the association had not solved the moths problem.
  Some things will be produced which are called moth-proof, but the other day there was a broadcast which gave considerable annoyance in Yorkshire because it suggested that they could not produce moth-proof materials. If we go through the whole Report—which is stiff reading for someone who is not a wool expert—it is perfectly clear that a great deal remains to be done.
  That is not the whole story. The research in the wool industry is inseparably connected with other industries—if I may use the phrase, both

  151
  vertically and horizontally—horizontally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has indicated, in connection with the cotton trade and one particular problem. By the way, the last Report of the W.I.R.A. does not mention his activities and what happened in connection with Australia. It says something quite different about the yield of wool. Perhaps it is one of those reports which very carefully says all the good things which are being done and does not pick up every possible mistake or omission that may have been made. One understands that sort of report; even Government Departments have been known to make it from time to time.
  If the wool industry is to have a research association, and if that association is to study problems, it must be connected both with research into cotton and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) said, with research into man-made fibres. That horizontal arrangement has to be coordinated in the sense that we have to see that the people who are doing one job know what people in another industry are doing. It is clear from the instance which my hon. Friend gave that they do not always know that.
  The other kind of co-ordination which seems necessary is what I would call vertical co-ordination. Wool is wool, but we reach a certain stage when we are dealing with fabrics. When we look at the research associations we find that there are vertically connected industries which have their own separate research associations.
  The body which is supposed to some extent to co-ordinate these is, I suppose, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. No doubt it does so, to some extent but we should make a very great mistake if we did not regard this as a general problem which will affect the manufacturing powers of this country, its competitive powers, and its competitive powers particularly in relation to other European countries, where we may soon have the possibility of increased competition in industries of this kind. I am not at all satisfied that either the Minister for Science or the President of the Board of Trade is at present in a position to say that he is ensuring proper co-ordination between
  152
  research in one industry and those other industries connected with it both, to use my own metaphor, horizontally and vertically.
  I go on from that to another question which has run throughout the debate. As the F.B.I. said in the same Report:
  "The time is ripe for a re-examination of the situation with a view to stimulating the application of new scientific and technological knowledge in small firms."
  I am not for a moment minimising the rôle of the man in the cloth cap, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that this is a matter partly for experience and partly for sheer scientific knowledge, starting from an almost academic attitude to the matter, and the two things must be worked together. But when that is done, what is the means of distributing the knowledge which is obtained? How, in the wool trade, do we get it round to all these firms?
  The F.B.I. had sampled about a quarter of the F.B.I. firms in the wool trade. About a third of the firms sampled did not belong to this research association. The significant point is that these did not include any of the large firms; all the large firms which were sampled did belong to the association. But they included exactly a third of the medium-sized firms and half the small firms. If the industry is to be in small and medium-sized units and to depend for scientific research on an association of this kind—and there may be good reasons for it—we must do more than that to see that those who pay the levy—because these people will be paying the levy—make proper and full use of the knowledge which is obtained as a result of the levy and, moreover, that they are in a position to do so.
  I suggest that this is a matter in which the F.B.I., with which I do not always agree, was right, and that the time is ripe for an examination of something of this sort. The same point was put in the same report by the National Institute for Economic and Scientific Research, which added a review of its own. What it said is even more widely phrased, and I quote it with agreement:
  "There is need for a more systematic dissemination and application of the existing body

  153
  of knowledge, for speedy and efficient communication of the results of research work done in universities, in research associations, in D.S.I.R. laboratories, in other firms and abroad."
  I do not say that nothing of the sort is done. I expect that something is done. But when, on a cross-section of the wool trade or a substantial section of it, we find this comment made, I suggest that it is time that somebody was in a position to do this, and that somebody, I think, must be the Government.
  I am not at all certain that the people at the Board of Trade are the right people for it. It seems to me to be a matter for the Office of the Minister for Science. I never know what it does, but here is something which it could well do. I have no doubt that in the course of time some Department or another of the Government will do it, unless it is allowed to fall between two stools, or unless the Government fall into the error of thinking that business is always right and that business can be left to run its own affairs. I do not think that it can in a competitive world such as this.
  Hon. Members ought to be in a much better position to obtain available information. I obtained the F.B.I. Report from the Library without any difficulty, but I failed entirely to obtain the W.I.R.A. Report there. The Librarians had to borrow it for me They were very kind to do so. These sources of information are of vital importance and we should be able to obtain the information.
  We should have much fuller reports about what the Government Department primarily concerned—the D.S.I.R.—is doing about it. The Minister for Science ought not to be allowed to shelter behind a cloud of eloquent verbiage. We ought to know what the office of the Minister for Science is doing. It is about the time that it issued an annual report. This industry happens to be a peg upon which this depends. The House and the Government should consider our position as regards information, because unless the necessary information is forthcoming there will be a great failure to apply results, a failure to bring them to the attention of people who can apply them, and a failure to co-ordinate as between one industry and another the research which is being done all over
  154
  the country by the devoted people who study these problems. They are too few in number, but no doubt, as in this case, they are excellent in quality.
  9.32 p.m.
  Sir Douglas Glover: I should not have detained the House if it had not been for the very interesting speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I apologise for not being here during the speech, which I am sure was a very valuable one, of my old friend the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes).
  As regards research in various industries, particularly the woollen industry, I do not think that the answer to many of these problems is the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Discoveries are made in the day-to-day activities and the research activities of any industrialist. The difficulty is that many of these discoveries are lost in the clouds of time. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne may be trying to produce a certain finish to a piece of cloth. He produces an entirely different finish, which may be a howling success, but that year everybody wants a smooth finish. Therefore, he scraps it and it lies in the limbo of forgotten things. What is needed for the development of many industrial processes is a trade library of the failures of the activities of yesteryear.
  Mr. Rhodes: That is what I said.
  Sir D. Glover: I was interested to read in a newspaper recently of two famous dancers who demonstrated the twist in front of Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, in 1928. It has taken until 1962 for this dance to become popular.
  Mr. Speaker: How would the activities of those dancers be affected one way or another whether or no the Order before the House be approved?
  Sir D. Glover: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was using it as an example of how something can be forgotten.
  Mr. Tiley: On a point of order. Twisting is a process in the textile industry.
  Mr, Speaker: I adhere to my Ruling.
  Sir D. Glover: My experience over many years in industry and commerce

  155
  convinces me that many things that could be valuable, particularly in the woollen industry, are discovered and then scrapped. The way they were arrived at is not registered. Years afterwards when people are looking for that very thing they do not know how to set about it and spend weeks and weeks trying to discover it. If a library of registrations and processes were set up, which every textile manufacturer knew about and could rely on, the Board of Trade would have done a valuable piece of work.
  This applies not only in the woollen industry but to most processes in industry. Some of the greatest discoveries in textiles and in every form of industrial activity have been made by accident. They are not always made as a result of the vast sums spent on research. They are often discovered when someone is after a particular thing. In his efforts to produce that he produces something entirely different. It is that which two or three years later would be very valuable to our export market which should be registered and available for others to use. If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would bear that in mind, it would be very helpful to the textile industry.
  9.35 p.m.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: By leave of the House, I shall answer some of the points which have been made. I would start by thanking the House for the welcome it has given to this Order. I am sure that the wool textile industry itself will be extremely gratified by the extensive notice taken of the Order by the House, will pay considerable attention to what hon. Members have said, and will be grateful for the general support given to the Order.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) asked how much of the increase was due to each of the three factors he mentioned: the increased cost of carrying on research at the present level; the increased scope of research; and the lower grant made by the D.S.I.R. According to the budget made, first of all, in 1961 the levy payment to W.I.R.A. amounted to £165,750 and the D.S.I.R. grant was £70,000. That was then the maximum, so in any case a new agreement would have had to be negotiated. For the current year, it is
  156
  proposed that the Council should hand to the Association £188,000, and the D.S.I.R. grant will be £72,250. Slightly lower expenditure and a slightly lower D.S.I.R. grant is budgeted for 1963, but in 1966 the levy will rise to £199,000 and the D.S.I.R. grant to £80,500. That is the general pattern.
  As to the increased scope of research, as I have said, a new wing has recently been opened, and I understand that it is now being devoted to further research work. I understand that where there is an increase in cost during the current year it will to some extent be financed out of reserves until it is possible in October—as it is a six-monthly levy—to make the levy for the following year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) dealt with what he termed fringe industries, and I was very glad to have his support of the Board of Trade's view that all the industries that objected either to the levy being made on them at all or to the increase in the levy are considered as part of the wool textile industry and that the levy was properly chargeable upon them.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) made a comparison of the amounts of research expenditure for man-made fibres and for wool. He was rather answered by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)—who, as usual, delighted us with his intervention—because the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that it is experience that counts. After all, man-made fibres have not been going for very long and the capital expenditure on research in that industry must be very high. The capital expenditure on research in the wool industry is relatively low, but from now on it is proposed to run it at about double what it has been, which is about £10,000 a year.
  There is no doubt that there is a great deal of accumulated wisdom about wool which is of immense value to the industry and to the country. That is not to say, of course, that further advances cannot be made, but I quite agree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under Lyne that the whole purpose of bringing these Orders before the House is to make certain that, as far as possible, there is no obvious waste of money. If there were, if the Association appeared to be wasting money, then

  157
  quite clearly objections would be raised by the industry itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) asked how many firms contribute to the total sum. I am sorry that I cannot give him that information tonight.
  Both the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) dealt a good deal with the question of co-operation between research establishments. The research establishments are, of course, independent institutions. Many of them are grant-aided through D.S.I.R., but it is open to question how far, because of that grant aid, it would be practicable for us here to demand certain information. Of course, it is open to research establishments to supply the information to this House, and I have no doubt that the Wool Industry Research Association will take note of the desire expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, that it would be a good thing if its research reports were available in the Library, and of the fact that Members are actively interested in what it has to report.
  I cannot say how far there is a direct exchange of information between research associations, but here again, as has been said, this is a matter that goes rather wider than the purview of the Board of Trade which keeps the accounts of the research association and runs it administratively, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that what he has said will be carefully ''examined. The whole question of making information available is, I think, primarily a question for the research association themselves and for their members. After all, the purpose of the contributions that are made is primarily to benefit the industry itself. It may well be that there can be advantages in the exchange of information as between industries, and I agree that that would be a matter well worth studying and for the appropriate Department to draw to the attention of the industries concerned.
  With these few remarks, I hope that the House will now agree to the Order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

  WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVY)

    CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
    So much of the Lords Message [19th December] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949 to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.
    Select Committee of Six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session:
    Any Memoranda laid pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, and any representations made with respect thereto to be referred to the Committee:
    Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Charles Doughty, Sir Barnett Janner, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Oram:
    Power to send for persons, papers, and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:
    Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

  COTTON INDUSTRY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The best cotton firms in Lancashire are second to none in the world. We are fortunate in the Rossendale valley in having a number of firms whose names are household words in almost every land. One of them—David Whitehead & Sons Limited—has been producing cotton goods in Rawtonstall for well over one hundred years, and since the war has spent vast sums in new machinery and new plant and in pioneering modern textile designs. Its labour relations are good.

  159
  On Monday, the firm's Lower Mill, where several hundred people are employed, will start operating a four-day week for an indefinite period, a state of affairs which seems to be semi-permanent in many mills in Lancashire. Expensive machinery will stand idle, managerial optimism will be impaired and the confidence of the workers will receive a further severe shock. The case of Messrs. David Whitehead is typical of what is happening, and it was for that reason that I decided to seek this debate tonight, in spite of the fact that we last debated the subject on 21st December, when the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) initiated the discussion.
  In the meantime, we have a clearer picture. Short-time working is difficult to assess, but there is reason to believe that 70,000 cotton workers were on short time over Christmas. There were extended stoppages of ten days in far too many mills, and the Cotton Board's quarterly statistical review for December stated:
  "The situation of the United Kingdom cotton industry has deteriorated further since the last issue of this review…The recession has caused a number of mill closures, widespread short time working and wastage of labour."
  The tragedy is high-lighted by the fact that it is now almost two years ago since the Lancashire cotton industry completed what the Evening Standard called—
  "the biggest mass destruction of assets in recent times".
  Two out of five spindles and two out of every five looms in Lancashire went on the scrap heap. The benefits which were hoped for have been wiped out by the heavy imports of yarn and cloth.
  In my view, and in the view of many people in Lancashire, the present method of controlling imports is wholly unsatisfactory. The President of the Board of Trade, in the debate to which I have referred, said that in the case of the non-Commonwealth countries, the 17½ per cent. tariff on grey cloth
  "should be the Government's main weapon for protecting the industry ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1961; Vol. 543, c. 1640.]
  But in countries where competition would be at a low cost, and a tariff
  160
  might not be sufficiently effective—in countries like Japan, China and Formosa—there are quota restrictions.
  It is interesting to see that in the case of Formosa the quota has been fixed at 12½ million square yards a year, although the imports from Formosa were negligible until a short time ago. And in the case of Japan, the Board of Trade announced on 27th December, that Japan's quota will be increased in 1962.
  With the three main Commonwealth competitors—India, Pakistan and Hong Kong—there were inter-industry agreements, but in these cases, too, the figures have been increased for 1962. The Hong Kong figures have gone up from 164 million sq. yards to 185 million sq. yards, India's figure from 175 million to 195 million, and Pakistan's from 38 million to 42 million. In fact, the total from these three Commonwealth countries has gone up for 1962 from 377 million sq. yards to 422 million sq. yards, an increase of almost 12 per cent. Now, a mission has gone to India and Pakistan to seek a similiar agreement in respect of yarn, because of increased imports of yarn from Pakistan and India.
  These are the goods to which Mr. Robert Hill, General Secretary of the Rossendale Valley Textile Workers' Association, referred in the following terms:
  "It is our opinion, judging from a trade union point of view, that the bulk of the cloth being imported into this country is made by sweated labour, working under bad conditions, and being employed for long hours contrary to what should be allowed."
  With Spain, there is the same sort of agreement, an inter-industry agreement. I understand from the Sunday Times of 3rd December that Spanish cloth is being sold in the United Kingdom at 10d. per lb. cheaper than the cost of the constituent yarn. We are now expected to be comforted by being told that the Spanish industry has accepted a voluntary cut of 30 per cent., but as imports have risen from practically nothing to 64 million sq. yds. and 11 million lb. of yarn in two years, the agreement does not appear to have any great significance.
  In the circumstances, it is not surprising that Mr. Roger Lee, the Chairman of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation, in his annual report published on 18th January,

  161
  referred to the help which had been given to the industry as having been
  "too little and too late to be effective in promoting a healthy industry."
  Nor is it surprising that the Financial Times on 28th December should say:
  "Britain is just about the only big open market for cotton textiles left in the world."
  That is perfectly true. The Common Market countries protect themselves against low-wage cloth very strictly. The United States takes only between 5 and 6 per cent. of her total supplies in this cheap cloth. The figure for France is a good deal lower. We in this country take 40 per cent.
  I should be the last person to underestimate the importance of helping the under-developed countries of the world, and I believe that no one in Lancashire would wish to adopt a "dog in the manger" attitude to this problem, but we feel that, if we have this responsibility, which we acknowledge, it should be shared with the other Powers of the Western world. What are the Government doing to implement the suggestion of Sir Alfred Roberts that we should seek to get other Western countries to boost their figure of imports to 10 per cent. of their total requirements?
  I do not believe that the Government are operating their anti-dumping powers with sufficient vigour, nor do I believe that inter-industry agreements, especially when Lancashire has no Government-backed sanctions behind it, can be effective. The only really effective method would be the purchasing commission advocated by the Labour Party.
  What are the effects of what I regard as the Government's neglect? The overall effect, in my view, has been best described by Mr. Joseph King, General Secretary of the Accrington and District Card and Blowing Room Operatives and Ring Spinners' Association as
  "almost complete frustration on all sides of the industry".
  I understand that order books in most cases at present are down to 10 weeks, which is generally regarded in the industry as being just about zero.
  On 28th December, the Financial Times had this to say:
  "The chances of the home industry's holding to a reasonable level of sales by its own unaided efforts are slender…It seems certain that whatever the industry did it could not survive under present conditions."
  162
  I believe that there are three other effects. The first is that re-equipment is almost at a standstill. Mr. William Winterbottom, Chairman of the Fine Spinners and Doublers, has said that the Government's reorganisation scheme has floundered, and he added that in some ways it has been a waste of the investment, an investment which included £13 million of the taxpayers' money. The House will, I think, be shocked to learn that some of the new machinery bought under the reorganisation scheme is now idle.
  Mr. Lewis Wright, General Secretary of the Weavers' Amalgamation, has made this comment:
  "With import conditions as they are, companies are having to think twice before they invest their money in new machinery".
  Mr. Duckett, Chairman of Joshua Hoyle & Sons Ltd., one of the most progressive firms in the industry, after referring in his annual statement to the Government's "apparent indifference" to the industry's appeals, stresses that his firm will have to postpone its future schemes for re-equipment until the present situation is clarified.
  The second effect is that the labour force is being depleted. At 170,000, the industry's labour force has now reached an all-time low. About 150,000 workers have left the industry since 1950. Some mills are closing and three have closed in the last few weeks. Some are able to continue only with the help of Italian and Pakistani labour. Some mills are keeping their workers on, in spite of not having full employment for them, only because they know that once they leave the industry they will never get them back. In fact, the workers have lost confidence in cotton's future.
  The third effect is that production costs are increased. Because of the imports there is not enough work to keep three shifts employed and the new machinery is uneconomic unless it is worked around the clock. If the reorganisation scheme is to succeed it must be given a chance. With imports kept even at last year's level it might succeed, but if the permitted increases are taken up yet another blow will have been dealt at the industry.
  If uncertainty persists, the already shaky confidence of the cotton industry's men and women will be destroyed. The

  163
  time has come when the Government, if they want a cotton textile industry at all—and many people in Lancashire now doubt whether they do—have a last chance to decide what level of production the industry should maintain and, in consultation with the workers and employers, to decide what steps can be taken to ensure its survival. Unless the Government act now it may be too late.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Thornton: I am pleased to support the subject matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) has raised tonight. The cotton industry is a problem industry, but I would like the House to appreciate that the problem that the industry has been experiencing in recent years is one that will have to be faced by other British manufacturing industries unless an attempt is made to plan the development of some industries in the under-developed countries and to plan the contraction of some industries in the developed countries.
  The Financial Times leader of 11th December last stated:
  "Nevertheless, it is still true that it is easier to export cotton textiles to Britain than to any other major consuming country. With a world surplus of production capacity, it is inevitable that Britain should act as a magnet for exporters".
  That is what has been happening during the last two years.
  Doubtless the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, will call attention to the voluntary agreements that have been entered into. He will, no doubt, speak of the decline that has taken place in imports in the last one or two quarters. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that similar statements were made in 1955 and 1958; that is, that there was then a decline in imports when a recession came in Lancashire. After that, imports rose again to new heights.
  I am afraid that that will be the story again. It will be repeated unless something is done to tackle the problem. With only one thing my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale said I would not like to be associated; that our opposition to these imports is based on what is termed "sweated labour". I do not accept that position. By and large the
  164
  wages paid in Hong Kong, Pakistan and India fit into the pattern of living standards in those countries. The problem concerns the whole wealth and productive capacity of those countries rather than the level of wages prevailing in any one industry. A few years ago I voiced protests against excessive and inhuman hours of work being operated in the cotton mills of Hong Kong, but I did not do so for the purpose of attempting to weaken Hong Kong's competitive position.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]
  Mr. Thornton: I raised that matter not in an attempt to restrict Hong Kong's competitive capacity, but because of the human problems which arise from excessive hours of work—twelve hours a day, seven days a week, with only four days' holiday a year. I am glad to say that as a result of what I revealed in the House, and the facts that I presented, action was taken, and improvements, although not enough of them, have been made.
  I wish to call attention to another aspect of this matter which has caused considerable apprehension in Lancashire recently. According to yesterday's Financial Times, consideration is now being given in the Common Market discussions to the problems of the underdeveloped parts of the Commonwealth. A breakdown of under-developed countries has been made into two main groups. The first group consists of Commonwealth countries whose trade may be damaged if the United Kingdom applied the common external tariff of the Six. The second group consists of Commonwealth countries whose major exports compete with those of the present associated territories of the Common Market countries. It seems not improbable that association will be offered in respect of the countries in the second group, but the bigger problem seems to arise from the countries in the first group.
  The Report of the European Parliamentary Assembly's Foreign Trade Committee emphasises that exports from the

  165
  low-cost Commonwealth producers, such as India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, could endanger industries in the Common Market. It is interesting to note that these countries in the Common Market evidently attach more importance to preventing damage to their traditional industries than the United Kingdom. France and Germany import cotton textiles from low-labour cost countries to the extent of only 1 or 2 per cent. of the levels of their domestic production; and they do not rely only on their external tariff. Even the United States takes in only about 5 per cent. of the level of her domestic production. The level of imports of the United Kingdom from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong alone is 40 per cent. of the level of our domestic production.
  The Report to the European Assembly recommends that solutions for these countries, such as India, Pakistan and Hong Kong, should be sought not so much through adjustments in the common external tariff as through the framework of a common commercial policy within the enlarged community, including the United Kingdom. The allocation of tariff-free import quotas, voluntary restrictions on exports and the negotiation of long-term trade agreements are suggested as possible solutions.
  The serious apprehension in Lancashire in the last few days arises from a fear that Her Majesty's Government are thinking of continuing this ruinously high level of cheap imports while other Common Market countries take in only insignificant quantities. A serious situation will develop if the Lancashire textile industry has to enter into competition in the enlarged Common Market when the home market of the United Kingdom is being rapidly eroded by huge imports of low-cost textiles with which no Western country can possibly compete. I urge the Government to try to persuade the Six—
  Sir Douglas Glover: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. If we were in the Common Market, and we took in from the Commonwealth countries a great deal of low-cost textiles which we then exported duty free to other European countries, would it make any difference to their competitive
  166
  basis whether they went into those countries direct or came into our country first?
  Mr. Thornton: That is the point to which I was coming. It is becoming abundantly clear that if special provision is made for access other than over the external tariff into the United Kingdom, special precautions will be taken to ensure that those goods are consumed within the United Kingdom and not re-exported to the Common Market Six. That is an apprehension that seriously troubles Lancashire.
  I urge the Government to try to persuade the Common Market Six to increase their intake, so that our intake could be reduced to the region of 25 or 30 per cent. of our present level of production instead of 40 per cent. If the Common Market Six would increase their intake from the present 1 or 2 per cent. to 5 per cent., the all-round adjustments could be made without damage to the developing countries in Asia. From that point, it would be possible for planned advance to be made by the Western countries together to increase their intake of manufactured goods from the developing countries. That is something that the Western world must face. We cannot avoid planning in this respect.
  We have to face the fact, whether we like it or not—there is nothing we can do about it—that one-third of the world's economy, in the Communist bloc, is now planned. The creation of the European Economic Community was, in my view, a subconscious, if not a conscious, reflex action against the planned economies of the Communist bloc, Eastern Europe and Asia. Unless we get down to this problem in an orderly manner, planning for and making possible the expansion of manufactured capacity in the developing countries and, at the same time, making provision to cease expansion of certain industries and arranging for their orderly and gradual contraction, we shall lose out in this competitive game with the planned-economy countries which now constitute one-third of the world's population.
  I do not want to trespass too much on the time of the Parliamentary Secretary and will merely add again that it gives me great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale.
  10.8 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: I should like to say a few words on this important subject. The vital thing for the cotton trade is what will be the Government's policy until the time when Britain enters the Common Market. The Bolton Journal and Guardian last Friday had a headline:
  "Cotton up the creek again. Employers know it—Workers show it."
  Lancashire Members of Parliament are all too familiar with sentiments of this kind in their local papers. They have appeared at various times over the last ten years.
  The trouble concerning Lancashire is that, whatever Ministers think about it, the Lancashire textile industry does not know what policy the Government have for it. It has been a mixture of toughness with unfairness—no other industry have been treated in the same way—and political expediency just before the 1959 election, when votes were required. Now, people are being exhorted to reequip, but on what kind of basis?
  It is true that over the last year there has not been an increase in imports from the Commonwealth countries of Hong Kong, Pakistan and India, which we hear so much about, but imports over-all have gone up by £5 million and exports have gone down by £6 million. This is the familiar line. The imports from those three Commonwealth countries are roughly one-third of our imports, but one-third comes also from the Continent.
  It is often asked, why cannot Lancashire compete with those European countries? Whatever has been the position in the past, there is still such a lack of confidence in the future that firms who, if they spent a lot of money on re-equipment, would be able to compete with Europe, are not spending the money because they still feel that there is the danger of an open door—if not this year, next year—concerning cheap imports from the Commonwealth. So they do not really feel that there is any sound basis on which to take their risk, because even if they get themselves into a position to compete with Europe, that will be completely undermined by the completely open door action from the Commonwealth.
  I believe that, no matter what the difficulties are which we shall have to
  168
  negotiate about over the next year or so, inevitably we shall go into Europe, and so I consider that there is an interim stage which the cotton trade must be got over. There is going to be a textile industry in the Europe of the enlarged Common Market. I see no reason why the cotton textile trade of Lancashire should not play a useful, economic and competitive part in that European textile industry. Indeed, I think it is quite undesirable that we should let the matter drift any further or that the textile industry of Lancashire should be almost decimated before we go into the Common Market.
  I feel that the Government must now take action to give back confidence to Lancashire, confidence that they will see it through this period between now and our entry into the Common Market. When we are in the Common Market there will be, I hope, a fairly liberal import policy pursued by the Common Market countries, as was evidently the view of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), but it will not be a completely open-door policy. There will be a European textile industry and I want to see Lancashire taking a full part in that textile industry, and I do not think that it is in the interests of Britain or of Europe that the Lancashire textile industry is any further reduced in size. It is most urgent that confidence is put back into it, and only the Government can do that, by telling it exactly what they plan for its future.
  10.12 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I shall speak for only a minute or two, as the time is so short.
  When the President of the Board of Trade visited Lancashire early in December, and discussed local cotton problems with all sections of the community, he left them bitterly disappointed. I had the pleasure of raising the question of cotton in a debate just before the Christmas Recess. The answer by the President of the Board of Trade was similarly evasive and unsatisfactory.
  It is very opportune that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) has raised the question again tonight. It is seldom that we have seen so many hon. Members here for an Adjournment debate. I have never seen so many hon. Members here for an

  169
  Adjournment debate on the cotton industry the whole time I have been a Member of the House, which shows that people really are regarding this matter as of great importance.
  I shall not go over again the questions which, broadly speaking have been admirably put by the three hon. Members opposite who have already spoken, but I would say that it is unfair to the industry and to the Government themselves to go on in the way in which they are at present. There is complete lack of confidence in the industry. Since the Government helped the industry extensively two years ago conditions have changed completely in a quite unforeseen way, and for that reason the Government should declare their policy.
  If the Government say that they will, do nothing at all, the industry will largely go to the wall. We shall lose a large amount of valuable equipment and labour which we cannot get back. I believe that it is right to give reasonable protection to this industry, as is given to the textile industry in practically every other Western country—and most other industries of this country have had similarly good treatment.
  I feel very strongly about this matter, but I shall not go any further with it tonight because of the lack of time and because we discussed at some length just before the House rose for the Christmas Recess.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Macpherson): It is unusual, to say the least, that we should have two Adjournment debates on the same subject on successive sittings of the House, but that is exactly what has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) raised this matter as the last but one Adjournment before the House rose for the Christmas Recess, and here we are discussing the same industry on the first Adjournment of the next sitting of the House.
  The industry is naturally anxious to know about its future, and is naturally considering every development that is taking place. It is right for me to start by emphasising one or two things that the President of the Board of Trade said. I must disagree with my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend left
  170
  the industry completely without guidance on the question of policy. He made it clear that the Government's policy had remained unchanged from the time when they undertook to give special assistance to the industry. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) said that no industry has been treated in the same way. That is quite true. No industry has had the form of assistance which the cotton industry is now receiving.
  Sir J. Barlow: What about the protection given to the motor car industry?
  Mr. Holt: Is the Minister seriously putting forward that view? The textile industry had no protection from its chief Asian competitors for ten years, but the motor car industry has had protection from everyone, at 30 per cent.
  Mr. Macpherson: The cotton industry has its protection of 17½ per cent.
  As for imports from Hong Kong, Pakistan and India, they enter free from these Commonwealth countries. But the Government have not sat idly by in this matter. There are inter-industry agreements. It is suggested that when those agreements were extended there should have been no increase in the permitted imports, but is it thought for one instant that we could have got agreement on those terms between industries? Quite clearly the industries which were expanding in Hong Kong, India and Pakistan wanted to send more of their exports to this country.
  The industry now knows where it is. It knows that agreements have been fixed, and it also knows that the President of the Board of Trade clearly stated that the Government would continue to restrain imports where appropriate, as permitted by our international obligations, and would assist in bringing about inter-industry agreements wherever this was the most practical way of dealing with the problem. We shall continue to carry out our obligations under the Cotton Industry Act, the purpose of which was always to establish a more compact and better-equipped industry.
  Reference has been made to imports of cotton cloth. It has rightly been said that they have fallen off in the course of the year, but hon. Members may not realise the extent to which they have fallen off. In the first quarter of 1961 imports of pure cotton piece goods were

  171
  running at 221 million square yards. In the fourth quarter they were running at 138 million sq. yds. Total retained imports, after re-exports had been deducted, were running at 100 million sq. yds., giving a total of retained imports for 1961 of 521 million sq. yds. That is what has been happening recently.
  The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) asked what would happen when we got another upsurge. We all know what happened on the last occasion. The industry's order books were completely full, and the merchants naturally looked abroad for goods to import. Probably they over-imported. The shelves in the warehouses were full and the result has been that there has been a considerable amount of de-stocking which, no doubt, has been at the expense of the production and output of the industry, with the result that the output has declined and there is at present a certain amount of short-time working. In the industry as a whole, there are vacancies outstanding. In spite of the contraction of the cotton industry, there has been no unemployment developing in the areas; far from it.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Employment in the industry has rapidly and progressively reduced. Many of the prophecies now being published by the experts indicate that there will be continuing reduction of the 170,000. It is true that highly-skilled spinners have been able to find some form of alternative work. That is the argument that was so contemptible in 1923, when we were told that distinguished people could get jobs as commissionaires at cinemas. That is not a valid argument. The skill of the industry is wasting away. Men who have lived in the industry all their lives are being driven out. The hon. Gentleman said that we had to restrict production by legislation when German production is rapidly expanding and is, for the first time in history, overtaking ours.
  Mr. Macpherson: Surely the overriding interest in this country must be to devote itself to those industries in which it can compete with other countries. An opportunity has been given to the cotton industry to put itself
  172
  in a position to compete by the redundancy scheme and, further, by the re-equipment scheme. Many firms are taking advantage of that and some are finding that with the appropriate lines they are able to compete and are competing very successfully at the present time. It is not every firm by any means that is working on short-time at present. Some firms are doing pretty well, even though, no doubt, they could do better, and we hope that they will do better.
  The main point is that it really is not possible for the Government to assure to any industry a given proportion of the market in this country. They cannot give an assurance that imports will not be allowed to exceed a level which would endanger that level.
  Mr. Rhodes: Why not?
  Mr. Macpherson: Because if they do so they will be ignoring questions of demand, the effects of prices, competition, the effects on our trade relations with other countries with whom we cannot trade unless we buy from them, and all our international trade policies and all our commitments.
  Mr. Rhodes: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Government are to do nothing at all? When we were coming up to the 1959 General Election, it was a different story from the Government Dispatch Box. Then the Government were prepared to dish out £30 million of public money. The trade pocketed £13½ million and I am not making any excuse for the trade for what they did on their part. I think, however, that it is up to the Government now to do something solid, imaginative and good for the trade instead of the hon. Gentleman coming to the Dispatch Box with this lame tale.
  Mr. Macpherson: This is not a lame tale at all. This is the core of the trading policy of the country. We must devote our resources to those matters in which we can compete most successfully—
  Mr. Dan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Macpherson: No, I cannot give way again. I have given way to hon. Members on a number of occasions.

  173
  It is up to the industry itself to make and determine its own place in our economy within the general framework of Government policy.
  I wish to say—despite the interruptions I am glad that there is still time for me to say—what the Government are prepared to do. Of course, we recognise that other and large increases in low cost competition in cotton textiles may pose serious problems for the older established textile industries. It is widely recognised, as was said by the hon. Members for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) and Farnworth that the underdeveloped countries must be given increased opportunities of access to the markets of the wealthier countries, and textiles will continue to be among the first exports of manufactured goods achieved by the developing countries.
  The short-term agreement already reached at Geneva provides arrangements for limiting very low-priced and disruptive imports. The standard for the limitation of imports introduced into the agreement is the level of imports in the year ending on 30th June last. That is on imports from under-developed countries. Our current rate of imports from most countries is already well below the level of this base year. Formosa was one of the few exceptions and action has been taken to limit our imports from there to that level. If imports of very cheap cloth from other sources reverse the recent trend and increase sharply and rise above the figure for the base year, and are disruptive in effect, we shall be prepared to consider action in accordance with the Geneva agreement.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear last November, when speaking in Geneva to the G.A.T.T. Ministerial Council, that having regard to the large proportion of the British market for cotton textiles now met by low-cost imports, we cannot accept any new commitment to take more, at least until others have made a comparable contribution to the problem of absorbing imports from the less-developed countries.
  Mr. D. Jones: Is that enough?
  Mr. Macpherson: The hon. Gentleman asks, "Is that enough?" He is again basing himself on the idea that we can decide what level of production we should maintain in this country—that the Government should do so. But the position of the Government is that they give industry the opportunity to become competitive and then it is up to industry itself to decide how much of the market it is able to win and to hold.
  Mr. D. Jones: It is most unfair.
  Mr. Macpherson: The difficulty has arisen largely because of the accumulation of stocks. The Board of Trade is attempting to see how this problem can be tackled at the present time in consultation with the Cotton Board and the Grey Cloth Importers' Association, both of which bodies have been most cooperative. An inquiry into the stocks of cloth held by merchants is on the way. Forms have been sent out to the grey cloth importers which are being completed on a voluntary basis. Once that information is more generally known, it may be possible to avoid the sort of over-importing and over-stocking which took place last year.
  I wish to refer briefly to the question of anti-dumping action. In the debate on 21st December, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade explained how we were anxious to help industry to secure its rights under the anti-dumping legislation. As was said by my right hon. Friend, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this, and since then discussions have taken place between officials and the various trade associations concerned about the best way to deal with the problems. I think the discussions have been helpful to all sections of industry. With the full knowledge of the position, and with the procedures available understood, I think that industry is in a much better position to contemplate the future than it has been for a long time.
  The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

POST OFFICE
  Rules
  Rules
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling Meters, Leicester
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling Meters, Leicester
  Morpeth and Ashington
  Morpeth and Ashington
  BRITISH COLUMBIA (MARINE ENGINE ORDER)
  BRITISH COLUMBIA (MARINE ENGINE ORDER)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Yateley Common
  Yateley Common
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
MALTA
  Schools (Party Politics)
  Schools (Party Politics)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Constitution
  Constitution
  Situation
  Situation
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Health Visitors and Social Workers
  Health Visitors and Social Workers
  Smallpox
  Smallpox
  Vaccination
  Vaccination
  Health Service Charges and Welfare Foods
  Health Service Charges and Welfare Foods
  District Nurses
  District Nurses
  Mental Health Act (Section 65)
  Mental Health Act (Section 65)
SHIPPING
  Oil Pollution (Newhaven Harbour)
  Oil Pollution (Newhaven Harbour)
TRANSPORT
  Derbyshire Police (Booklet)
  Derbyshire Police (Booklet)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Commonwealth Conference
  Commonwealth Conference
  MIDDLE EAST (TROOP MOVEMENTS)
  MIDDLE EAST (TROOP MOVEMENTS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Liquid Nitrogenous Fertilisers
  Liquid Nitrogenous Fertilisers
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Factory, Oldham
  Factory, Oldham
  Aircraft Factory, Christchurch
  Aircraft Factory, Christchurch
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Iron and Steel Scrap
  Iron and Steel Scrap
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Mortgage Interest Payments (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest Payments (Tax Relief)
  South Africa (Double Taxation Agreement)
  South Africa (Double Taxation Agreement)
  University Teachers (Salaries)
  University Teachers (Salaries)
  Income Tax (Excess Rents)
  Income Tax (Excess Rents)

Preamble
Reassembling for Public Business after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle

DECIMALISATION AND THE DUODECIMAL SYSTEM
2.36 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry on Decimalisation so as not to exclude the consideration by the Committee of a duodecimal system.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): No, my Lords. The Government were aware of the alternatives to a decimal system when they decided upon the terms of reference for the Committee of Inquiry. So many countries in the world have now adopted, or are committed in principle to introduce, a decimal system that the Government concluded it was desirable to confine the inquiry to that system.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for his Answer. Is not this an opportunity for this country to lead the world once more?
LORD MILLS: There are many opportunities for leading the world, my Lords—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Which way?
LORD MILLS: —but this one would take so long that, inevitably, it would be long after we were all dead before we could think of another system.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while accepting that the Government are now aware of the duodecimal system, may I ask whether this matter
830
ought not to be considered not from the point of view of immediate introduction, but from that of an ultimate move in this direction, which, if the noble Lord has considered it, I am sure he will agree is bound to come sooner or later?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord said that the Government are now aware of it, because they have been aware of it all along. But I do not see any object in going further into this question, because so much of the world is on a decimal system that it would be quite impracticable for us to adopt an alternative.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, for the benefit of the less well-informed among us, could the noble Lord say what the duodecimal system is?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the Leader of the House offers to answer, but I would say that the duodecimal system is one based on twelve instead of on ten.
LORD REA: My Lords, does the Minister remember that, when this subject was first mentioned to the House, I asked whether those who objected to the decimal system would be allowed to protest? The answer I got was that they would be allowed to protest. Does that mean that objectors who are not subscribers to the duodecimal system will be heard?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I think that that is a matter for the Committee.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION
2.39 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to reintroduce compulsory vaccination in early infancy.]
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords. Experience before and since the abolition of compulsory vaccination does not suggest that reintroduction of the scheme would secure better results than the present voluntary arrangements.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to say what number of children below the age of one year were vaccinated in 1960, as compared with the number vaccinated in 1947? Can the noble Lord give me the answer now or will he give it to me later on?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord such information as I have. In the ten years 1929–1938 the average annual rate of vaccination of children under the age of six months was 36.9 per cent. The corresponding rate for the ten years 1937–1946 was 36–8 per cent. Under the voluntary arrangements the rate for infants under one year had risen to 45 per cent. by 1959, although it fell to 41–3 per cent. in 1960.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the years 1948–1960, 27 persons died of smallpox in this country, and 54, or twice as many, died of vaccination? Must not that and many other facts entirely discredit the idea of compulsory vaccination?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, if true, that is very interesting information. But I should not like to give any support to the idea of discouraging parents from having their children voluntarily vaccinated within about six months of birth.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, assuming that what my noble friend said is true, as I think it is, is not the trouble that these people were vaccinated for the first time in adult life and it is because they were vaccinated then that the risk of encephalitis was greatly increased? Ought we not to be pressing therefore with all the force we can to get every baby vaccinated in infancy, when it is virtually safe, and when subsequent revaccination, if required, is equally safe?
LORD NEWTON: I am grateful to my noble friend for reinforcing so strongly what I said just now about the importance of voluntary vaccination for children.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not a fact that, in the group up to five years of age, in the 20 years or so up to 1960 there was one death
832
from smallpox and there were numerous deaths from vaccination every year?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I frankly do not know, and I should need notice to be able to answer the noble Lord on that point. But I still hope that he is not trying to discourage the general public from having their children vaccinated.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has obtained his information from the death certificates or from the propaganda of the Anti-vaccination League?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, the House should remember that it is for noble Lords to ask the Government questions and not for noble Lords to ask the Government to ask questions of their noble friend.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I then ask the Government a question referring to the statistics given by the noble Lord? Even assuming that they are correct and that the noble Lord never makes a mistake in his logic concerning facts at his disposal, would it not be more relevant, if it were possible, to produce statistics of the number of people who have escaped death from smallpox by having been vaccinated at a very early age?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think that might be very helpful, if it could be done.

IMMIGRANTS AND VACCINATION
2.44 p.m.
LORD COLWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider making it obligatory for all persons entering this country to produce an international certificate of vaccination.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this is not an effective safeguard in its present form. All five infected persons known to have entered this country in recent weeks had valid international certificates.

833
In the Government's view, better protection is normally afforded by the system of warning and follow-up, backed, where circumstances require, by the extensive powers which port health authorities possess to offer vaccination, to place under surveillance and, if necessary, to isolate.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that at least this matter has served to focus attention on the fact that our health regulations are very bad? Perhaps he will recall that on other occasions I have asked that immigrants should produce a certificate declaring that they are free from tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is not so dramatic as smallpox, but the medical officers of health of this country are exceedingly concerned at the fact that immigrant after immigrant is coming to this country while infected with tuberculosis, and still we are doing nothing to demand either that they should have a certificate or that they should be examined on arrival.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Baroness says about tuberculosis, but I am afraid that I am not in a position at the moment to answer questions about it.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS
2.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I apologise to the House, but I have to ask four Private Notice Questions. Perhaps I may put them all in one so as to save time. First of all, I should like to ask whether the Government can make a statement on the armed invasion into British Honduras from Guatemala. Secondly, I should like to ask what communication the Minister of Transport has sent to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding to-day's wages negotiations. Thirdly, on smallpox, I should like to ask the Government whether they will make a statement 'a bout the outbreaks of smallpox. Fourthly, I should like to ask whether the Government have any statement to make as to whether they propose or do not propose to hold an inquiry into the proposal of Imperial Chemical Industries to take over Courtaulds.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for asking these Questions in such a compendious form. As regards the first three of them, at any rate, statements will be made later. I am not quite sure of the position about the fourth, but there are Questions on the Order Paper of another place, or there is a Private Notice Question in the other place, and I will seek to find out what my right honourable friend is saying there and will endeavour to see that someone says much the same sort of thing here.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. On the last point, I understood from hearsay, at any rate, that the Question was being accepted in the other place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think it is, but I am not quite sure in what form.

ARMS FOR INDONESIA
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, might I add that there is also to be a statement by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary at half past three on arms for Indonesia.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend with regard to certain matters, and empower Her Majesty in Council to amend with regard to others, the law concerning the administration of justice in Northern Ireland; to enlarge the legislative power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland; to amend other law applicable to Northern Ireland; to lay down a rule for interpreting, in the application to Northern Ireland of Acts of Parliament, certain expressions commonly used therein; and to repeal obsolete, unnecessary or spent enactments applying to Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1aand to be printed.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 4:
Permitted hours in licensed premises, registered clubs and licensed canteens
4—(1)Subject to the provisions of the principal Act and this Act, the permitted hours in licensed premises (other than public houses) and in registered clubs and licensed canteens shall—

(a)on weekdays, be the period between eleven in the morning and three in the afternoon and the period between five and ten in the evening; and

(b)on weekdays, be the period between half-past twelve and half-past two in the afternoon and the period between six and nine in the evening so, however, that for the purpose of the sale or supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises there shall be no permitted hours in such licensed premises or clubs on Sundays.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the principal Act and this Act, the permitted hours in public houses shall on weekdays be the period between eleven in the morning and three in the afternoon and the period between five and ten in the evening, and (except as provided in section six of this Act) there shall be no permitted hours in public houses on Sundays.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(other than public houses)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to speak to my Amendment C on Amendment 3A, because they are really two parts of the same proposal. Since the Committee stage of the Bill I have given long and careful consideration to the question of the opening of public houses on Sunday, and I regret that I cannot bring myself to believe that the provisions of the present Bill are an adequate solution. And when I say "regret", I mean that quite sincerely, because all my instincts and upbringing urge me to be against any proposal for extending facilities for drinking. This is a case where sentiment and logic do not in fact go together, and I shall try to be logical rather than sentimental.
It cannot be denied that there are a considerable number of people who wish to drink on Sunday. In the Guest Committee Report, paragraphs 15 and 16, it is stated:
"…It is alleged that the number of genuine travellers is probably very small; that
836
the existing law tends to incite people to undertake journeys on Sunday merely for the purpose of obtaining liquor; that in particular there has of recent years been a considerable increase both in the number of organised coach-excursions on Sundays and in the number of people making journeys from the large centres of population into the countryside by car or public transport with that object in view; and that such persons frequently indulge in noisy and disorderly behaviour and cause considerable disturbance in country towns and villages."
The Committee went on to say in paragraph 16:
"We think that this criticism is on the whole well-founded."
One aspect of this is to be dealt with later in the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, are moving on the matter of carrying liquor in vehicles.
The Committee said something further in paragraphs 23 and 24. I must apologise for quoting so much of this Report, but I really feel that what I am proposing is something which could have been put forward just as appropriately by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, because it is what was in his Report. The Committee said:
"…In other words we accept in principle the view that some system of permitted hours is desirable.
"24. A tempting proposition at first sight would be to suggest that such a system should apply only to hotels, the great majority of which are already open on Sundays for the sale of liquor under existing arrangements, and that public houses should remain closed. On closer examination, however, there seem to us to be several objections to that proposal. In the first place it must be borne in mind that hotels do not provide an adequate local coverage over the country as a whole; there are large industrial areas, for example, with very few hotels. It seems to us therefore that the introduction of a system of permitted hours for hotels alone would not help appreciably in reducing the amount of travelling that is carried out on Sundays for the primary purpose of obtaining liquor, while it might well tend to lead to such gross overcrowding in some premises as to alter the character of the hotels concerned in an undesirable way. Furthermore, a system of permitted hours for hotels only might be expected to encourage an increase in the type of hotel popularly known as the seven-day public house that is to say licensed premises which technically provide sleeping accommodation for travellers and which hold a hotel certificate from a licensing court, but which in practice exist mainly or entirely to cater for public house trade; and we think that subterfuge of that kind is undesirable. There is also the point that in some areas it is the practice for hotels and public houses to he frequented by different social groups, and the grant of permitted hours to one only of these

837
two types of establishment might be felt to be a social injustice. For these reasons we do not consider that we would be justified in proposing that there should be permitted hours on Sundays for hotels only."
Your Lordships will recollect that on November 21 the Minister of State, Scottish Office said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 235 (No. 11), col. 814]:
" There are about 2,000 licensed hotels in Scotland at the present time. In the Government's view, the foreseeable demand on Sunday does not require the opening of the 4,000-odd public houses as well".
That statement completely ignores the Guest Committee's closely reasoned objections to the "hotels only" proposal; and I would remind your Lordships that one of the reasons given by the Committee was that of geographical distribution. I also recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, rejected my arguments, characterising them as being arithmetical ones. Now half of the population of Scotland live in the four large cities and in fifteen of the large burghs, and they have 183 licensed hotels; that is, one-tenth of the total. The other half of the population live in rural areas. in small centres of population, and particularly in those areas which are holiday resorts, and these areas have the other nine-tenths of the total of licensed hotels. So it could be said, quite reasonably, that, so far as half the population of Scotland are concerned, the Government's proposals are adequate. But that seems to me no reason to ignore the problems and the needs of the half who live in the mainly industrial areas.
The Guest Committee then went on to say (paragraph 28) that:
"the present situation whereby some people, albeit a small minority of the population, are apparently encouraged by the form of the existing law to spend a large part of Sunday travelling about the country—often in organised parties—in search of liquor is certainly contrary to the feelings and wishes of the people of Scotland as a whole; and we think that it is at least a debatable matter whether a system which allowed limited facilities for the purchase of liquor in each local area might not be more acceptable than one which in effect gives unlimited scope for the purchase and consumption of liquor on Sundays by those who have the inclination and means to seek it.
"29. We do not consider either that the opening of public houses (and licensed restaurants) in addition to hotels during a strictly limited period of hours would have any substantial effect on moral
838
standards or on the incidence of drunkenness. … It has been represented to us also by the Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association among others that, whereas at present many of those who purchase liquor on Sundays return home by car, the opening of local public houses might be expected to reduce the practice of driving after consuming liquor and to that extent to decrease rather than increase the danger of accidents on the road. In our opinion a change in licensing hours would not materially affect the amount of money which the average person spends en liquor; at present public houses do most of their business on Fridays and Saturdays and, if our view is correct, the fact that public houses were open also on Sundays would merely mean in most cases that the same expenditure would be spread over an additional day and it might indeed be expected to lead to a decrease in drunkenness on Fridays and Saturdays."
I think that opinion of the Guest Committee is a perfectly sound one and in fact is the explanation of the reluctance of the Publicans' Associations to press for Sunday opening. It is a known fact that there are more proprietors of public houses who would be quite happy to have them remain closed on Sunday rather than those who would have them open, and this is because of the fact that, being Scots, they see no future in spending wages on seven days to attract the same amount of income which they get in six. But, after all, one of the reasons why they are licensed is because they are supposed to be providing a public service, and that sometimes involves people in having to do things not necessarily in the way that is most profitable to them.
Your Lordships know that the Committee headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, consisted of distinguished Scots from all walks of life and that their recommendation for Sunday opening was unanimous. The Government have said that since the Committee reported the Secretary of State has heard the views of a wide range of public opinion. Of that I have no doubt; but obviously the Secretary of State did not again interview all those people who had given evidence before the Committee. One can only come to the conclusion, therefore, that a rejection at the present time was based on evidence less than that which was available to the Committee. Indeed, I suspect that what took place was that those who did not like the recommendations of the Guest Committee on Sunday opening made their views well-known to the

839
Ministers, while those who agreed with the Committee's recommendations, thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the battle was won and rested happily in silence.
May I quote another point of view to your Lordships?
"The first of these is the existing law that makes you travel to drink and denies it to you in, your own area. At a time when Parliament and the public are rightly concerned about road safety, what can be said for a law which encourages the motorist to drive to get a drink and then to drive home again? The second is the annoyance and disturbance which is caused to the inhabitants of the surrounding country by the irruption into it of the wrong sort of Sunday drinkers in their cars and buses. The peace and quiet of the Scottish Sunday is quickly shattered if the hotel in the town becomes the resort of such people."
These strong words condemning the present law are in columns 810 and 811 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of November 21 (Vol. 235, No. 11) and they were spoken by the Minister of State for Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. So far as the people of Scotland are concerned, those words will continue to be almost equally applicable if the Bill is passed in its present form.
Having said and quoted all these things against the Bill as it stands, may I say, further, that I believe that the real reason why there is no provision for the Sunday opening of public-houses is not that stated by the Ministers but the reluctance of the Scottish Ministers to take this bold and difficult step, which is so much against Scottish tradition, without proof that it is absolutely essential. Obviously, a good way of providing that proof is to open the hotels only, and if proof is in fact forthcoming, then the Ministers will be in a strong position to take the next step, and say that they are now going to bring in a law to permit public-houses to be open on Sunday because it has been clearly demonstrated that the "hotels only" proposal is inadequate.
I am prepared to go a long way with the Government in that reluctance, because it is the sort of reluctance in which I instinctively share. I agree that public-houses should be opened on Sunday only if it is clearly in the public interest to do so, but if these Amendments which I am proposing are rejected and it becomes
840
clear that the opening of hotels alone will not solve this Sunday problem, then another Licensing Bill will have to be introduced, probably after much delay, during which time the demonstrated evils will continue to operate.
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 22 (3) of the Bill. To save your Lordships looking it up, I will quote it.
"This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be appointed for different provisions of this Act or for different purposes of the same provision."
What I ask your Lordships to do is to accept my Amendments on the basis that, in the first instance, the Secretary of State should fix an appointed day for premises other than public-houses. If, as I regret it probably will be, that step is not in itself sufficient, it will soon be evident, in which case the Secretary of State can then, and only then, proceed to fix an appointed day for the Sunday opening of public-houses. I suggest that this is a way in which the Government can accomplish by one Bill the purposes which they would otherwise require two Bills to bring about. No one in Scotland will object to the Secretary of State's refraining from exercising power which he has taken by law, if it is clear that the exercise of that power is not necessary. On the other hand, the population of Scotland will commend the Ministers if they have armed themselves with the power which I suggest, in case it should be necessary.
My Lords, I said that I had given long and careful consideration to this matter. I went further than that. I tried to get assistance from other people, to try to find out what the opinion was in Scotland, and I found myself, at the beginning of last week, no further forward. I wrote to the Lord Provosts and Provosts of the four cities and fifteen large burghs, to whom I referred earlier, and at the end of the day I found that some of them were unanimously against the opening of public-houses on Sunday, some were unanimously in favour of public-houses being opened on Sunday and in one burgh they were equally divided. So, as all of us have to do at the end of the day, I had to fall back on what I myself thought was the right thing to do.
It seems to me that this is something which either the Minister of State should accept to-day or, if this is too difficult, on which he should at least give a serious undertaking, that an Amendment along these lines will be considered when the measure proceeds to another place. I do not think that the Government are satisfied that the hotels proposal is a guaranteed solution. I believe that they are perhaps justified in not wishing to take two steps at the present time, if the second step is not necessary; but having regard to the real difficulties of getting even essential legislation for the whole country fitted into the Parliamentary programme, I should think that the Government would welcome the opportunity of getting two Bills for the price of one. That certainly is the sort of thing which commends itself to the average Scot. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("(other than public houses)").—(Lord Hughes.)
3.8 p.m.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I should like to apologise for my late intervention in the proceedings relating to this Bill. My absences on previous occasions have been due to circumstances beyond my control. I should also like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Government on the expedition with which they have carried into effect some of the proposals of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside. Certainly, an overhaul of the licensing laws of Scotland was long overdue. But I am afraid that my congratulations to the Government cannot be wholehearted. In particular, I regret that they have not seen fit to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee regarding the Sunday opening of public-houses.
The proposals which the Committee made in regard to Sunday opening were designed to deal with two problems and two evils. One was the out-of-date provisions regarding the "bona-fide traveller," and the other evil was what has been conveniently called in your Lordships' House the "bus-boozing parties". So far as the first evil is concerned, that will, of course, be corrected by the proposals of the Bill. So far as the second evil is concerned, I cannot
842
see that the Bill will go any way in dealing with it.
I had understood from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in introducing this Bill on Second Reading, that this was to be a liberalising measure, so far as Scotland was concerned in regard to permitted hours. I do not think it can be taken out of account that actually the proposals of this Bill will considerably restrict the hours during which drink can be consumed in Scotland on Sunday. At present the "bona-fide traveller"—and that really means practically anybody—can drink round 24 hours of the clock. It may be that that is not a good thing and that he should be restricted. But under the Bill the drinking on Sunday will be restricted in regard to time and also in regard to place, because there are permitted hours and these permitted hours will operate in hotels and restaurants only.
I think there is a great deal of force in what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on the Committee stage and in his speech to-day: that it is very doubtful whether in Scotland to-day the facilities exist for coping with the demand which will certainly arise in view of the abolition of the "bona-fide traveller". This is particularly so in the large cities, where it is plain from the figures given by the noble Lord that there are not sufficient hotels to deal with the demand which will arise. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that what has primarily to be considered is the public interest. It is not any sectional interest which has to be appealed to, but what is in the interests of the public as a whole.
There may be a possible alleviation in the position if licensing authorities are generous in their grant of the two new types of certificate—namely, the restaurant certificate and the hotel and restaurant certificate, because that would allow drink to be consumed with meals in these establishments. But unless there is a generous interpretation of the new granting of certificates by licensing authorities I fear the Government will be storing up trouble in the large cities, in that there will not be sufficient drinking facilities for the people who want them. It will also, of course, produce to a worse extent the problem of the

843
motorist who drives to obtain drink and who drives after he has obtained drink, because he will find that in his own city there are not the facilities and he will go to the county where there are more facilities.
Time will show, of course, but unless this Amendment is adopted I fear that considerable trouble will be caused in the big cities. It seems to me that the compromise which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has suggested is very reasonable: this Amendment should be accepted and it should be left to the Secretary of State to say at what time Scotland has become a fit place in which Sunday opening of public-houses can be permitted. For these reasons I wish to support the Amendment.
3.14 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before opposing this Amendment, as I rise to do, I should like to welcome the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken and to say how much we on the Back Benches have missed him during the previous discussions on this Bill. Nevertheless, with due respect to his views and to those clearly and sensibly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as I have said, I oppose the Amendment. I will not repeat the views I expressed on previous stages of the Bill, but I should like briefly to say that I regard the decision of the Government as a bold and proper one. I admit that most of us hope (certainly I do) that the day will come—though I believe that it is far off—when conditions in Scotland will make it possible for all public-houses to be open on Sunday. But there are too many areas where there are poor housing conditions, poor living conditions and numerous public-houses of a very unsavoury type. I think there is no question that the public-house in Scotland, particularly in the busy dockside and industrial districts, is little more than a drinking booth; and conditions still prevail in those areas such as led to the excessive drinking of the days which have been immortalised by such songs as, "Glasgow belongs to me".
Despite all that the noble and learned Lord has just said, I feel the danger of the Sunday "bus boozing party" is so great that if public-houses were to be opened throughout Scotland at this day
844
those "bus boozing parties" would not be discouraged but rather would be encouraged. However, that is an expression of opinion. Admittedly, country areas and areas where living conditions and public-house conditions are better will have to suffer through the general overall situation. And the time is also coming—and it may come soon—when the condition of the Scottish public-houses will be such that all will be places like those in England where a man can take his wife and sit down to a pleasant and possibly convivial evening without excess.
One must admit, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, that the figures show that in the urban areas, where so few licensed houses will be available on a Sunday, numerous mushroom clubs will spring up—and I shall be referring to that again in connection with another Amendment. But I would, in opposing the Amendment, say that I also look forward to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister has to say about the interesting suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in regard to Clause 22 and the possible use by the Government of the dates. The noble Lord and I are at one in saying that the time will come when public houses in Scotland will be open on Sunday. Nevertheless, I believe the time when conditions will justify such a state of affairs is so far away that new legislation for it will have to be laid before Parliament. That being my view, I personally oppose the Amendment.
3.18 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in opposing the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself, congratulated the Government on taking a bold and proper decision, that decision being, apparently, to close public houses in Scotland on Sunday; and he looked forward to the day, which he said was far distant, when they would be able to reverse that decision and open public houses in Scotland on Sunday, which presumably would be not bold and proper but timid and improper. He also referred to the fact that in some way he regretted the kind of atmosphere in which people could say, "Glasgow belongs to me". Well, if he and the

845
Government have their way, certainly on Sundays the people of Glasgow will not be able to say in any true sense that Glasgow belongs to them.
It seems to me extraordinary that the Government should have taken this decision in the face of the recommendation made by the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, who, after all, naturally considered this matter not only objectively, but very carefully, and having full regard to all the many and in some cases impassioned representations which were made to them. We are, indeed, indebted to the noble and learned Lord in that he has so quietly and cogently and with the facts supported this Amendment. It appears to me that the Government's attitude in this whole Bill is redolent of complete inconsistency, and that for their main decisions—at least, those to which we object—there is no kind of actual basis. It is manifest that they have given way—in so far as the Scottish Bill differs from the English Bill—to particular pressures, whichever pressure happened at the time to appear to be the heaviest. For example, in connection with the entry of the police into clubs, they have taken what I regard as the right and sensible decision, and one which will stop vicious practices. In this respect they have taken a decision which may well be, as my noble friend Lord Hughes said, in line with the best Scottish tradition. But it certainly cannot be regarded as the bold and difficult step for which he asked.
I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, say that it was doubtful if facilities existed in Scotland in view of what he described as the abolition of the "bona-fide traveller". I suppose I speak as a representative of the "bona-fide travellers". My limited knowledge, both of Glasgow and of the less populated parts of Scotland, convinces me that under this Bill, if it goes forward unamended, most of the facilities on Sundays will be in the places which are less populated, and that in the most populous places there will be no facilities at all. I submit to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that that really is the point which he has to answer.
It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, that a lot of these places are drinking dens, bothies. But they are
846
such every day of the week, and the answer to that is not to preclude their use on Sundays but to preclude their use on any day of the week if they are unsatisfactory in those ways. They should be cleaned up in some other way, and I am sure everyone in this House would support any move in that direction. But as the Bill now stands it is absolute hypocrisy—it is humbug. It is giving way to prejudice and, what is more, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, so clearly pointed out, it is going to say that it is not respectable to drink on Sundays in the bothies of Glasgow because the kind of people who go to them cannot be trusted to behave themselves, but it is respectable to go 50 or 100 miles outside Glasgow to drink as much as you like, get thoroughly drunk and then come back and run somebody over. That is what this Bill says.
My noble friend Lord Hughes, in extremely temperate language, has invited the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to say: "We are impressed with the arguments. We are not in a position to accept the Amendment at this stage, but we should like to have it argued further in another place and fully considered". To my mind, my noble friend has gone to the extreme limit of conciliation, and I hope that his offer will be accepted as such by the noble Lord. I hope my noble friend will press this Amendment to a Division, and that noble Lords in all parts of the House will support him.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to say that I hope the Government will either accept this Amendment or promise, after consideration, a similar Amendment. I think that when people whose first aim is normally to seek popularity—and I think that to some extent that is true of everybody who engages in politics—advocate, in the light of their experience, a measure which is bound to be very unpopular in certain quarters, their arguments should be received with special attention, because they are probably dictated by wisdom.
I owe my first allegiance to another of Scotland's great cities, and not primarily to the one over which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, so ably presided. It happens that I have had to visit Dundee and the outlying parts of that city

847
very frequently in the immediate past, and I should like now to pay my tribute to the authorities of Dundee for the magnificent work they have done in rehousing the population and clearing away unsuitable houses. I think, too, that the authorities of Glasgow deserve exactly the same credit, and that the conditions which lead to heavy drinking are rapidly passing away. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, frankly said as much in his speech, because he talked about the bad old days which have disappeared and which he is afraid may be revived by the opening of public houses on Sunday. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, accurately said, if they are not revived by what goes on on Fridays and Saturdays, it is not likely that their opening on Sunday will promote a debacle. I think, therefore, that the time has come when definite steps should be taken in the direction advocated by Lord Hughes. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has put forward his case with great moderation and has left the matter in the hands of the Government. I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accept either his Amendment or something similar.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of this Amendment? I think I am right in saying that further on in the Bill there is a provision which enables licensed premises not to remain open the whole time that they may remain open. I feel that if the public-houses are open on Sunday, the worst ones, which to a certain extent are concentrated in the dock areas of Glasgow, may find that it does not pay them to open on Sundays, because, with the movement of the main centres of population more and more to the outskirts, the people will find it more convenient to drink near their homes than to come in near their place of work and drink there. I think that in two or three years' time the problem may largely resolve itself. For these reasons I hope that the Government will give the noble Lord the promise he wants. If they do not, I am afraid that I shall have to support him.
3.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, the most important task in this
848
Bill is to get rid of the "traveller" provision which required people to travel on Sunday in order to get a drink at all. We have done this, and we have stopped the nonsense of hotels serving drinks at all hours on Sundays. And in spite of what my noble and learned friend Lord Guest said, I am sure he will agree that that was a nonsense which ought to have been stopped. Now those same hotels and licensed restaurants will be able to give service in an orderly way to their local people as well as to tourists. I agree with my noble and learned friend that the licensing courts can give us some help by being fairly free with granting restricted hotel and restaurant certificates. In the last 100 years, while the "bona-fide traveller" provision has been becoming steadily more ridiculous, Scottish pubs have been closed on Sundays. It is not that we are closing them now as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said: they have been closed for a hundred years. Now no one objects to regulated drinking and having permitted hours in hotels, restaurants and clubs; but does this regulation justify the Sunday opening for the first time of similarly regulated pubs?
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, read in detail the recommendations of the Guest Committee; and we have, of course, studied them very carefully. I must thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, for his congratulations, and I understand why he cannot congratulate us in this case. Both noble Lords are concerned particularly with the maldistribution of hotels and with social injustice. But those who live in the badly served areas have made no serious representations to my right honourable friend since the Bill was published, and they have known since the Bill was published that the battle, to use the noble Lord's own words, "was not won." The pubs in those areas are not open on Sundays now. The way of life of the people in those areas seems to be such that they have no burning desire for the pub on the corner" to be open on Sundays—indeed, the reverse is true. Nearly all those organisations concerned with the way of life of the people, and many more besides, have expressed to my right honourable friend in no uncertain terms that they do not want, and that the majority of Scottish people do not want, the pubs open on Sundays.

849
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the Government were reluctant to take this bold and difficult step. He knows that Governments cannot govern unless they take such steps, especially where the national interest is concerned; and that we are prepared to do. But this is not such a case. What is at stake is the way of life of our people and the extent to which they wish their Sunday to be a day apart; and for that reason I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has suggested a way out by using Clause 22 (3). As the noble Lord would expect, I have not had a great deal of time to look at this suggestion. But to adopt his Amendment would seem to me

ARMS FOR INDONESIA
3.40 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a short statement about arms for Indonesia. Her Majesty's Government are gravely concerned by the dangerous
850
to imply that public-houses ought eventually to be opened whether or not the Government's proposals prove to be adequate or to satisfy the Scottish public, as we think they will. I will give him an undertaking that we will, of course, look at this proposal very carefully; but I cannot give him, and he will not expect me to give him, an undertaking that we will bring forward an Amendment in another place embodying his proposal.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 41; Not-Contents 48.

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Grantchester, L.

Rea, L.

Amulree, L.

Grenfell, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Amwell, L.

Guest, L.

Sandford, L.

Atholl, D.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Auckland, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Sinclair, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Jessel, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Burden, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stonham, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Latham, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lucan, E.

Taylor, L.

Denning, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams, L.

Derwent, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Dundonald, E.

Northesk, E.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Furness, V.

Ogmore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Allerton, L.

Effingham, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ferrier, L.

Mills, L.

Bossom, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Milverton, L.

Carrington, L.

Freyberg, L.

Newall, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Haddington, E.

Perth, E.

Cobbold, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Rank, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hastings, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Home, E.

Reid, L.

Coutanche, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigton, L.

Howe, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Somers, L.

Devonport, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Swinton, E.

Devonshire, D.

Lambert, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

which has arisen between Indonesia and the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea. It is the firm hope of Her Majesty's Government that a negotiated settlement will be reached, and they are supporting the steps being taken to this end. They are accordingly most anxious not to do anything at this delicate stage which might increase tension in the area or in any way add to the possibility of armed conflict. Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided, as a temporary measure until the situation over

851
West New Guinea has been clarified, that, apart from completing an outstanding order for ground radar equipment, they must suspend the export of arms and military equipment from Britain to Indonesia.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, and the purpose behind the decision is undoubtedly worthy of respect and consideration. We are a little anxious, perhaps, whatever is done on this occasion, as to how far the Government's policy of the control of export of armaments is to run. I understood that there had been some difficulty between London and Washington with regard to the continued export of aeroplanes to Red China. If the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary feels there is no inconsistency in the two matters, all right, but I am just wondering exactly how we should regard them, although I can see a different basis for argument
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I 'think the two matters are different. This is a situation in which, on the evidence before us, war might be quite near. The other matter is one which concerns trade between the West and the Sino-Soviet bloc, and certain elements of that, certain things of military consequence which we do not sell to China. I do not think I will go into the question of the Chinese deal, but I think there is no inconsistency between the two decisions.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, are not the aeroplanes which are being exported to China civil aircraft, whereas the Indonesia decision relates entirely to purely military supplies?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers that—I do not want to stop the answer to the noble Earl—is not the basis of the American objection that fittings and other things would be very valuable in the actual mounting of warfare?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's question is, Yes, these are civil aircraft. The answer to the noble Viscount is also partly Yes, because some of the things in the Viscount planes are on a strategic list, or could be. I do not think I should like to go into it fully without notice.

GUATEMALAN INCURSION INTO BRITISH HONDURAS
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Perth is prepared to make one statement and my noble friend Lord Newton is ready to follow him.
3.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice on the attempted invasion (shall I call it?) of British Honduras.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, on January 21 some 30 armed Guatemalan civilians entered the Toledo District of British Honduras. In the village of Pueblo Viejo they are reported to have burnt the Union Jack and hoisted the Guatemalan flag. Some of them went on to the village of San Antonio and beyond. Troops of the Royal Hampshire Regiment arrived in Punta Gorda yesterday morning and went inland to deal with the situation. This morning it is reported that the band has broken up and for the most part is returning, or has returned, to Guatemala. The search, in case any of the band may still be in the territory, continues. Her Majesty's Minister in Guatemala City has been instructed to make representations immediately and to ask for an assurance that there will be no repetition of such an incident.

THE OUTBREAK OF SMALLPDX
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, whether he will answer my Private Notice Question on the present position in relation to the outbreak of smallpox?
LORD NEWTON: Yes, my Lords. It may be for the convenience of the House if I repeat to your Lordships the statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, has just made in another place:
"Five persons infected with smallpox are known to have arrived at London Airport from Pakistan between

853
December 16 and January 11. All five had valid international certificates of recent revaccination. So far as is known, there have been no secondary cases to date from three of these persons and only one from the fourth. The fifth was a girl of nine who had been successfully vaccinated in infancy. She arrived on December 16, was admitted to Bradford Children's Hospital on December 23, with malaria, and died on December 30 with no clinical sign of smallpox, which was deduced on January 11 as soon as secondary cases occurred among her contacts in the hospital. Ten of these have been confirmed so far and two are suspected; four have died. All known contacts have been vaccinated and placed under medical surveillance."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He said that five Pakistanis have come into this country with vaccination certificates that were not valid?
LORD NEWTON: With certificates that were valid.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I ask whether that answer means that all such immigrants are examined to see whether they have available vaccination certificates, and does it mean that if they have not they are excluded?
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords. The position is that we in this country have never put into force Article 83 of the International Sanitary Regulations of 1951, which says:
"A health administration may require any person on an international voyage who does not show sufficient evidence of protection by a previous attack of smallpox to possess on arrival a valid certificate of vaccination against smallpox."
The Article then provides that a valid certificate shall be considered as evidence of sufficient protection. But I explained earlier this afternoon, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that in the Government's view better protection is normally afforded by a system of warning and follow-up.
ViscouNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask whether the Government intend to proceed any further with examination of the general circumstances in relation to
854
this question, to accommodate the people among the population who are pressing hard for a system of certificates of health, with regard not only to vaccination against smallpox but to other matters (such as are required, for example, in the United States, where a certificate should be not more than three years old) and to see whether anything has happened at all in this outbreak which would make the Government wish to depart from their present system?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will consider all these matters as the result of the outbreaks of smallpox in this country. But he is not of the view that so far as smallpox is concerned these international certificates serve any really useful purpose.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask, whether or not with regard to the measure of agreement in Europe upon this matter, effective steps have now been taken to prevent people from a smallpox infected area from coming through the usual procedure—say through France—without having any check upon them? Has it been found that they have got in through other territories en route and have then come through France, thus escaping what would be the normal check upon people from these areas?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, steps are taken to discover whether or not people who come to this country originated from what are recognised as infected areas. The controls now in operation are believed to be more stringent than are in force anywhere else, and so far as we are aware all of these five cases would have entered any other country under the controls which they operate.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when it was discovered that these five suspects had valid vaccination certificates? Was it on entry, or when they were found to be smallpox suspects? Can he further enlarge on his statement that these international certificates are of little use?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the answer to the first question is, I think, on entry. There are two reasons why

855
we in this country have not put into effect the provisions of Article 83—that is the one which concerns these international certificates. The first is that vaccination is not compulsory for our own people since the repeal of the Vaccination Acts; and secondly, the majority of people producing international certificates will do so as evidence of revaccination. The certificate, while it shows that the person has been vaccinated, does not give any evidence of successful revaccination—that is to say, there is no guarantee that the revaccination has taken.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, in the case of these five people was there any evidence, apart from the international certificate, that they had in fact been vaccinated recently?
LORD NEWTON: No, my Lords, I do not think there was.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, is it not a most scandalous state of affairs, and should we not draw the attention of the Government of Pakistan to the fact that certificates appear to be issued by doctors in Pakistan without the persons' being vaccinated?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I recognise that that is a view which is taken, but I think it is something which is very difficult to prove.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I have visited Pakistan and I know Karachi. Is it not the fact that the number of qualified doctors in these Eastern countries is so limited that it is completely unrealistic for noble Lords to ask for certificates? One doubts whether the doctors who for the most part treat these people are qualified in our sense of the word to vaccinate, and therefore we cannot really talk about this matter as though it had a British background in regard to medicine. If you ask all these people to have a certificate of vaccination it simply means that you are limiting immigration in that way.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I did not ask for these certificates. The only people who
856
asked apparently were the immigration authorities, quite reasonably, and these ladies and gentlemen produced them.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: They are forgeries.
LORD TAYLOR: My noble friend says they are all forgeries. That was exactly what I was complaining about. If they are forgeries, then it is a most scandalous state of affairs.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: They have not got the doctors.
LORD TAYLOR: This is extraordinary.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, all five immigrants from Pakistan had the international certificates and they were valid —that is to say, in the judgment of those who examined them they were not forgeries. But, as I have said several times, we in this country do not require people coming into the country to produce these documents. As I said before, we do not think that they serve a very useful purpose.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, to be quite fair to the Pakistani doctors, is the noble Lord aware that many of the doctors who are now busily vaccinating people in Britain are from Pakistan?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, far be it for me to intervene between the trilogy of noble Lords and the noble Lady opposite.
LORD REA: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in one sense the situation is going rather in reverse? Not only is Pakistan looked upon as an infected area, but Britain is looked upon by other countries as an infected area. Can he tell us what steps are being taken in regard to that? Are people who wish to go abroad to be asked for a special certificate?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure that it is not for us to stop people from leaving these shores if they want to. What we want to do is to make certain that we do not allow into this country people who have already been infected.

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND COURTAULDS
3.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make with regard to the proposed or actual take-over bid by Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, of Courtaulds, Limited, and whether they propose to make an inquiry into the merger?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think I should tell the House that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was asked by Private Notice in another place some moments ago a Question, Whether Her Majesty's Government will set up a public inquiry into the effects on the public interest of the proposed merger between I.C.I. and .Courtaulds.
My Lords, in answer to that question my right honourable friend said that
"Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the interest of the House in this important matter. The House will realise, however, that the issues involved are complex. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to make a statement today, but hope to be able to do so very shortly."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the working class organisations concerned in industry and industrial conditions are most interested to see the attitude of the supporters of the Conservative Government and how they treat a monopoly, or proposed monopoly? They seem to make inadequate plans for dealing with private monopolies, but interfere in every possible case when dealing with the nationalised industries.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I will pursue this matter with the Leader of the Opposition. When the noble Viscount sees the statement that is made, when it is made, I think we shall be in a position to discuss it more fully.

RAILWAY WAGES NEGOTIATIONS
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, could Her Majesty's Government tell us what communication has been sent to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission regarding today's wage negotiations?
4.2 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT(LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the communication to which the Question refers was sent yesterday by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, and also to the General Secretaries of the National Union of Railwaymen, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. It has already been published in full in the Press. It reads as follows:
"The Government have been considering the situation created by the railway wage claims which the British Transport Commission has at present under consideration.
"In the Government's view, two considerations arc paramount. The first is the alarming financial position of the railways. The Commission is actively pursuing every possibility, whether by increasing revenue or by securing economies in expenditure, of improving this position. The hard fact is, however, that the railway deficit in 1961 has exceeded £140 million, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is advised that provision will have to be made in next year's Estimates to meet a higher deficit in 1962. The Government arc bound, therefore, to take a grave view of any further increase in this heavy financial burden.
"The second consideration is that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained in Parliament in recent months, and in his letter of January 10, 1962, to the Trades Union Congress, the Government think it essential, in the national interest, that increases in in-comes should be brought into a more realistic relationship with increases in national output. This objective can only be achieved if there is restraint over increases in all forms of personal income. This will certainly be necessary in 1962, when the increase in national output is estimated at about 2½ per cent.
"Against this background it cannot be easy for the Government to ask Parliament to find additional funds at this time to provide any increase in railway wages. But the Government recognise that there are special factors which warrant some limited increase in the remuneration of railway workers which should in no event take effect before April I, 1962.

859
"In order that the amount of this increase may be impartially assessed in the context of the financial and economic aspects mentioned above, the Government have asked the Chairman of the Commission to refer the claim to arbitration".
My Lords, that is the text. The main purpose of the communication was to ensure that, without departing from the machinery established under the Agreement on the Machinery of Negotiation for Railway Staff, full regard should be paid to the financial and economic difficulties with which the nation and the railways themselves are faced at the present time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who made that reply whether he is aware that the reference of this matter to arbitration in the present circumstances is quite extraordinary, after what has already happened? Here we are, getting all our letters, in some cases letters on urgent business, five, six or seven days late, as a result of the action of the Postmaster General, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and you bring another threat upon us in regard to this very important section of the transport arrangements of this country. Here is a case where the governing, body of the Transport Commission has made an offer, a specific offer, to the workers in this industry. It has already referred to the date when it thinks it will operate. But the Minister jumps in between, without giving the workers in the industry any opportunity to continue negotiations on either the amount or the date. I think that is a most extraordinary confirmation of the stupidity of the Government and the way in which they have acted in regard to what has always been well-recognised procedure.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN:My Lords, may I suggest that this is really an occasion where we should bear in mind the importance of allowing industrial activities in this country to manage their own business, whether it be I.C.I., Courtaulds, or the nationalised railways? The sooner the railways are broken up into four separate groups, managing their own affairs and not under nationalisation, the better it will be for the convenience of the British public.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, we are getting to the stage where a large
860
number of questions are being asked, and I think my noble friend had better deal with one set before taking on another.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was not entirely surprised by the reaction of the noble Viscount opposite, but I must make it perfectly clear—and I think I should be misleading the House if I did not do so—that I cannot quite fathom what it is he is driving at when he accuses the Government of in some way blocking a specific offer which has been made to the railway unions. It is news to me that there is any specific offer under consideration. I must impress upon your Lordships that we have a difficult and unusual set of circumstances in the large deficit which has to he met each year. The Government formed the view that the most satisfactory course was for the matter to go before arbitration in the circumstances laid down, which is in no way stepping outside the agreed machinery, and for the issue to go to arbitration. The Government felt that it was only fair to both parties to make their views known before the meeting which is taking place to-day.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. But is it not a fact that negotiations were going to take place to-day in relation to the offer to which I referred—negotiations on the amount?
LORD CHESHAM: No, My Lords. As I understand it, certain requests had been made by the union concerned, and at the meetings to-day the unions, as I understand it, were expecting to hear an answer from the British Transport Commission, not to discuss some specific offer which the B.T.C. had made.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, while we should all, I think, accept the importance of the very grave financial situation of the railways, there is one point which is puzzling many of us. As I understand it—if I may put this in the form of a question—the ordinary position, whether it is in the railways or in any other industry where there is a normal conciliation process, is that negotiations should take place between the management and the unions concerned. Then, if those negotiations break down, the matter should go to arbitration. With

861
respect, I do not see that there is any objection to the Government's making plain what they regard as matters which, in the national interest, have to be considered.
What I should like the Minister to make clear to the House is this. Why in this case was it necessary to intervene in the process of discussion between the commercial management and the unions, and to override all that and send the matter to arbitration? Is it not probable that, if that has been done in this case, it may have a very serious effect upon the whole process of negotiation and arbitration throughout industry?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may say so, when the noble Earl comes to read my earlier replies I think the matter will become quite clear to him. I should make this absolutely clear because I thought—I am sorry if I do him an injustice—that I detected a slight note of compulsion in this matter. Had the communication that I read out to your Lordships been in some sense a direction, I think that what the noble Earl said would be, perhaps, better justified. But I thought I had made it clear why the Government, because of the financial position of the nation, and because of the bad position of the railways themselves, had formed the view that, in order to take all the relevant factors which I mentioned into consideration, they should ask for the matter to go to arbitration. My Lords, I do not think that that can really be written off as intervention or interference.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that, among at least two of the railway trade unions, the trade union leaders have had quite distinct trouble in keeping their membership within the bounds of the machinery? There has been a desire among some of the membership to go outside the machinery, but the trade union leaders, quite faithfully, and with a great deal of success, have kept negotiations within the machinery. This action of the Minister, in intervening while the machinery is still proceeding, destroys the stand of the trade union leaders and is a help to those subservient elements who would like direct action.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he
862
has pointed out, and again I think that it would perhaps be more justified if the Minister had attempted positively to interfere with the agreed processes of negotiation. But, as I said, the point of this particular communication was that he was extremely careful to keep within the bounds of the negotiating process.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is it not the case in this instance that the Minister has really resorted to a general direction under the law, which I know he is entitled to make? But is that not in conflict with the electricity case in which, when he was challenged for letting the electricity matter go, he said that he had no power to give a direction to these Boards? Does this not mean that this is a direction; and, if the British Transport Commission are in financial trouble, has that not been caused in part by the legislation of the Government in taking road commercial transport away from them? If the Government rely on the fact that in this industry there is a deficit, what does the noble Lord say about the Post Office where there is no deficit, and where the Government have also interfered with the normal processes of negotiation? Could we have from the Parliamentary Secretary something like a straightening-out of these various contradictions?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord cannot have heard my last answer but one.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I did, but I do not agree with it.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord heard that answer, I can only think that he must have chosen deliberately to misunderstand it, because what I said and where the noble Lord was perfectly right—was that this is not a direction; indeed, as the noble Lords said, there is no power to direct in this matter. Perhaps, if the noble Lord will have the courtesy to read this statement when it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that for himself. But I must make it plain, and any one of your Lordships who has heard what I read out or takes the trouble to read it will see, that this is not a direction. As the noble Lord said, there is no power to give a direction on this matter. It is just no good for the

863
noble Lord to continue to refer to it as a direction, which it is not.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, does it not follow from that, that if there is no compulsion the Chairman of the Commission is free to reject the advice given him by the Minister and proceed to operate the conciliation machinery?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships could reasonably expect me to answer that question.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
LORD CHESHAM: If I may have a moment, perhaps I can say why. In my view, that comes under the terms of a hypothetical question and, furthermore, I do not think your Lordships would think it right for me to try to anticipate the result of the meetings that are being held to-day.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, cannot the noble Lord impress upon his colleagues that, whatever may be said in question and answer in this House or in another place, every railwayman in this country knew that the trade union leaders were meeting the Transport Commission this afternoon to receive a reply to the negotiations that have previously taken place? The statement of the Minister will be taken by every railwayman, and pounced upon by subservient elements, to be Governmental interference in the course of wage negotiations.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if that is so—and I am sorry to think that the noble Lord should have to tell me that it is—I am sure that the noble Lord will be one of those, among many others, who will do their best to see that the true position is properly understood.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I should think that my noble friend who has had long experience of railway service has a proper reputation on that matter, but the noble Lord opposite really cannot expect to ask him to take a line against the proper action of trade union leaders in their own unions in this respect. I think that they are now entitled to submit their case upon the matter, not only to the Minister but to the public. May
864
I ask this last question? As the Government saw fit to hive off a very important part of the Commission's operations and put it into private enterprise, and if the rule suggested now by the Chancellor is that remuneration and income should be in accordance with production, will the Government now consider giving directions—as they give them to the nationalised bodies—to those who own the private industry which they have handed back?
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, is it not perfectly clear by now that the man largely responsible for all of this trouble is the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who is sitting on the opposite side of the House and who, through his activities in another place, nationalised these bodies and dragged the Government unwillingly into these negotiations?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships would think it time that I made another statement about a different subject.

EXPORT CREDITS
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would respectfully repeat here a statement which must by now have been made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My Lords, the statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to inform the House that as a result of discussions between the Bank of England and leading banks and insurance companies, details are being announced to-day of new arrangements for the finance of export contracts which are covered by a direct bank guarantee given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The London clearing banks and the Scottish banks have agreed to provide finance for export contracts at a fixed rate of 5½ per cent. for terms between three and five years, while a group of member companies of the British Insurance Association have agreed to lend up to a total of £100 million at a fixed rate of 6½ per cent. where finance in excess of five years is needed.
"The effect of this arrangement is two-fold. First, it means that medium-term finance for exports will now be available at fixed rates more favourable than the present rates. Second, it means that substantial funds will be available to fill the gap between the period of up to five years post-shipment, which the banks are normally prepared to cover, and the longer terms which are normally more suitable for insurance companies.
"These arrangements represent a notable advance on the present position. For the first time the banks as well as the insurance companies will adopt a general practice of providing export finance at a fixed rate, irrespective of fluctuations in bank rate. Moreover, the rates will be markedly better than those obtainable at present. Thus, whereas bank credit would at present generally cost 1 per cent. over bank rate and would change as bank rate changed, it will, if it is provided under these arrangements, cost 5½ per cent. fixed. Only therefore if bank rate were to fall to 4 per cent. or lower would the normal overdraft rate be better than the rate now proposed; and even then the borrower might well prefer 5½ per cent. fixed to 5 per cent. fluctuating with bank rate. The participation of the insurance companies in these arrangements will not only, as I have said, provide a significant amount of longer-term finance, but will also ensure that it is available at about 1 per cent. less than is at present the case. They are to set up a special company to handle this business for them.
"These arrangements are to run for a period of five years in the first instance. The Government 'warmly welcome the action of the banks and insurance companies in making them possible. I hope that other institutions, including, for example, those responsible for pension funds, will feel able in time to participate, so increasing the total amount of finance available."
My Lords, that is the statement that my right honourable and learned friend has made.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I feel sure that the House will welcome any approach towards more stability in the financing
866
of export trade, which certainly is in need of help to-day. However, I shall want a little time to study what are the actuarial consequences of this fixed rate for five years, and whether the suggestion in the statement is correct that, on the whole, people might prefer this fixed rate of 5½ per cent. right through as against taking the chance of a lower rate. But one thing is quite certain. Stability will be welcomed by the trade, but certainly the banks, as usual, will win, whatever happens to industry.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN:My Lords, might I ask my noble friend whether the insurance companies have actually guaranteed this great sum of £100 million?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, they have agreed to lend up to a total of £100 million at a fixed rate of 6½ per cent. The distinction is between the banks, which lend for a shorter period at 5½ per cent., and the insurance companies, which lend for a longer period at 6½ per cent.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "three" and insert "half-past two". The noble Duke said: My Lords, at our present rate we should take at least 50 minutes on Amendment No. 1, but I will try to be brief to see if our average can in fact be improved. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 4 together. They are, in fact, on absolutely the same subject. Amendment No. 1 applies to hotels and Amendment No. 4 to public-houses, but the arguments and everything else about them are the same.
As the Bill stands at the moment, the afternoon break in licensed premises will be from the nominal three o'clock to five o'clock. I say the "nominal three o'clock" because all restaurants are allowed an extra half hour in which to serve wine and spirits to the tables as an ancillary to meals, and all licensed premises are going to be allowed an extra ten minutes for "drinking up". The effect of this will be that the afternoon break will theoretically be an hour

867
and fifty minutes, which will mean a break for the staff of an hour and a quarter at the outside. In the hotels this will be down to three-quarters of an hour because of the extra half an hour allowed. I think that this period is much too short. It does not seem to me to serve any useful purpose at all, and I feel that, if it is possible, it should be extended.
I am told that it would be most difficult to make the evening opening time later than 5 o'clock. Apparently many people like having a drink on their way home and a lot of business is done in the hotels and public houses between five and six o'clock by people on their way home. Therefore, all the licensed trade would be most reluctant to see the five o'clock opening time go. But I feel it is absolutely unnecessary for pubs to be open after half past two in the afternoon. People should have finished their lunch by them, and, in my opinion, they should be back at work. After all, your Lordships are able to arrive here by half past two, so I do not see why other people should not be subject to the same time. This does not apply on Sundays, when the times are completely different. That is the one day on which people might be allowed extra time. But the Government, in their wisdom, have said half past two on Sundays and three o'clock on weekdays. I feel that, if any thing, it should be the other way round. I should just like to point out that you would still be able to drink ancillary to your meal (I think that is the technical expression) until ten minutes past three, and if you were not finished your lunch by then I really think that perhaps you would be overdoing it. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, leave out ("three") and insert ("half-past two").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Duke in this Amendment. On the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to bring the afternoon terminal hour forward by one hour—that is to say, from 3 o'clock to 2 o'clock. The noble Duke wishes to bring it forward by half an hour. There are two points, really, for bringing the terminal hour forward. The first is that, by general consent, there
868
seems to be no real desire to be served with drinks up to as late as 3 p.m.; and the second is that the staff should have a reasonable break during the afternoon before they start again at 5 p.m. with the long, five-hour evening session in front of them. As I said on Committee stage, we feel that the publicans must be considered just as much as the public who want to drink at the public-houses. I withdrew my Amendment, and I think the noble Duke withdrew, too, on the undertaking of Her Majesty's Minister to look into these times very carefully to see if he could readjust them to some advantage. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord on the Front Bench will be able to accept this Amendment, which I think is a reasonable one.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to say that I also support the noble Duke in this proposal. It seems quite obvious that the provisions as they stand give an inadequate time for the staff to accomplish the duties of closing up the public house or bar and reopening, as well as taking an adequate break for themselves. I should be very surprised if the noble Lord, the Minister of State, found it in his heart to oppose this very reasonable proposal, and I should think that, after the shock he recently had, he would not dare risk it.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am sure you are all willing to listen to the other side of the story. This Amendment, taking half an hour off the lunch-time week-day drinking time, is not matched by any other Amendment adding that half an hour at any other time on a week-day. This raises two points. First, one wonders whether Scotland should have half an hour less drinking time than the English minimum period. The noble Duke has not given us any reason why that should be. Secondly. one concludes that the noble Duke does not consider that there is any other half-hour period during the week during which there is any greater legitimate demand than the period between 2.30 and 3 o'clock.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Could he tell us the hours in England? I have an idea that they are later throughout the day, and run from 5.30 in the evening until 10.30, which would give the

869
longer afternoon break. But I may be wrong on that.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the noble Duke is quite right; the hours are from 5.30 to 10.30,. So your Lordships are asked only to consider the merits of 2.30 or 3 p.m. closing. The Guest Committee considered this point, and 3 p.m. was their recommendation. Many of your Lordships, in an earlier Amendment, placed great weight on the recommendations of the Guest Committee. The Guest Committee say, in paragraph 82, that an early break gives rise to considerable inconvenience to travellers who wish to have liquor with a late meal. The noble Earl who spoke second said that there is no desire to close at 3 o'clock, As of now, more Scottish licensing areas have a 3 o'clock closing than have any other time. In Committee I have given your Lordships the figures: 38 areas close at 2 o'clock; 47 at 2.30 and 50 at 3 o'clock. I think that all your Lordships agree with the Government that we are in favour of standardisation of permitted hours, but the new policy of standardisation must certainly meet present local needs, so far as is practicable. Why should 50 licensing areas—that is more than one-third of all our areas—close half an hour earlier than they do now, as a result of this Bill?
The staffing problem which has been raised should not be an overriding consideration, for three reasons. First, it is not every trade that has a break at all in the middle of the day, and certainly not one of an hour and fifty minutes. Secondly, of course there are staffing difficulties; there are difficulties in giving service to the public, in giving hall porter or night room service in hotels, in manning switchboards, and the like. But these are real problems which can be met only by careful rearrangement of working methods. The third reason not only answers the staffing difficulty but seems to the Government to justify above everything else the retention of 3 o'clock. The permitted hours are, in fact, permissive; they are not obligatory. A certificate holder can, within these hours, open his premises to meet his own problems and local needs. So for those reasons I would ask your Lordships to reject the noble Duke's Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is only one argument of the noble Lord that I did not quite follow. He said, why should Scotland have shorter hours than England? Your Lordships have just decided by 48 votes to 41 that Scotland should have fewer hours in the week than the English. Therefore, I do not see the force of that argument in rejecting this Amendment.
LORD CRAIGTON: I was referring to the permitted hours, not to the number of licensed premises open.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.35 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTONmoved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "nine" and insert "half-past nine". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' agreement, I should like to discuss Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 together. There are two reasons for putting down this Amendment extending the Sunday evening drinking time by half an hour. First, we want, so far as Scottish conditions permit, to keep in step with England and, as the Bill is framed now, while England has 5½ Sunday permitted hours, Scotland has only 5. So it seems right to give ourselves another half an hour, and this is clearly the right place to take it, on a Sunday evening. Secondly, the Guest Committee, in their Report, made it clear that their recommendation to close at 9 o'clock was influenced by their recommendation that pubs also should be open. Now that this is not to he, the case for an early closing is not so strong. That is the reason for our Amendment.
Now I turn to the noble Duke's Amendment. He prefers from 6 o'clock to 10 o'clock to 6 to 9.30. If he had proposed 6.30 to 10, making in all a hours period, starting and ending half an hour later than we suggest, I should have said that the choice between the two was a matter of opinion, but that the Guest Committee preferred an earlier start. As I have pointed out, this, with drinking with meals, would mean drinking until 10.30 p.m., or until 11.30 p.m. where an extension permitted, which your Lordships might consider to be a little too late. But the noble Lord wishes not only a 10 p.m. finish, but a 6 p.m. start. That means 6 hours Sunday drinking,

871
half an hour more than England has, and half an hour more than we consider to be the right period. It is for that reason, as the overriding consideration, that I ask your Lordships to reject the noble Duke's Amendment and to accept mine.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("nine") and insert ("half-past nine").—(Lord Craigton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I take it that your Lordships are agreed with the noble Lord that Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 be discussed together at this stage.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think it would be more convenient if I spoke now on my Amendment, which I have every intention of moving when the time comes. I think it is ridiculous to stop drinking at 9.40 in clubs, or at 10.10 with a meal in hotels, on a Sunday, which will be the case if the Government Amendment is carried. That is a big improvement, I must truthfully admit, on the Bill as originally drafted, and I should like to thank my noble friend very much for coming half way towards me, but I feel that he might be really kind and come the whole way with me. Scotland, in the summer anyway, stays light very late at night, and many people will remain outside after their tea until 9.30 p.m., 10 o'clock, or even 10.30 p.m., on Sundays, taking healthy exercise, which is a thing which, through numerous debates, your Lordships have encouraged. These people have been in the habit, heretofore, thanks to "bona-fide travellers," of being "bona-fide travellers" themselves and so able to obtain drink up till midnight on a Sunday after they have taken their exercise; and they have found this very convenient and very beneficial, and very restorative.
The second consideration is that an enormous number of visitors who come to our country find our licensing laws immensely complicated, and as I think all noble Lords have said, it will make it far easier for them if the licensing laws are the same throughout the country and for every day of the week so far as possible. There are no church services which start after 6.30 on Sunday, and therefore I cannot see that the argument for having different times for the Sunday
872
morning session or later opening on Sunday evening applies to earlier closing on Sunday evening. I think that visitors and tourists to Scotland would find it much easier throughout the week if the final closing hour were 10 o'clock for the whole week and not 10 o'clock on weekdays and 9.30 on Sundays.
I was going to withdraw this Amendment had the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, been carried, because I think that there is some argument for earlier closing so far as pubs are concerned. Pubs are often built into blocks of tenements in Scotland, and, if the noble Lord's Amendment had been carried, I think it might have been nice for children to have quiet on one night a week at 9.40 as opposed to 10.10. But as your Lordships rejected the noble Lord's Amendment, this will apply only to hotels and restaurants, and I cannot see why they should not stay open until 10 o'clock on Sunday.
The noble Lord says that this will give us half an hour more drinking time in Scotland than in England on Sundays. That is perfectly true. But someone has to lead the way. England has thousands and thousands of pubs where people can drink to their hearts' content on Sundays, and I feel sure that if this applied only to hotels in England the Government would have seen their way in the 1959 Bill to give an extra half hour's drinking time on Sundays. The noble Lord says that I want the evening session to start at 6 o'clock. I have no particular desire for the evening session to start at 6 o'clock. What I am told is that it would be most unpopular with all concerned if it did not start then. I hope that your Lordships will support a 10 o'clock closing time on Sundays and not 9.30.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should be very glad if the Government could see their sway to support my noble friend's Amendment. If a four 'finish a game of golf at 11 o'clock, they cannot go back and get a drink at that hour. There is a lot of prejudice and feeling, without reason, about this question of alcohol, and I could very much wish that the whole question were considered in a much more objective way. After all, alcohol is one of the few medicines which are provided by nature in a natural state and one of the earliest to be discovered by

873
man, as anybody Who reads the Norse account of the discovery of America will remember.
If there is any time at which alcohol is really beneficial to man it is late at night and I would be very glad to see restrictions on the service of alcohol up to midnight removed. The opponents of "the demon rum" tell us that if you give a man a paper or card on which there are marked squares with various numbers, and move the card about and ask him to try to spike high numbers, it is easy for him to make a fairly constant score; but give a man a glass of brandy and he immediately thinks that he makes a better score, while making a worse one. That precisely is the value to man of alcohol. At night, when a man's brain is overtired, he goes to bed and cannot sleep because of the business of the day and anxieties of the future going about like wheels in his head. Then it is that alcohol serves the purpose of a really beneficial medicine and enables a man to rest. I welcome the noble Duke's Amendment and would very much welcome the omission of anything which prevents people from getting alcohol up to at least midnight.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the only point at issue is the merits of 9.30 or 10 o'clock as closing time. The Government's position is that we put five hours in the Bill. The Guest Committee recommended five hours. England has five and a half hours and we have put down an Amendment to make it five and a half hours in Scotland. We do not think that at this stage we should ask your Lordships to agree to any more than five and a half hours.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I feel that the noble Duke has made two valid points on the differences from the situation which exists in England. One is the greater number of daylight hours in summer in Scotland; the other is the fact that we are endeavouring to create a great tourist trade in our country. I honestly think that tourists would like to know exactly when drinking stops every day of the week, and this half hour difference between Sunday and other days of the week seems to me to be quite unnecessary in that connection. The tourist, whether he comes from England or
874
abroad, whether it be from a Commonwealth country or elsewhere, likes to enjoy the Scottish scene for as long as possible during his brief visit to our country, and to say that he cannot enjoy the scenery after the hour of about 9 o'clock, if he wishes to have refreshment, seems to me to be quite unreasonable. Why should he not be able to enjoy the scenery until the last possible moment without having to sacrifice a drink when he arrives back at his hotel or wherever he may be staying?
I ask my noble friend the Minister to take these two points into further consideration before coming to a final decision. Maybe he cannot do anything at this stage in your Lordships' House, but there is another place, to which this Bill will be referred in due course, and the Government may give consideration to these matters when the Bill goes to another place.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I have already said that we have a very open mind about this, but we do not feel at this stage that we can go further than five and a half hours. If noble Lords feel differently, it is in the hands of the noble Duke.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg to move formally the next Amendment, No. 3, because I wish to divide the House on it.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Duke cannot divide on this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLI,: My Lords, I am told that I cannot divide on this Amendment, in which case I can certainly divide on No. 6, which is exactly the same thing, and occurs later in the Bill. I will reserve my ammunition for it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, is the noble Duke not moving this Amendment?
LORD CROOK: My Lords, can the rest of the House be taken into the confidence of the Minister?
LORD CRAIGTON: The Government wish 9.30 and the noble Duke wishes 10 o'clock. The noble Duke refuses to

875
accept my 9.30 and wishes to insert 10. By refusing to oppose 9.30, I am afraid that he has got it in the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, we have accepted half-past-nine, but it is still open to the noble Duke to move that it should be half an hour longer. We are not going to refuse half a loaf, while hoping for a whole one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, does the noble Duke wish to pursue his Amendment?
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I very much wish to pursue it. I thought that I had made that clear throughout.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought that I heard the noble Duke say that he had no intention of moving this Amendment. If I am mistaken, I am sorry.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am sorry. I have every intention of moving Amendment No. 3. I should like to point out, in addition to what I said before, that Lord Guest's Committee said, in their Report:
"It seems to us appropriate, too, that there should be a fairly early closing at night, particularly in the case of public houses."
Owing to a previous decision of this House public-houses will not be open, and I should have thought that 10 o'clock was still a fairly early closing time; certainly, I should not describe it as very late, or even late. I hope that your Lordships will see your way to support me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("nine") and insert ("ten").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no more right than any of your Lordships, but it is usual when we discuss a number of Amendments to reserve the position for a particular Amendment. However, in this case, if the noble Duke wishes to divide the House on this Amendment, then, so far as I can see, there is nothing to prevent him from doing so. I do not know whether any other noble Lord wishes to speak on the Amendment before I put the Question for the last time.
LORD CRAIGTON: Which Amendment is this?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is Amendment No. 3 on the Marshalled List.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am not perfectly clear and I should like some guidance on the position. We have inserted "half-past nine" in page 5, line 29, and this is not an Amendment to an Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is this difficulty. I do not think the noble Duke did reserve his position, and really he ought to have divided against "half-past nine" before the House took a decision on the time. He is also in the technical difficulty that the Amendment now applies to a word which is no longer in the Bill, because it is now "half-past nine". I do not know whether, in those circumstances, the noble Duke wishes to press this Division. It may well be that noble Lords thought that in voting for half-past nine they were taking a decision on this particular problem in the Bill.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am in the hands of your Lordships, but I should like to go ahead with this Amendment. I should be delighted, of course, to press the Amendment to Clause 6, which applies to licensed restaurants. I would point out that presumably if this Amendment is carried we shall get half-past ten, which might be thought to be better still. But I realise that there may be some difficulty about that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Duke wish to press this Amendment? I only want to know. I have no interest in the matter except to put the Question.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: If we carry the Amendment to Clause 6, shall I have the opportunity on Third Reading to bring Clause 4 into line with Clause 6?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Duke will have the opportunity, but many noble Lords with great weight in the counsels of your Lordships have deprecated the placing of Amendments on Third Reading. However, the noble Duke can do it, if he so desires.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: With the reservation that in the event of Amendment No. 6 succeeding I can on Third Reading put down an Amendment in

877
order to bring Clause 4 into line, which I hope your Lordships will pass, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHEShad given Notice of an Amendment to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should be tempted to move this Amendment, and to take it to a Division, in the hope that we might do something about it, but for the fact that it would be completely against the undertaking given. We discussed this Amendment earlier, and I accepted that the vote taken should be the vote on this Amend
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. We have already discussed it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("nine") and insert ("ten").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have been listening with great interest to the most enthusing series of Amendments and speeches made on Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6. I hope that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may consider this a circum
878
ment also. I therefore do not move the Amendment.
Clause 6 [Restaurants in public houses may have permitted hours on Sundays in certain cases]:
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("nine") and insert ("half-past nine").—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mersey, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Freyberg, L.

Northesk, E.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Perth, E.

Bossom, L.

Guest, L.

Polwarth, L.

Carrington, L.

Hastings, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Hatherton, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Coutanche, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Craigton, L

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E.

Crathorne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waleran, L.

Denham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Haddington, E.

Sandford, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Amulree, L.

Hughes, L.

Silkin, L.

Atholl, D. [Teller.]

Lambert, V.

Sinclair, L.

Auckland, L.

Latham, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Chorley, L.

Lawson, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lucan, E.

Stonham, L.

Crook, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Meston, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Taylor, L.

Forbes, L.

Newall, L.

Teynham, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Ogmore, L.

Williams, L.

Furness, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Wise, L.

Gosford, E.

Rea, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Grantchester, L.

Saltoun, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

stance which would justify the moving of Amendments on Third Reading, if necessary, in order to clarify matters.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no right to object to Amendments on Third Reading. I was only informing the noble Duke as to the practice of the House. It has often been stated by various Leaders of the House that it is not a desirable practice. I can assure the noble Duke that he is perfectly entitled to move Amendments, and I cannot say anything else.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this is not a serious matter. There has been

879
some confusion, but it can be put right either on Third Reading or in another place.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What can be put right?,
LORD CRAIGTON: We have an illogicality. We have the public-houses shutting at 9.30 p.m., but the licensed restaurants at 9 o'clock.
LORD SALTOUN: Surely it has never been the practice in this House to refuse Amendments. I have known many Amendments moved on Third Reading. It may be that the Leaders think it would be much more comfortable Parliamentary practice if they were not. The only rule about Third Reading I have ever heard is that Amendments must be printed and circulated.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Seasonal certificates]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "six months" and insert "one hundred and eighty days". The noble Duke said: My Lords, this is a much easier Amendment. On the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to make it possible to have a break in a licence of 150 days instead of six months. My noble friend resisted it, and I must say that I was convinced by his argument that the shorter period would be undesirable. But I still think—and I believe he has come round to my way of thinking—that it would be more explicit to express six months in a period of days. This would make it quite clear that hotels who do not wish to have a licence during most of the winter may have a licence for the period covering Christmas or the New Year, and that that would count as ten or twelve days and not as a broken part of a month, which I think would lead to complications. This is really a drafting Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will see his way to accepting it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out ("six months") and insert ("one hundred and eighty days"). —(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this form certainly makes the calculation of the off-season period easier. I am more
880
grateful to the noble Duke for putting down this Amendment than for putting down the last one and I recommend that it be accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of law relating to State management districts
".Section eighty-two of the principal Act (which restricts the sale and supply of excise-able liquor in State management districts) shall not apply to anything done under the authority of a hotel or an off-sale certificate."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, I feel I must apologise for two things: one, that I seem to be talking a great deal, and, two, for not bringing this in at the Committee stage of the Bill. There are various reasons for that, one being that up to then I had not got all the facts which I now have. The effect of this Amendment would be to end the monopoly of the Secretary of State in State management districts so far as hotel and off-sale certificates were concerned but it would still leave him with a monopoly of public houses. First, I think I must go briefly into the history of the State management areas. They were started for security reasons in 1918. In these areas all the licensed premises are owned by the State and are run on their behalf, and the profits from them go presumably towards swelling the general funds of this country. To be fair, I must point out that they, unlike so many nationalised industries, do show quite substantial profits, even after allowing for a fairly high rate of interest on the capital employed.
After the First World War was over these areas were no longer required for security reasons, but they were continued as interesting social experiments. There are three of these areas in the whole of Britain, two in Scotland and one in England. The Scottish ones are known as the Gretna State Management Area and the Invergordon State Management Area. The Gretna one I think is rather misnamed, because Annan, in the same area, is a far larger and more important town and why the area is called after Gretna I do not know.
Subsection (5) of Clause 2 of the Bill before us is going to allow private enterprise to participate in these areas where

881
granted either a restaurant certificate or a restricted hotel certificate. It will not, however, allow private enterprise to participate where granted a full hotel licence, or off-sales licence, or public-house licence. This seems to me as illogical as if we said that Barons and Marquesses still had the right to be tried by their fellows but Viscounts and Earls had not, for the Government seem to have taken the two middle classes and said that they will allow them to get their licences—always subject to the agreement of the local licensing courts—but the most desirable, which I regard as the hotel licence, and the less desirable, the public-house licence, may not. This Amendment would not alter public-house licences—I believe there is virtually none in the area, and there certainly seems to be no agitation for that state of affairs to be altered; therefore I do not think there will be any great merit in altering public-house licences. I would also point out that this Amendment would not force the Secretary of State to get rid of his pubs. He will be able to continue to run them in the same way. It would affect purely the overruling of any future licence's by the Secretary of State.
There are three reasons for this Amendment. One is that the hotels in the State management areas are inadequate in number, and that has a stultifying effect on the tourist trade in those areas. The reason the hotels are inadequate in number is that, in order to make a hotel pay, in the rural areas in Scotland you must have a good bar trade during the winter to carry you through the period when there is virtually no one staying at your hotel. At the moment, no hotels in State management areas are allowed any form of licence at all. They are going to be allowed restricted licences but are not allowed to have a bar trade during the winter, and I think experience will show that very few people, if any, will take advantage of this very restricted form of licence in those areas.
The second reason for this Amendment is the lack of amenities in the districts concerned. The Annan and Gretna district has a total population of 11,000 people, and for this population there is in the district precisely one off-sales licence and three hotels. To give noble
882
Lords some idea of what this means, I would say that in my local village, which has a population of approximately 700, there are two off-sales licences. Normally a district of 11,000 people would have something like five or six off-sales licences; and yet Annan has only one. To give some idea of the situation this causes perhaps I can quote an advertisement which frequently appeared in the local newspaper during the period before Christmas. It read as follows:
"Daily deliveries to Arran and area. No need to queue on the street for your festive season supply of wines and spirits. Just 'phone Lockerbie 248/249. Order with dignity —order with confidence … "
Then comes the name of the firm.
"Wine and spirit merchants, will deliver to your door from their comprehensive stock."
They find the trade so good in Arran that they are prepared to go to ten to eleven miles every day with deliveries in order to get that trade; and they are not the only ones. There is also a firm from Dumfries which delivers two or three times a week in Annan. So it is not as though the Secretary of State has a complete monopoly of the off-sales in that area. Other people come in from outside areas and take the trade away from the local grocers, who are really the people who ought to get it.
The third reason for doing away with the State management areas is that the population in the Annan district has increased in the last ten years from 4,644 in the 1951 Census to 6,051 in the 1961 Census, which is an increase of 30 per cent.; but there has been absolutely no increase in the licence facilities at all. I think you will find no other area where the population has increased so substantially and the licensed hotels and pubs not at all. This Amendment is supported by the Convention of the Royal Burghs of Scotland, with particular reference to Annan and Invergordon, the two most closely affected; the Scottish Tourist Board and the Dumfries County Council. All of them have sent me copious letters on the subject and all of them feel most strongly about it.
Lastly, as I believe the Government will not accept this Amendment, I should like to say why I do not think their argument will really hold water. First they will produce that well-known cry, "England has still its State manage

883
ment area and we are trying to bring the licensing laws into line." Someone must take the lead in this particular matter and I do not see in this case why it should not be Scotland. In fact, there is a very good reason why it should be Scotland. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, was explicitly stopped from looking into this business of State management areas of the previous Committees which sat on licensing in England and Scotland and which both reported in 1931, the Scottish one recommended its abolition—not only the Majority Report recommended the abolition of the State management areas, but the Minority Report did too.
I would just quote paragraph 190 of that Committee's Majority Report. It is Cmd. 3894, and the paragraph states:
"We have come without difficulty to the conclusion that the weight of evidence is strongly against retaining these two exceptional districts. Apart from the official witnesses, the evidence laid before us was almost unanimous in condemnation of the system of State management, and we feel we should not be justified in advocating its continuance merely as an experiment, even in its present limited form."
The Minority Report put the same thing even more strongly. The English Committee which sat at the same time was divided on this subject; in fact, eight were in favour of abolition of State management areas in England and eleven were against it. So I think that is a very good reason why Scotland should lead the way in this particular matter.
The second reason I am going to be given why my Amendment is not acceptable is that this Bill is an unsuitable place for it. I simply do not understand that. This calls itself a Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and it seems to me that this is eminently something to do with licensing in Scotland. Moreover, State management is mentioned in Clause 2. subsection (5). I put this Amendment down in a Part entitled "The general licensing system", and it seems to me it would fit perfectly into a general licensing system. The third reason I am going to be given why it is unacceptable is that it is not in the Guest Report. I could not agree more. The noble and learned Lord was told specifically he could not report on State
884
management areas, I strongly suspect because the Government saw one of the few profitable nationalised industries going. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will prove acceptable, if not to the Government, at least to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I do not intend to discuss the merits of this Amendment because it does not seem to me that this is the appropriate place to discuss them. But I should be very sorry to think that this House would vote for ending a State monopoly in these cases upon the inadequate information provided by the noble Duke who has moved this Amendment. The Secretary of State thought it proper to institute an elaborate inquiry whether the permitted hours in Scotland on weekdays and on Sundays should remain the same or should be altered, and the Committee over which I had the honour to preside sat for a matter of twelve months examining this question. We had a number of representations; we heard evidence and we presented to the Secretary of State our conclusions and our reasons which were based upon this evidence. But this House is asked now to embark upon a question which is of considerable moment, as to whether the State monopoly should end in these respects in State management districts.
I should have thought that this House would require more than the Committee's recommendations in 1920 which have been referred to by the noble Duke in order to justify them in taking what is after all an extreme step. I should have thought that this matter would have to be examined by some similar Committee with similar powers, and on information from all sources, not only from the Convention of Royal Burghs but also from the point of view of the public interest in that district. I should deprecate the taking of a step of this magnitude upon a Bill which does not deal with State management districts at all but which deals specifically with permitted hours on weekdays, permitted hours on Sundays and with the question of clubs. I would urge your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, although I see the force of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, has said, I think that as the Amendment has been moved it is right to put before Her Majesty's Government some experience in connection with this matter, and my experience has been quite different; my experience is quite different from that which the noble Duke put before the House. I had business during the war in a State management area; it was very arduous and difficult and continued after the war was ended. I had no place of residence in that area and I had to go to an hotel. It was completely impossible for me to do any business during the week because the hotel was entirely occupied with charabanc travellers, for whom the Government were specially catering and from whom I presume they made a considerable amount of money. I had to arrange to do all my business on Saturday and Sunday, because that was the only time when I could possibly be there overnight. The Government in this Bill have just said that we shall not go into a public-house and get drink on Sundays because the Sabbath has to be sacred, and I suggest that if the Government monopoly leads to people concentrating their business on the Sabbath, which they ought to keep for other purposes, it is worth looking into the matter to see whether it ought to continue.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I fully realise that this is not a Bill to deal with State management of the liquor trade, but in spite of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, said, I feel that it is a golden opportunity for adjusting some of the small anomalies which occur in the State management district. The noble Duke is not asking for the sweeping away of State monopoly; he is just asking your Lordships to do one or two things in addition to what the Government are already doing in this Bill. Where else can you adjust anomalies in Scottish licensing laws except in a Scottish licensing Bill? Surely these Bills do not occur very often. Parliament's time is precious enough, we know, Without Bills like this coming up on every day of the week.
The Government have already made concessions as regards two types of certificate, the restaurant certificate and the
886
restricted hotel certificate, in State monopoly areas. I should have thought they might go a little further and extend this subsection to cover off-sales and hotel certificates as well—I do not think it is much to ask—so that the application would not be subject to a veto by the Secretary of State. I think it is an injustice, I think it is almost a farce —I go further than the noble Duke—that grocers in Annan cannot supply their customers there and yet licensed tradesmen ten miles outside the area can do a roaring trade by bringing in daily supplies of drink to the Annan district. What a trade they must be doing! We have to remember, as the noble Duke said, that the State management area was introduced during the war for security reasons which no longer prevail, and therefore it is no longer wanted. We must remember also that the population of Annan has in ten years increased by 1,400 without any increase in the number of hotels and off-sale premises. These are facts.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to ask, during which war? The noble Earl said "during the war". But during which war—the First World War?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I believe they were introduced in the First World War. They have been going a long time—far too long. But as I say, the population of Annan has increased in the ten years between 1951 and 1961 by 1,400 without any corresponding increase in the number of hotels or off-sales premises. I do not want to press this subject much longer. What we are asking for is not the sweeping away of State management, but for a little more elasticity in the matter. Nobody would expect the Secretary of State to approve every application that is put before him. But apparently what happens now is that applications are refused as a matter of principle. A lot of resentment is caused in this way. There would be a far kindlier feeling in the Gretna district, and there would not be all this resentment and distrust, if these applications were not refused as a matter of principle. I believe this to be an unfair situation, and I believe that it could be put right in this Bill without causing a great deal

887
of trouble. I hope that the noble Duke will press this Amendment. I will support him.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not want to elongate your Lordships' debate unduly, but I must say that I disagree with my noble friends the Duke of Atholl and Lord Haddington. It seems to me that this Amendment does neither one thing nor the other. It neither brings the law in Scottish State management areas into conformity with that in the English State management areas, nor does it alter the State management system overall. It seems to me significant that the last Report on the State management system was made in 1931, which is now 30 years ago. For that reason alone I should think that Her Majesty's Government might have some plans to institute some new Report as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, has already suggested. Until that is done, I cannot believe that it would be wise to go further into the cases of the Annan or Cromarty areas than your Lordships have already been in the case of the Cumberland and Carlisle area in the Licensing Act which was passed last year.
It also occurs to me to wonder, if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted, would it not be possible for the Annan off-sales licence holders to sell their drink in the Cumberland district across the border? If that be the case, I cannot believe that this would act in a fair way towards those in the English district. That may be a small point, but none the less this is a halfway house which I should have thought would have been unacceptable on the information which your Lordships have.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that this Amendment is indeed a half-way house. It is a major Amendment. Both in England and in Scotland we have a complete and coherent organisation of 45 years' standing—an organisation through which the State sells liquor through its own establishments run by managements who have no financial interest in the sale of drink. Let me say at once that my right honourable friend has an open mind on the merits of the whole conception of
888
State management. There may well be —I heard the speech of my noble and learned friend—a case for a review of the present system, and possibly for the discontinuance of the whole experiment, a case for winding up the present organisation and disposing of the property. But the experiment is, for what it is worth, an experiment in State monopoly. It is not, and should not be turned into, an experiment in competition between the State and private enterprise over a wide field of drink supply, which, as the noble Viscount pointed out, is what this Amendment would bring about.
We all want this Bill. It deals mainly with urgent matters upon which Lord Guest was asked to give us guidance in his Committee's first Report. It is not a Bill about State management. We cannot agree, and cannot advise your Lordships to agree, to the inclusion in this Bill of such additional controversial material as is contained in this Amendment. It is just not true to say that we have breached the principle of State monopoly by excluding from that monopoly the new restaurant and restricted hotel certificates. Under both certificates drink is secondary to the main service provided. Drinks with meals and to residents are being served now in the Gretna Hall Hotel, which is not State owned. In view of the need to attract tourists it is only right that this Bill should promote the extension of that facility.
But a clear line must be drawn here between the service of drinks to residents or with meals, which is what the tourist has a right to demand. and where the danger of drinking too much is much less, and the supply of liquor to nonresidents and without meals. We have already in the interests of tourism gone as far as it is proper to go in this Bill. The noble Duke's Amendment will bring no benefit to the tourist. The Bill now gives the tourists what they want without interfering with the basic principles and intentions of the State management district system, which, whatever our views may be, are not relevant to this Bill at all. Because this is not a Bill about State management and because we do not want to run the risk of losing it by widening its scope, I ask your Lordships most sincerely to reject the noble Duke's Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I think I am allowed to reply. I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, was being slightly unfair when he said that I had not produced enough evidence. I could have produced far more —I have an absolute mass of it here, but I thought your Lordships would be bored if I produced it, so I did not do so. I quite agree with him that more facts on the subject would be most useful. But, after all, there was this inquiry into the subject 31 years ago, since when nothing has happened; so one has to take one's chances, when they come, even to raise the matter, let alone to get anything done about it.
Secondly, I disagree profoundly with my noble friend that my Amendment would not help tourists and would not enable hotels to come into these areas. If he compares the increase in the number of the hotels in the Gretna area with those in the Lockerbie area (which areas are more or less comparable although Gretna is better placed), he will find in the Lockerbie area the bar system has enabled several new hotels to open since the war, whereas in the Gretna area I think only one has. Nevertheless, I feel that this is the wrong place to fight this particular battle. I hope that some inquiry will be held into State management areas soon, or, if not, new off-sale licences will be granted, which so far as I can make out the Government and the Secretary of State can still run. That would get over the inconvenience to the public which is largely evident in the present situation. Nevertheless, all things considered and subject to your Lordships' approval, I think that I should withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved to leave out "constable" where that word occurs a second time, and to substitute:
"member of a police force of or above the rank of inspector".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. May I suggest that this Amendment be taken with Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14? I believe that that would be convenient to your Lordships and would cut down the extent of the debate, because Amend-
890
ments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 are consequential on Amendment No. 10.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that these Amendments be taken together?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, these Amendments go together because they are really all of one piece, relating, as they do, to Clause 16, which was debated at such length in your Lordships' House both on Second Reading and on the Committee stage. These Amendments are designed as a sort of middle course to mitigate what are, after all, the rigours of the clause as it stands; also to bring it into line with the recommendations of the Guest Committee in regard to clubs—certainly to bring it more into line.
In principle, my Lords, we must admit, I think, that a club in its generally accepted form, certainly a genuinely residential club, is a home from home and should be treated as a castle. The same applies in some measure to clubs such as golf clubs and the like. But there are clubs and clubs, and it is fair to recall that the debate on the English Licensing Bill, which has been referred to in other stages of these considerations (though both from my recollections and from my study of the Record, I think the point has not been made in your Lordships' deliberations on this Scottish Bill) the type of club on which Parliament desired to keep an eye in England was the club used as a cover for prostitution. The question of drink as it happens in Scotland did not apply, because in England public-houses are open on Sundays.
I make this point because the type of club we are worrying about, and the type of club I know the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is worrying about, is the type of club of which a few already exist; and I certainly believe that more will spring up in considerable numbers when this Bill becomes law: clubs simply for the purpose of providing drinks on Sundays when the pubs are not open. As your Lordships have decided—admittedly by a narrow margin, but as I imagine Parliament will ultimately decide—they will not be open on Sunday, I therefore feel that these drinking clubs will spring up. However much the well-conducted club may have nothing to fear from this Bill, or even, I have heard it

891
said, from Clause 16 as it stands, we have to face the fact, as the Secretary of the British Council of Churches said on the B.B.C. only this morning, that
"we have got to start from where we are, not from where we would like to be."
Something has got to be done to keep control of these "mushroom" clubs, both those in being and those to be, and to bring them into line with the permitted hours of other licensed premises on Sundays. I would refer your Lordships to the summary of the Guest Committee's recommendations, No. 26 and No. 31, the last of which reads:
"Registered clubs should be subject to the same police supervision as licensed premises."
As I have said, Clause 16, as it stood, was bitterly criticised in Committee, and certainly on principle rightly so. But the fact is that something has to be done to control the "mushroom" clubs, and the Amendments I put before your Lordships, and which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has discussed with my noble friend the Minister, are intended to mitigate the rigour of the clause. No. 9 does this by making it necessary for a constable to call in an inspector or police officer above that rank before entry is made without a warrant, while Amendment No. 10 limits the hours during which such entry may be made under the Act to the permitted hours and within thirty minutes on either side.
I need not trouble your Lordships with the obvious advantages that such a proposal as this second one offers over the words "at any time" which occur in the clause as it stands in the Bill. I think that they are obvious. But I should like to tell your Lordships that I have had the advantage, since we last discussed the matter, of discussions with the superintendent of police in my neighbourhood. He has had much experience of handling clubs of this nature in Glasgow, and it was on his advice and his direct suggestion that I put down the Amendment about using an inspector or officer above that rank", instead of simply "a constable". He told me that it is common practice in the cities for there to be a duty inspector, and he himself told me that a constable would probably have to think twice before entering a club. This would compel him to call the duty inspector and to have second
892
thoughts before entering without a warrant the premises of a club, no matter how disorderly it might appear to be.
While on this subject, I feel that I must digress a little on a matter which came up in connection with clubs. May I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to apply his mind to the question of guests in clubs? It is a matter which only recently has come to my notice through the discussions to which I have referred, that it is possible in these clubs for a good deal of evasion to be introduced by members, of whom there may be a limited number, receiving financial recompense for taking guests in. This affects the policeman, and this is why I mention it here. One of the tasks of the policeman inspecting such a club would be not only to see that the permitted hours were being observed, but also to ensure that those partaking of refreshments in the clubs were members or, presumably, their guests. I hesitate to use the words "bona fide", because we have had enough of that already in connection with the licensing regulations in Scotland. What is a bona fide guest? I throw that out without punning, I assure you, but it might be worth considering. I trust that your Lordships will forgive this slight divergence, on account of its connection with what I am saying. My Lords, I have reason to believe that these proposals are not altogether unacceptable to the Minister, and I urge your Lordships to give them favourable consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 31, leave out ("constable") and insert ("member of a police force of or above the rank of inspector").—(Lord Ferrier.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the reasons which have induced my noble friend, Lord Ferrier, to put down this series of Amendments have also impressed me, and I have accordingly put my name to his Amendments. Your Lordships may think this is a failure on my part to stick to the principle I took on the Committee stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. None the less, I find it impossible to disregard the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, at the time when he wrote his Report, that some such police supervision is necessary. This opinion is now reinforced by the

893
fact that the public-houses are not now, as he recommended, to be opened on Sunday in Scotland.
I believe that a very special danger may arise as a result directly of that decision of Her Majesty's Government, which will require more police supervision than has hitherto been permissible in Scotland. On the other hand, I have always been, and still am, concerned about the perfectly properly run and genuine club, and I am very much in doubt whether this sort of intrusion into their affairs is permissible, except in special circumstances. Nevertheless, I believe that these two limitations, which I hope will now be imposed upon the provisions of Clause 16, will allow such clubs to operate, as before, in a perfectly open, honest, proper way without the danger of police intrusion, or without any interference with their ordinary operations.
My Lords, if my noble friend is right in supposing that Her Majesty's Government may look favourably upon this series of Amendments, I think it will be of interest to your Lordships to know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor also feels that the proposed limitations on Clause 16 would not be an intrusion or interference in the proper rights of the genuine and well run clubs. I feel that it is important that something should be said upon this line, on account of the very stern and rigid stand taken by my noble and learned friend when such a suggestion was made in the debates on the English Bill. I recognise that the circumstances in Scotland may be different, and the mischief which it is sought to remedy may allow a different approach to be made. None the less, the words of my noble and learned friend were strong, and I should be glad to know that Her Majesty's Government would not consider some such suggestion as that put forward by my noble friend Lord Ferrier and myself to be any sort of interference, such as my noble and learned friend thought in the case of England. With those words I beg to support my noble friend.
5.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF AILSA: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of supporting both the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Viscount,
894
Lord Colville of Culross, in introducing this Amendment. I speak as someone who has responsibility for running a club, and I have always made it plain that I personally have no objection to the police having entry, should they wish to come and visit us during the hours when the club is open and running, as we have nothing to be ashamed of. But I have always been somewhat frightened of what I call the constable, who is somewhat embittered, coming in unannounced, uninvited, and having the right to come in and see the club's papers with no just cause.
Your Lordships may feel that I am taking a slightly harsh attitude about the police, but I have met this difficulty—not in connection with clubs, certainly—with constables who, for various reasons, have not been too satisfied with their job and who have carried out their duty, but in such a manner as to cause offence. I have always been frightened that in a club for which I am responsible such a constable could demand the right of entry, get it, and cause unnecessary trouble where trouble did not exist before. Under these provisions, as I said before, a self-respecting club has no cause to worry if someone wants to go into a club, and has some pretty sound reason for wanting entry; and the person who does not wish to allow entry must have some pretty strong reason for not wanting to allow it.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, all I would say is that it is quite impossible to draw any line of definition. I am not disagreeing with what my noble friend has said, but it is quite impossible to draw a line between a well-conducted club and another club which is a perfectly similar institution but which may not be conducted with similar standards. I happen to be the chairman of a well known club in London—I will not name it, though not because I am ashamed to do so. It is the principle of the thing to which I object. I do not care what it is: I still maintain that the club is the property of the members of the club; the food, furniture and drink therein are the property of the members of the club. I object, in principle, to police entry. I am not going to divide

895
your Lordships on the subject, but I cannot possibly support an Amendment which infringes the principle in which I profoundly believe.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, until the noble Viscount spoke, I understood from the fact that there was no Amendment to delete the clause from the Bill that the principle of police inspection of clubs was accepted. I do not really understand how it can be that, without such an Amendment, the clause could be excised from the Bill. I was relieved to find that the threats of some noble Lords at the Committee stage, that they would move that this clause should be excised, have not been carried out, because if the clause had been deleted I think it would have caused widespread disappointment in Scotland.
My Committee received representations from a number of bodies and, except for one body which represented, quite properly, working men's clubs, not a word was said against police inspection of clubs. It was welcomed, and one might say that there was a great demand from every side, every interest, that there should be this police inspection. I personally have never been able, and the Committee were quite unable, to understand the objection to police inspection. Hotels, public-houses and clubs are all subject to licensing laws. Hotels and public-houses are liable to be inspected by the police, and I cannot understand why a club should be placed in a privileged position. They all have to observe the permitted hours. Why should the police not have the right to inspect a club, to see whether these permitted hours are being observed? Why should the police have to go through the elaborate procedure of watching the club, night after night, day after day, eventually obtaining a warrant to search, and then to go through the procedure of an application before the sheriff to have the club struck off the register?
As has already been said, a well-conducted club has nothing to fear from this right of police inspection, and I feel that the sanction that the police can inspect will ensure that the law is obeyed by all types of clubs. Although I cannot speak for the Committee—I am speaking personally—these Amendments to this clause would certainly satisfy my views as to what should be done in
896
regard to inspection, and they certainly would not detract from the views of the Committee. I therefore support the Amendment.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, during the course of the Second Reading of this Bill, I did mention Clause 16, and I said at the time that I thought that a police officer of the rank of sergeant or above should be permitted to enter a club, and that no officer under the rank of sergeant should be permitted to do so. The reasons I gave were, first, inexperience. A young policeman, if he is called upon to enter a club and finds anything irregular, or finds trouble on his hands, surely has to refer it, anyway, to his superiors. I am in no way doubting the ability of the young constable. Many, indeed most, are intelligent young men, but the checking of a club's licence and other formalities of this type is quite a specialised task, and I feel that my noble friends Lord Ferrier and Lord Colville of Culross have framed a most reasonable Amendment. I agree with them entirely that the rank should be that of inspector or above. For my part, I think that a senior police officer should have the right of entry into a club at the times specified in the Amendment of my noble friends. I hope that the Government, who have not been very forthcoming on some of the more reasonable Amendments to this Bill, will be more forthcoming on this occasion.
6.0 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have given way on a number of occasions as more and more noble Lords on the other side have got up, and I am pleased that I gave way at least to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, because I had intended to quote two paragraphs of his Report. But he has spoken in such a way as to make it quite unnecessary for me to quote the first and longer of these paragraphs. I was a little disappointed, however, to hear him say that he could not speak for his Committee but that, speaking personally, he thought the Amendments might be acceptable to them. In fact, paragraph 61 of his Report explicitly rejects the proposal which is put forward in these Amendments. I think it is worth while repeating what the Committee said in paragraph 61 because I was also a little

897
disappointed to hear an indication from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that he expected the Government to accept these Amendments. I think it would be a mistake to do so because of what is contained in paragraph 61. The Committee said:
"We have carefully examined the possibility that police inspection of clubs might be carried out by senior officers only, perhaps of the rank of inspector or above. It is of the essence of any worthwhile system of supervision, however, that inspection should be practicable at short notice on receipt by the police of any serious complaint; and we appreciate the force of the argument put to us by the Chief Constables' (Scotland) Association that in some areas it would be impossible to arrange for an inspector, or even a sergeant, to visit a particular club without undue delay. In these circumstances we think that it would be preferable for the matter to be left entirely within the discretion of the chief constable, as it is already in the case of hotels and other licensed premises. We recommend that registered clubs should be subject to exactly the same police supervision as licensed premises."
For these reasons I find myself now putting forward a third point of view. The two points of view which have been expressed are in favour of the Amendments as printed; and we have heard the voice of the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, who is against the Bill and the Amendments—and I can well understand his point of view, because the principle in the Bill is the same as that in the Amendments: the Amendment really differs from the Bill only in detail. But f we are to accept the principle, surely it is reasonable that we should accept it in such a way that it will work, rather than accept the principle and then so circumscribe it as to make it almost impossible to operate in certain circumstances. I would agree without any hesitation that, particularly in the case of clubs which have had a long record of being run satisfactorily, the chief constable or the police authorities would normally endeavour to arrange that the inspection was made by a senior officer. I think the situation feared by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland—of a Scotland teeming with young, inexperienced constables just waiting for the opportunity of pouncing on a club at some unexpected and inconvenient hour—is just not the case. As is stated quite clearly here, what is envisaged is that the police will seek entry into a club, not at the whim of any constable but because there has been some com
898
plaint about the circumstances in which that club is run.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: Would the noble Lord allow me to say that the constable might want a drink himself? It is possible.
LORD HUGHES: That may well be. I am not expert on the drinking habits of constables or of others.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I am.
LORD HUGHES: Of course, you have held a more exalted office than I have, and therefore moved in different circles.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: No. I am a "pub-crawler." I know. I have "crawled" pubs.
LORD HUGHES: I do not know whether perhaps the noble Viscount's intervention is directed to indicate—because he is opposing the Amendments also—that the higher the rank the higher the desire for consumption, and that the more dangerous person to admit might be a chief constable, because he might want a liqueur rather than a beer. But, seriously, the principle is accepted in the Amendment; and I therefore hope that, notwithstanding what has been said, in this case the Minister will stand by both the Government's decision and the Committee's recommendation—because this is one of the rare occasions on which the Committee and the Government are in agreement.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: May I repeat, my Lords, that, as I said, I am not going to make trouble over this point; but, of course, to do what the noble Lord has just said would be a breach of the principle of the thing, and there would be only one place left—one's own home. I do not know about a Scotsman's home being his castle, but an Englishman's home is; and, after you have accepted the principle of invading a club, there is nothing in the world left but one's home.
LORD HUGHES: I know that double speeches are not supposed to be made, but what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander, and I will therefore read what the Guest Committee had to say on this.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I do not care what they said.
LORD HUGHES: There are a lot of people who do not care what they said.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORNI am telling you the truth.
LORD HUGHES: They said:
"It was suggested to us by one club organisation that to institute a police right of entry into a club would be an intolerable breach of privacy in that the club stands in the same position as the member's home. We are not impressed by that argument".
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I do not care what they said.
LORD HUGHES: It goes on:
"If it were valid, it would seem to us to apply with equal force to a hotel, which is in a sense recognised as the resident's temporary home in that he is legally allowed to he supplied with liquor at any time and is not subject to the provisions about permitted hours. Under existing law, however, there is already a police right of entry into even the residential accommodation of licensed hotels of the highest standing and repute …".
I gather, from a number of interventions made, that I have not persuaded the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, and that he does not agree with the Guest Committee.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: A club is quite different from an hotel. It does not resemble an hotel at all.
LORD HUGHES: I am merely repeating what the Committee said on it.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I heard you. I disagree.
LORD HUGHES: What I have succeeded in eliciting is the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, disagrees with the Committee.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: I do.
6.7 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for establishing quite clearly the position and the views of the noble Viscount. I will not weary your Lordships by stating at length once again why Clause 16 is in the Bill at all. My noble and learned friend has spoken with great force, and I am very grateful to have his blessing to this Amendment. We, the Government, are convinced that these powers are necessary to deal with
900
the clubs that break the law. We know that the club law is being broken, and that the weakness lies not in the law but in the arrangements for its enforcement. I know that England has not taken these powers, but Scotland is Scotland and England is England; and, as I said before, the problem before your Lordships' House is a Scottish problem.
In essence, the problem, and our desire, is not to have erring clubs struck off the register, but to ensure that they obey the law. The police do now warn clubs suspected of breaking the law. Some clubs heed the warning and some do not. If they do not, as my noble and learned friend said, the police now have no alternative but to start the lengthy and man-power consuming process of securing evidence for a conviction. It is for such cases that the police would welcome the power of entering into clubs. The chief constables assure us that they would not be embarrassed by it. But many of your Lordships, including the noble Viscount, made it quite clear in Committee that they objected to the principle of Clause 16 under which any policeman could walk into any club at any time; and the Amendment to delete Clause 16 was withdrawn only on the assurance that we would examine the whole question again with the chief constables and those concerned. My Lords, this we have done. We wanted to keep the intention of the clause, but to overcome the objection to the right of any policeman to enter any club at any time.
On the intention of Clause 16, after discarding many ideas, we discussed with the chief constables the superficially attractive idea that the sheriff might make an order to grant the police powers of entry over a period, where misconduct was shown. But the chief constables felt that to obtain this would entail the same amount of work and evidence as would be required to get the club struck off the register. Then we turned our attention to "any club". We tried to find some method of distinguishing between the erring or likely-to-err club and others, but it is clear that the distinction, as the noble Viscount said, relates not to the nature or activity of the club but to its sense of responsibility. Such a distinction could not be enacted.
Then we turned to "any policeman". Having reached the conclusion that there

901
is no effective alternative to police entry, could the entry be limited in such a way as to remove at least some of the apprehensions which have been expressed about the admittedly sweeping powers in Clause 16? This Amendment does just that. True, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, the Guest Committee rejected the idea because of the difficulty of arranging for an inspector, or even a sergeant, to visit a club at short notice. But the chief constables, who had been consulted on the principle of this Amendment, considered that the purpose of getting an erring club to break its habits can be achieved; and this Amendment will certainly go some way towards relieving the apprehensions of the clubs if the powers are, as in this Amendment, limited to inspectors and above.
This idea, as your Lordships know, was first mooted in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, on Second Reading, and we decided to adopt it, as I have told your Lordships. But when we came to put down the Amendment we found that my noble friends Lord Ferrier and Lord Colville of Culross had arrived independently at the same conclusion. I can only say "Thank you" to them both. If your Lordships will accept this Amendment, it will no longer be "any policeman".
Now comes the next Amendment. We are now at the stage where only certain very senior policemen can visit any club at any time. The next Amendment suggests it is not essential for even a senior policeman to visit a club "at any time". If we can agree with this proposition it will go a long way towards meeting the objection to Clause 16. Can we safely limit the time of supervision to the licensing hours, plus half an hour at each end? At first glance, this seems a rather curious proposal. It might be argued that for a club to supply drinks at 2 a.m. is a more serious offence than supplying them at 10.20 p.m. But the purpose behind police entry is not to catch people out, but to get clubs to comply with the law and to ensure that only members are served—I think I have covered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—and to see that the club has stopped serving on time. This restriction on the time of police entry will still achieve this object. The club which sells drink at 2 a.m.
902
would be, and should be, raided after police evidence has been obtained in the ordinary way.
We have not had a great deal of time, but the chief constables have been consulted, and while understandably they would prefer no restriction on time, they are satisfied that the limited power would be effective. So in commending both Amendments to your Lordships' House, the Government take no credit for the second one. Once again I thank the noble Lord for putting it down.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I hope the Government will take no credit for accepting these Amendments, which are both infringements of the principle in which I believe. I do not ask my noble friend the Government spokesman—and I hope he is still my friend—
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: —to answer now, but does he really want to achieve convictions of harmless people who are living their ordinary lives? Is that his ambition in this world, or will he not allow them to live their lives uninterfered with by the police?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, move his Amendments formally?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' permission, say a word about this question of permitted hours in the light of what the noble Marquess behind me has said? I feel that it is fair to the police, particularly to the police constable, to make the point that there is not so much any fear of the constable who is officious or working to rule, but possibly there might be the over-zealous young constable, and, further, there might be the young constable to whom, as the noble Viscount said, the possibility of refreshment might be a temptation. It is proper that we should face that. I am not criticising the constable, but the adoption of the higher rank as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, suggested, is a wise one. Nevertheless, I do feel that under Amendment No. 10 it would be confined only to the permitted hours, and thirty minutes either side. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 31, after ("time") insert ("during the permitted hours and within half an hour before the commencement or after the conclusion of any period of permitted hours"). —(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, leave out ("a constable") and insert ("such a member of a police force").—(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, leave out ("constable") and insert ("member").—(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, leave out ("a constable") and insert ("such a member of a police force").—(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("constable") and insert ("member").—(Lord Ferrier.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, this new clause makes it an offence for a person under eighteen to be employed to serve liquor in a registered club. It is a reasonable extension of the principle embodied in Section 144 of the 1959 Act, that persons under eighteen should not be employed in the bar of any licensed premises. The wording of our new clause is based so far as practicable on Section 144. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, moved an Amendment with a similar intention in Committee, and withdrew it on my undertaking to find a more acceptable form of words than he had used. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
Persons under 18 not to be employed to serve exciseable liquor in clubs
(".—(1) A person under eighteen shall not be employed in a registered club if the purpose, or one of the purposes, of his employment is to serve exciseable liquor to persons in that club.
(2) If this section is contravened as regards any club, every person entered in the register of clubs as an official or member of the committee of management or governing body of that club shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds:
Provided that a person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section if he proves that the contravention in question took place without his knowledge or consent.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to be employed in a club where he works notwithstanding that he receives no wages for his work.
(4) Where in any proceedings under this section it is alleged that a person was at any time under eighteen, and he appears to the court then to have been under that age, for the purposes of the proceedings he shall be deemed to have been then under that age unless the contrary is shown.
(5) A conviction for any offence shall not after five years from the date of the conviction be receivable in evidence against any person for the purpose of subjecting him under this section to an increased fine.")—(Lord Craigton.)
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I should like to suggest that the age of sixteen would be the correct age. I have always understood that sixteen was the age of consent in other respects, so why not sixteen in a matter of exciseable liquor?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I fear I disagree with my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. This new clause, as put down by my noble friend Lord Craigton, does exactly meet the point which I was moving on the Committee stage. I am very much obliged to him, and it seems to me a most satisfactory Amendment.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, what is wrong with sixteen?
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, if I may speak again to answer the noble Viscount, the whole purpose of the Licensing Act is to prevent the service of drink by anyone under eighteen.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.20 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause:
Restriction on carriage of exciseable liquor in crates, etc., on contract carriages
".—(1) If the holder of a public service vehicle licence in respect of any vehicle, either himself or by his servant or agent, or if the servant or agent of such holder, permits any exciseable liquor to be carried on the said vehicle in such a container or other device as is mentioned in subsection (5) of this section at any time when that vehicle is being used as a contract carriage, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) If any person procures or attempts to procure a contravention of the foregoing subsection he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall on conviction thereof be liable—

(a) if he is the holder of a public service vehicle licence in respect of the vehicle on which the exciseable liquor in question was carried, in the case of a first conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;

(b) in any other case to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

(4) Where the holder of a public service vehicle licence is charged with an offence under this section by reason only of a contravention of subsection (1) thereof committed by any servant or agent of his, it shall be a defence for him to prove that the contravention took place without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it.
(5) This section applies to any container or other device (including a container or device fixed to, or forming part of, a vehicle) constructed or adapted for the purpose of holding bottles or cans or of holding liquid in excess of six pints.
(6) In this section 'public service vehicle licence' and 'contract carriage' have the like meanings as in Part III of the Road Traffic Act, 1960."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, will it meet the convenience of your Lordships if we discuss Amendments 16, 17 and 18 together? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will be happy with that. Both on Second Reading and in Committee I was under heavy pressure to do something to implement the Guest recommendation that "boozing bus parties" should be stopped. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that his phrase "boozing bus parties" has now become a term of art and is in regular Departmental use. I admitted all along that we wished to do so, and
906
said, when opposing the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 236 (No. 22), Col. 487]:
"I can assure him, and other noble Lords, that we shall continue to seek the solution that we should both like to find."
Our difficulty, which is inherent in both the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, which I sincerely hope he will not press, was to create a criminal offence which did not put an impossible onus of proof on the prosecutor, which was not unfair to the operator of a vehicle, and did not interfere with the proper liberty of the subject.
Our new clause meets these difficulties. It creates a new criminal offence in relation to the carriage of liquor in quantity on buses hired for parties. It is to be an offence for a bus operator to carry crates or bulk liquid containers containing excisable liquor, and it is to be an offence for any person to procure or attempt to procure the carriage of liquor in such containers on a bus. The clause makes a servant or agent liable, and subsection (1) makes a bus operator liable for the action of his servant or agent; but, following the precedent of Section 5 of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, under subsection (4) it is a defence for an operator to plead that the offence took place without his knowledge.
Subsection (5) defines the illegal container as
"any container or other device … constructed or adapted for the purpose of holding bottles or cans".
The containers must hold more than 6 pints. This minimum was chosen because there is a 7-pint container commonly used for beer. After discussion with my noble and learned friend Lord Guest, we revised the Amendment as first published to include in the definition racks to hold bottles fitted in the buses themselves. If that had not been done, it would have been possible for the bus operator to evade the clause as originally drafted.
This clause aims directly at the carriage of liquor in quantity. It does not interfere with any essentially innocent activity. The offence which it creates is precise and clear-cut and should give rise to few difficulties of interpretation by the courts or the criminal authorities. Because of its precision, the bus operator

907
should have no difficulty in enforcing the provision or in explaining it to the hiring party. Also, the police should have no difficulty in establishing whether or not an offence has been committed, if they find a crate or case, and bottles or a jar which contains or has contained drink.
The Government appreciate that this clause does not go all the way, and that it can be evaded by breaking bulk or by concealing drink on the person or in personal baggage. But if the law is to be enforced, the bus operator must enforce it in the first place. The offence must be related to the carriage of liquor in quantity. I think that we all agree that it would be intolerable to give the bus operator the right to search passengers' personal baggage. It follows, therefore, that carriage of liquor, even in quantity, in ordinary personal baggage cannot be made an offence, since otherwise the bus operator would be guilty of a criminal offence which he could not prevent. The only solution is to limit the offence to liquor in containers specifically adapted for the carriage of liquor in quantity, and not to liquor in any other article, and to limit it to containers which the bus operator would be able to identify without having to search passengers' baggage.
Although this clause does not appear to go the whole way, perhaps it will go all the way in practice. In practice, it will not be easy for these bus parties to handle six or twelve dozen bottles in a moving bus without somewhere to store them, and wherever they are stored, as likely as not, the storage place will come under the definition in subsection (5) of
"any container … constructed or adapted for the purpose of holding bottles or cans".
I commend this new clause to your Lordships. Though limited in scope, it is clear and workable, and we have done our best. Although your Lordships may not agree wholly with this clause, at least it will be in the Bill, and we shall be interested to see whether it can be improved in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the said new Clause. —(Lord Craigton.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, after what the noble Lord has said, and in view of the Amendment as drafted by
908
the Government, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. I think that my object in these Amendments is clear to your Lordships, and I am satisfied if the new clause is enforceable, as the noble Lord has said. I think it fair to say that the noble Lords who spoke on Committee stage and unanimously supported me against the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, who was in a minority of one, will be happy that the Government have accepted this principle and I think that people outwith this House in Scotland will be happy, too, although I should have liked to go further. I should like, perhaps mischievously, to say that it is wonderful what the Government draftsman can do, if he receives sufficient spurring from your Lordships' House. I may say that during Committee stage I also gave the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, an undertaking that if the Government did not do something of this sort, I would move Amendment No. 17. I have discussed this with him, and may say that he is agreeable to my not moving that Amendment. So, if the noble Lord is satisfied, I support this new clause.
6.28 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I think that this is an appropriate time for me to speak. I agree that Amendment No. 16 is preferable to Nos. 17 and 18, in that it is perhaps more capable of enforcement, because it is more narrowly drawn. I cannot say that I am very enthusiastic about the Government's new clause. Perhaps we should have had on a pair of spurs, instead of one, and the draftsman might have done even better. I am not at all happy about subsection (5). I do not think we should need to employ the equivalent of an income tax consultant to be able to drive a horse and cart through it. But I am prepared to accept the Amendment, because I appreciate the position.
If I were to state all the objections which I think I could legitimately put forward to the clause, the noble Lord could pick me up later on and say that I had proved his point on Committee stage that it was impossible to draft a clause that was acceptable to all. The clause, if it goes through as it stands, will at least cut down the amount of this bad behaviour which goes on in Scotland at the present time, and I am encouraged in accepting it by the noble

909
Lord's remark that, when the Bill goes forward from this House with this clause included, it is not without the bounds of possibility that in another place a certain amount of further spurring may take place and the clause may be improved still further. Therefore, I think we should be wise to make our mark on the Bill in this form and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, would be wise to accept what he has wrung out of the Government.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should hate to be in the minority of one on this particular occasion, and if the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in his reply, can explain the position he will save me from occupying that invidious position. From what he said, I rather gather that it will be a criminal offence if I hire a bus and take 40 or 50 people on a picnic and give them more than six pints to drink. There are a great many factories and such places who fill up buses and take parties to some place where they can enjoy themselves, and as a general rule, at any rate near London, they stop at a public-house and have a drink. But if they go into the country, is it going to be illegal if they take something for these people to drink? Then there is another point. It is true that I do not drink six pints, but l take a small bottle of sherry with me when I travel on a train, and when I eat my lunch I have a glass of sherry. Is that going to be wrong? As it is less than six pints, perhaps that will be all right. Otherwise, is a train not included?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SALTOUN: Then that is all right. But the other matter is serious. I am naturally anxious to make people good and to stop what we call bus "boozing" parties, but I do not think my anxiety would be sufficiently strong to make me inhibit all picnics.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord quite shortly by saying that it would not be an offence if everyone in his respectable bus party were to carry one, two or three bottles of beer. The offence is to bring beer in a crate into a bus. The "boozing bus parties" bring it in crates. If a person carried the beer himself it would not be an offence.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, would it not be an offence to send a crate of liquor by bus? Supposing the noble Lord wished to send me a dozen bottles of whisky in a crate from St. Andrew's House to my home, and the only way he could do it was by bus, would that be an offence?
LORD CRAIGTON: This, of course, refers only to contract carriages.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I correctly understood the noble Lord, I must not provide my party with beer in a crate so that it is properly carried, and I must ask every one of them to put a bottle in his pocket.
LORD CRAIGTON: Yes.
LORD SALTOUN: Is that not driving legislation to an absurdity? I am rather ashamed of doing that.
LORD GUEST: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to say a few words in support of this Amendment. I am glad that the Government have overcome their scruples about introducing a clause which would prevent what is, no doubt, an abuse in Scotland of the drink habits of the country. The position, as I see it, is that the clause does not go so far as the Committee's recommendations ask them to do, but it goes a certain distance. In view of the clamant demand before the Committee that something should he done to regulate this practice, I think the clause deserves commendation.
I realise the difficulties the Government had in drafting this clause, and I think it is as far as they might reasonably have been expected to go. I do not know that it goes the whole length, because I think that problems may arise over containers which are not solely adapted for carrying bottles or cans but which may be used for other purposes. I exemplify a specially strengthened suitcase, which, clearly, would not be covered by it. But at the other end of the scale one does not wish to interfere unduly with the liberty of the individual, and I think the Government are right to limit the restriction to a
"container or device constructed or adapted for the purpose of carrying bottles or cans".
Of course it would deal only with the evil which exists. Something has been said about its being unfair to ask people

911
who go into a bus to take their individual bottles in their individual pockets. But the evil that at present exists is that crates containing large quantities of liquor are loaded on to the bus and it is then taken out of the crates and are consumed by the individuals. I feel that something must be done in order to prevent what has been described as the "bus-boozing parties", and I think this clause goes as far as the Government could be expected to go. I certainly support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FERRIERhad tabled an Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 17. The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word on what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, on not interfering unduly with the individual. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the parenthesis in each of my Amendments, which says:
"except such as may be carried by individual passengers for their private requirements".
That was in my Amendments, and I am satisfied that in Amendment No. 16, by virtue of its wording, it is still possible for parties such as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, visualised to carry on their person or in their suitcase or the like sufficient liquor as may be required by such a party. With those words, I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 17 and 18.
6.37 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 17 to insert the following new clause:
Sale of exciseable liquor on passenger vessels on Sundays
".—(1) Subsection (3) of section one hundred and fifty-three of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 (which provides as regards Scotland that an excise licence for the sale of exciscable liquor granted in respect of any passenger vessel may be endorsed with a condition that no exciseable liquor shall be supplied during voyages on Sundays), shall cease to have effect. but no person shall, except during the period between half-past twelve and half-past two in the afternoon or the period between six and ten in the evening, himself, or by his servant or agent, sell or supply exciseable liquor on a passenger vessel during any voyage commencing on a Sunday and terminating on the same day. being—

(a) a voyage between any two places in Scotland; or

(b) a voyage in a vessel going from and
912
returning on the same day to the same place in. Scotland.

(2) If any person contravenes this section he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.
(3) In this section the expression "passenger vessel" has the same meaning as in section one hundred and fifty-three of the Customs and Excise Act. 1952."
The noble Duke said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, and 21 together, 20 and 21 being consequential on 19. On the Committee stage of the Bill I endeavoured to draw up a new clause to enable passenger vessels plying between ports in Scotland to serve alcohol during the permitted hours on Sundays. Owing to my bad draftsmanship, I withdrew that Amendment. The present Amendment, No. 19, has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, and his Department, and I may say that I am extremely grateful to them for drafting me such a fine complicated Amendment, which I could never have done myself, instead of the one I put down on the Committee stage.
The effect of this Amendment is that passenger vessels plying between Scottish ports on a Sunday will be able to sell alcoholic refreshment during the hours at which the same refreshment is permitted to be sold on shore. I think this is a reasonable compromise. On weekdays one can buy a drink at any time on these vessels provided they are at sea, but on Sundays at the moment one cannot buy a drink at all. This provision will go part of the way towards making Sundays and weekdays the same. I should like to point out that the journeys are usually considerably longer on Sunday. The most used one in Scotland is from Wemyss Bay to Rothesay, and on a Sunday in the winter you have to go from Gourock, because Wemyss Bay does not operate on Sunday. The next most popular one is from Gourock to Dunoon. In both these cases, when this Bill becomes law you will be able to get a drink during what I regard as the mose reasonable hours while you are facing this ordeal of a sea voyage. I may tell your Lordships that it is sometimes quite an ordeal. It can be very rough in that part of the Firth of Clyde.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Duke

913
whether exciseable liquor is a cure for seasickness? I should like to know.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I have found it quite efficacious myself on occasions, but I have no doubt that the purveyors of patent medicines would not like it to go out from your Lordships' House that it was an absolute cure.
LORD FERRIER: A palliative.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think that is the right word. I hope your Lordships will be able to accept this Amendment and the consequential Amendments, and that my noble friend will not move his Amendment to my Amendment, in view of the decision to which your Lordships came on Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD CRAIGTONhad given notice to move, as an Amendment to the above Amendment, in subsection (1) to leave out "ten" and insert "half-past nine". The noble Lord said: My Lords, much as I should like to be able to do so, I do not propose to move my Amendment to the Amendment. After the oratory of the noble Duke about this matter on Committee stage we had second thoughts. I have only to tell your Lordships that we have asked the chief constables about this point and they are satisfied that to sell drinks during permitted hours would not lead to undesirable consequences or to the excesses which led in 1882 to the imposition of this ban. I recommend to your Lordships that you should accept this and the next two Amendments, Nos. 20 and 21
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Amendments of the Principal Act]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. The first Amendment makes the serving of alcoholic refreshments outside the permitted hours on Sunday on board passenger vessels a criminal offence. This Amendment says how this offence must be tried and the various other legal things which tie up the criminal offence. If it is of any interest, I may tell your Lordships that the maximum penalty will be £100, and the prosecutions are
914
to be taken in the sheriffs' summary court. With those few words, and once again thanking the Scottish Office and my noble friend and his right honourable friend for their extremely hard work in drafting these Amendments for me, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 12, after ("offences") insert—
("(a) in paragraph (c), after the words, this Act' there shall be inserted the words 'or any offence under section (Sale of excise-able liquor on passenger vessels on Sundays) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1962;'"). —(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Repeal of Enactments]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, this Amendment repeals what heretofore stood. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 2, at end insert—

("15 & 16 Geo. 6 & 1 Eliz. 2. c. 44.

The Customs and Excise Act, 1952.

In section one hundred and fifty three, subsections (3) and (4).")

—(The Duke of Atholl.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  THE COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE
  THE COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE