Sitting of 10 May 1962

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHOUSE)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the borough of Brighouse, presented by Dr. Charles Hill; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 104.]
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (DONCASTER)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the county borough of Doncaster, presented by Dr. Charles Hill; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 105.]
  MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (SIDMOUTH)
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the urban district of Sid-mouth, presented by Dr. Charles Hill; read the First time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Nuclear Warfare (Evacuation)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to which reception area it is intended to send people evacuated from Barking, Essex, in the event of a nuclear war; and, in view of the projected dismantling of the railways, what means of transport it is intended to use.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Detailed planning of the dispersal scheme is being discussed with the local authority associations, and in the meantime individual dispersal areas have not been linked with particular reception areas. The scheme will be planned and kept up-to-date in the light of changes in the availability of the different forms of public transport.
    Mr. Driberg: Will the Minister fairly soon be able to give an estimate of the number of persons per day or per hour whom it will be possible to move to the reception areas, since, presumably, many of these remote rural areas will be affected by the dismantling of the railways through the closing of branch lines? If he cannot give such an estimate, is it not obvious that this is not a serious scheme at all, but merely a clumsy ploy in the cold war?
    Mr. Rippon: I cannot say how much detailed information it may be possible to make available. We are discussing with the local authority associations the issue of a further circular explaining how this plan will be worked. I do not think that the closing of branch lines will make any difference to the effectiveness of the scheme.

    Coal Exchange
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, if he is aware that the Court of Common Council of the City of London, meeting on 8th March, took a decision to demolish the Coal Exchange after being advised by the chairman of the Coal and Corn and Finance Committee that, because of the Minister's decision, the City Corporation had no power to accept Lord Mottistone's scheme for preserving the Coal Exchange; and, in view of this inaccurate statement, what steps he is taking to raise the matter anew with the Court of Common Council.
    Mr. Rippon: The report before the Court of Common Council on 8th March contained the full text of the letter giving my right hon. Friend's views on the schemes submitted to him and I am informed that Mr. Rodway Stephens in his opening speech fully explained the

    609
    position. There seems no reason for believing that the court were under any misapprehension as to their powers nor any need for further action by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Driberg: Would the Minister consider that one of the reasons always advanced against preservation has been that it is difficult to find an alternative future use for this building? Is he aware that there is a serious risk of the loss to this nation of the Gernsheim Collection, which may in some ways be a more serious loss than that of the Leonardo cartoon, and that this might be an ideal site for that collection?
    Mr. Rippon: I am sure that that suggestion could be borne in mind. As to the merits of this proposal, I can add nothing to what I said to the hon. Gentleman on 6th March.
    Mr. Fletcher: Could the Minister do his best to ensure that in any future scheme for the use of this building, whatever may be done about the collection, the very interesting Roman relics in the basement will be suitably preserved?
    Mr. Rippon: These are largely matters for the City Corporation. I am sure it will bear in mind what usefully can be done without interfering with the road works scheme.
    Mr. Driberg: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware—in response to my hon. Friend's question—that assurances have already been given that the Roman relics will be preserved, but that, whereas there are a great many Roman relics of great interest in this country, the Coal Exchange itself is unique, as being the earliest or about the earliest example of cast-iron construction, and is also extremely beautiful?
    Mr. Rippon: No one has ever disputed the merits, such as they are, of this building. Unfortunately, it was not possible to get a scheme which the City Corporation and the London County Council could agree should be carried out without affecting road improvements.

    Cement Dust Nuisance, Thames-side
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will
    610
    receive a deputation from the Thames-side Joint Committee for the Abatement of Atmospheric Pollution to discuss the question of the cement dust nuisance on Thames-side.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Irving: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this reply will be very welcome in North-West Kent, where there is a very strong feeling that firmer action should be taken in regard to this menace?
    Dr. Hill: I share the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions about this, and I hope we can do something about it.

    Hazelgrove Farm, Abbots Langley
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he did not confirm a compulsory purchase order made by the Watford Rural District Council in respect of 15½ acres of land at Hazelgrove Farm, Abbots Langley, which the Council wish to preserve as open space, in view of the three previous Ministerial decisions in respect of this same land.
    Dr. Hill: I decided to confirm the Order for 10 acres of this land. I did not consider that compulsory purchase of the remaining 5½ acres would be justified in view of the amount of open space already available in Abbots Langley, and the fact that it is surrounded by green belt.
    Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the population of Abbots Langley is higher and the amount of open space available to them much lower than he has been given to understand? Is he further aware that there have been four different inquiries into this piece of land since 1955 and the decision of the first three was that no further land should be built over than was allowed as a result of the first inquiry; that, even so, this amount of open space will not bring the amount of open space of the village up to the recommended standard; and that the appellants received £1,200 compensation for the refusal of planning permission

    611
    three years ago? How can he possibly justify this reversal of Ministerial policy?
    Dr. Hill: I will look into the last point. The fact is that there are about 58 acres of open land—
    Mr. Longden: No.
    Dr. Hill: —in this area which is set in the green belt. My inspector went into this very carefully, and I accepted his recommendation that 10 acres was the proper amount, bearing in mind that 5 acres would be appropriate and reasonable development for housing purposes.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that he has been inaccurately informed about the 58 acres? Is he aware that some of the land is not available to the public as an open space and some not capable of being used by children? In view of that and of the facts mentioned by his hon. Friend, will he look at this matter again, or alternatively, if the local authority should again attempt to get a compulsory purchase order, look at it with a fresh mind?
    Dr. Hill: For technical reasons, I think the second procedure more appropriate than the first. Of course, I will look at any fresh information which comes up. But the information I have is that the amount of open space is 58 acres and that it was a reasonable decision to limit the compulsory purchase order to the 10 acres.
    Mr. Longden: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter at an early opportunity.

    New Town Plan, Easington
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what further development has followed the report of the inquiry on the new town plan concerning the area covered by the Easington Rural District Council.
    Dr. Hill: I told Durham County Council in November, 1961, of my decision to accept its proposals in the Easington town map subject to certain modifications, and subject also to the council submitting separately proposals
    612
    for additional housing sites in six villages. At that time I sent the right hon. Gentleman a copy of my letter to the council. The formalities for amending the county development plan should be completed in about a month from now.
    Mr. Shinwell: Now that it appears that this aspect of the problem is likely to be relieved, may I have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that no obstacle will be placed in the way of the Easington Rural Council building the houses required in the area outside Peterloo, because it is desirable that the authority should be allowed to proceed?
    Dr. Hill: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that once the amended plan is approved it will be fully observed. I shall work within it.

    Greater London Reorganisation (Leyton)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what modifications he has now decided to make in respect of his original proposals for the reorganisation of Greater London local government; and when it is anticipated that final proposals will be reached concerning the amalgamation of the borough of Leyton with other boroughs.
    Dr. Hill: No modifications have been made, other than the revised arrangements for education in the centre referred to in the answer which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) on 3rd May. I hope to announce the final proposals for grouping boroughs during the summer.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that certain areas in Surrey have been omitted from the original plan? In view of that, does he propose to make similar omissions of certain areas or constituencies in Essex?
    Dr. Hill: As I promised the House in the debate on the White Paper—indeed, it was promised in the White Paper—there have been consultations about the peripheral boundary. I named a number of areas which, without further argument, could properly be omitted. In the

    613
    last week, I have seen all the local authorities concerned with proposals for omission not yet accepted. Those consultations are now completed, and I hope in a week or so to announce the intentions of the Government in relation to the periphery as a whole.
    Mr. A. Lewis: Before the Minister issues what he says are the final views or proposals of the Government, may I ask whether he would consider having a debate, not on the final proposals but on suggestions, so that the House may come to a decision on the proposals and we are not presented with a fait accompli as was the case on the previous occasion?
    Dr. Hill: As promised, I listened to every local authority which wished to see me. I am considering their views. In due course the conclusions of the Government will be embodied in a Bill to be placed before the House and then, no doubt, the fullest discussion will take place.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman please reply to my specific question, whether areas which were omitted are in Essex?
    Dr. Hill: I beg the pardon of the hon. Gentleman. I listened to views from Essex as well as those of all the other peripheral counties. I have met representatives and certain local authorities from Essex.
    Mr. M. Stewart: So that in the end the House may have an opportunity to pronounce as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), will the Minister undertake that the proposed boundary will be in any Bill which is produced and not be left to be settled by Ministerial order under the Bill?
    Dr. Hill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point.

    Education, London
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consultations he had with the Minister of Education before announcing the decision of Her Majesty's Government regarding the future of education in London.
    Dr. Hill: I have acted throughout in the closest consultation and accord with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.
    Mr. Lipton: That is a very curious reply. Whilst most people welcome this temporary climb down on education, will the Minister say whether it was based on the weight of educational considerations or on a panic decision to get Conservative candidates out of trouble in the London borough council elections?
    Dr. Hill: The House was promised that the area and the population of the central area would be carefully considered. The White Paper said no more than that it could well be of the order of 2 million. That further consideration has been carried out, and I hope the hon. Member will not regard as a climb down the carrying out of the promises to consider carefully a number of issues which were left open by the White Paper.
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether the decisions of the proposed statutory education committee of the Greater London Council will be subject to consideration or modification by the Greater London Council as a whole.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir.
    Mr. Stewart: Could the Minister get this quite clear? Am I to understand that this education committee will not be a committee in the ordinary sense of the word, and that it and the Greater London Council will be two completely independent bodies, including financial independence, despite the fact that the membership of the two bodies will overlap?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Member has stated the position perfectly clearly, and I agree with what he has said.
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the decision of Her Majesty's Government concerning the London County Council's education service, he will so revise his proposals for the reorganisation of Greater London Government as to prevent the dismemberment of the London County Council's children's service.
    Dr. Hill: No, Sir. The circumstances are different. The Government have always accepted the need for special arrangements for education in the centre of London. The child care service they believe to be properly a borough responsibility through the Greater London area, given the proposed re-organisation of the boroughs. This service is increasingly based on field work by child care officers, and close association with the local health and welfare services is desirable.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the Government are practically unique in believing that about the child care service? Is he aware that everyone acquainted with the service realises the unwisdom of breaking up a well-organised county children's service to be run by local authorities? The arguments here are even stronger, if anything, than in the case of education. The only difference is that the number of children is far less and they are children who, by definition, have parents who are either unable or unwilling to be interested in them. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he neglects the children for that reason he will be doing a scandalous thing?
    Dr. Hill: It is not unique to believe that the care of children is properly related to the health and welfare services and should be gathered together with those services as a borough responsibility.

    Carbonisation Plant, Wath-upon-Dearne (Smoke Nuisance)
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has replied to the letter he has received from the Clerk of the Wathupon-Dearne Urban District Council regarding the complaints that council has received from residents in the Wathupon-Dearne area about the large emission of smoke gas and fumes from the Manvers Main carbonisation plant; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rippon: The district alkali inspector discussed the position with the council on 11th April and a reply referring to this discussion was sent on 30th April. Emissions from coke ovens are an intractable problem, but there is
    616
    room for improvement at this plant, and the Alkali Inspectorate will see that the necessary steps are taken.
    Mr. Wainwright: I do not think the latter part of that Answer would meet with the satisfaction of all concerned. Will the Minister consult the Minister of Health and the National Coal Board and their experts on this issue to make sure that this horrible stench is removed, or reduced to the irreducible minimum? This is not just a question affecting the residents in Wath-upon-Dearne, for the Swinton Urban District Council is also greatly worried about the stench which comes from this plant. Will the hon. Gentleman not do more than he has said?
    Mr. Rippon: It is true that other local authorities are worried and the district alkali inspector will have further discussions with them.

    Smoke Abatement, Leicester
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether, in view of the nuisance created by the grit and dirt deposited in a large number of homes in Leicester from the fumes of the Central Electricity Generating Station situated in Leicester, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, and of the nullifying effect of this upon the orders in Leicester for smoke abatement, he will give instructions that these orders be suspended until the nuisance has been effectively stopped.
    Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend accepts the need to reduce grit and dust emissions from the power station and the Alkali Inspectorate is doing its best to secure progressive improvement. The smoke control orders are already benefiting the city by reducing smoke, and suspension of their operation would be wrong.
    Sir B. Janner: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that it is ridiculous to expect people to comply with orders for smoke abatement if the Ministry itself is not removing one of the main reasons why dust, dirt and grit get into houses, hospitals and various buildings? What is he going to do about it? Will he not

    617
    see that this is removed first, not allow the council to make silly orders which cannot be obeyed if afterwards there is this wretched grit and smoke from this building?
    Mr. Rippon: What I think would be absurd would be to do nothing at all about anything because there is this one rather difficult problem which has to be carefully studied.
    Sir B. Janner: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early opportunity on the Adjournment.

  HOUSING

    Cwmbran
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs haw many houses were completed by the Cwmbran Development Corporation in the years ended March, 1960, March, 1961, and March, 1962, respectively; and, in view of the housing needs in the area, what plans he has to ensure the implementation of the forward planning of the corporation.
    Dr. Hill: The corporation completed 446 dwellings in the year ended March, 1960, 451 in the following year, and 115 last year. Following the decision last June to allow the corporation to build for an increased population, plans were revised and nearly 300 houses are now being built. I expect 250 or more to be finished this year, and a larger programme is being prepared for 1963.
    Mr. Abse: Is the Minister aware that those figures are bound to be received with considerable disappointment and that the diminution in numbers coming year after year in an area where there is a clamorous need for housing is a serious reflection of the disrupting efforts of the Ministry on forward planning in this area? Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to meet some of the figures he has now given in the future, and indeed to increase them?
    Dr. Hill: That is a mass of generalities. This development was necessarily held up while the forward planning of the south-west and western areas of the town was being considered, with particular
    618
    reference to the housing demands for Llanwern. Now that that phase is over I am anxious to see that building is stepped up, and the answer I have given is an indication of that.

    National Coal Board Houses
    Mr. Abseasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why he refuses to allow labour charges incurred by per manent maintenance staff of the National Coal Board in effecting improvements to tenanted houses of the National Coal Board to rank for grant; and whether, in order to prevent resulting delays in improvements to National Coal Board houses and unnecessary increases in rents to miners occupying National Coal Board houses throughout South Wales, he will withdraw his directive.
    Dr. Hill: The change suggested by the hon. Member has already been made, and the National Coal Board and the Welsh local authorities who had raised the question were so informed back in February. Since then all local authorities have been notified in Circular 29/62, which was sent out on 30th April.
    Mr. Abse: Am I to understand from the Minister's reply that the circular which was sent made clear that private enterprise was to be used in the maintenance of these houses and no grant in aid would be given were the Coal Board to use its permanent maintenance staff? While I welcome the apparent change in the directive, may I ask why any clog should be put on the Coal Board using direct labour to do a job of work to ensure cheaper rents for the miners and to assist the Board?
    Dr. Hill: The hon. Member may read in my reply that the change about which he seeks information was made in February last.

    Newly-wed Couples
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will initiate an inquiry into the extent to which newly-wed couples are unable to find suitable accommodation to begin their married life.
    Mr. Rippon: No, Sir.
    Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman whisper into the ear of the Minister that I have already started a census of this character in Slough, where I write to newly-weds when the happy occasion of their marriage is reported in the local Press? Is he aware that as a result of the census I am taking I find that many newly-weds begin their married life under conditions which are absolutely appalling? Is it not desirable that this inquiry should be extended to a wider area?
    Mr. Rippon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has his own good reasons for that admirable initiative, but I do not think that the general survey he suggests would serve any useful purpose.

    Housing Associations (Loans)
    Mr. P. Williamsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made with loans to non-profit-making housing associations.
    Mr. Rippon: Though only three months have elapsed since the loans scheme was formally launched, over a dozen building projects are being prepared and one advance has been made towards the cost of land acquisition. These developments and the many further inquiries received from housing associations and other interested people show that the scheme has got off to a sound start.
    Mr. Williams: Could my hon. Friend tell the House exactly how much money is involved so far? Would he agree that it is very difficult for these associations to make much headway where local authorities continue to charge uneconomic rent, and unless something can be done about this, this form of association will not be very successful?
    Mr. Rippon: The money involved, £25 million, was referred to in the Housing Act, 1961. So fair a very small amount of money has been advanced on the one scheme, but we are finding a great deal of interest and there is no reason to suppose that the scheme will not fulfil its purpose of showing that people want houses to rent and are prepared to pay cost rents for them.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Northern Ireland (Coal)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to which National Coal Board coal has to be shipped, he will authorise the importation of foreign coal into Northern Ireland.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): No, Sir; it would not be appropriate to distinguish in this way between different parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: If in future it is decided to import American coal to this country, would my right hon. Friend consider giving first priority to areas where the cost of ship freight is a substantial part of the total cost of fuel?
    Mr. Erroll: I shall gladly take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but without commitment.

    Coal Prices, Scotland
    Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the effect of higher costs of Scottish coal upon industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Erroll: In general, I do not expect the price increases which came into effect on 1st January to have any appreciable effect upon industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this schizophrenic policy of the Government is disastrous for Scotland? What on earth is the use of his trying to attract industry to Scotland if at the same time his right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is driving it away?
    Mr. Erroll: I do not accept the implication of that supplementary question, because we are inducing manufacturers to go to Scotland with the aid of the Local Employment Act and because labour is available there. I do not think that this increase in coal prices will have any effect on that at all.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that his views as to the effect are certainly not shared by

    621
    those who control the steel industry in Scotland? They have shown that they are bitterly opposed to the policy imposed on Scotland. Does he not think that the people who run the steel industry in Scotland might know as well as, if not better than, he the facts about their industry, which is the key to the whole prosperity of Scotland?
    Mr. Erroll: I realise that the steel industry is more affected by the increase than manufacturing industry where the effect is only about one half of 1 per cent. on costs.
    Mr. Willisasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the paper-making industry in Scotland concerning increased industrial coal prices.
    Mr. Erroll: None, Sir.
    Mr. Willis: Scottish Members of Parliament have received representations about this. One mill in my constituency has had £12,500 added to its costs annually as a result of it. Other mills throughout Scotland have had similar sums added to their costs. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to place Scottish industry at this disadvantage compared with its competitors south of the Border.
    Mr. Erroll: I am sure that the industry will have had other advantages which it can use to set against the small increase of half of I per cent. in costs brought about by the increase in coal prices.
    Mr. Steeleasked the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of this year's selective increases in the price of industrial coal upon his Department's endeavours to stimulate industrial development in areas of high unemployment.
    Mr. Erroll: As I told the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) earlier this afternoon, I do not expect the effect of the increase on production costs to be significant. It should not, therefore, impede my efforts to encourage new industry and industrial expansion in development districts.
    Mr. Steele: That is not the point. The fact is that these selective coal price increases are taking place in areas of
    622
    high unemployment. This is quite contrary to the policy being pursued by the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, which is to give inducements to industry to go to such areas under the Local Employment Act. It seems odd to us in Scotland that the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry should be giving these inducements while another Ministry is making the implementation of his policy more difficult.
    Mr. Erroll: When showing a prospective undertaking the advantages of a site in a development district in Scotland, we point out all the advantages, including the possibilities of financial and other assistance, and the firm concerned naturally makes its own calculations about the costs of fuel and other supplies.
    Mr. Steele: Why make the position more difficult by making selective increases in coal prices in the very areas that the right hon. Gentleman wants to help?
    Mr. Erroll: The increase will have a very small effect on the production costs of most industries likely to be going to Scotland.
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from Scottish chambers of commerce on the likely effects upon Scottish industry and commerce of this year's selective industrial coal price increases.
    Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from Scottish local authorities concerning the probable effects of this year's selective industrial coal price increases upon their efforts to attract additional industry to their respective areas.
    Mr. Erroll: I have received no representations from local authorities or chambers of commerce on this matter.
    Mr. Rankin: We have received representations on this matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciate that the imposition of these selective increases is compelling industries to seek alternative sources of power, such as electricity; and give rise to continual demands for the importation of coal from America at a time when the coal

    623
    mining industry in Scotland is already heavily hit and thousands of miners face unemployment? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise to do this when there is no alternative employment for the displaced miners?
    Mr. Erroll: The question of the price of coal in Scotland is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.
    Mr. Willis: Do we understand that the Government, in spite of their continual preaching about growing economic rivalry and the necessity for not pricing ourselves out of markets, still think that these increases have no effect?
    Mr. Erroll: It depends on the industry, but, generally speaking, they have an insignificant effect. In any case, I should have thought that coal should be paid for at a price approximating to the cost of producing it.
    Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he no longer accepts responsibility for reviving employment in Scotland?
    Mr. Erroll: I certainly continue to accept that responsibility.

    State Trading Countries
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade if, during the forthcoming review of United Kingdom trading arrangements, he will take steps to remove the special discrimination now applying to imports from the State trading countries so as to enable United Kingdom manufacturers to take fuller advantage of the expansion taking place in those markets.
    Mr. Erroll: No general review of our trading arrangements with State trading countries is contemplated. Control must be maintained over our imports from these countries since their Governments control all imports from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rankin: The Question does not deal specifically with trading arrangements with State trading countries. It deals with the general trading arrangements for the United Kingdom. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Prime Minister was recently in Canada? Did he not talk there about dollar trading arrangements? Are we
    624
    not talking about arrangements in connection with the Common Market and the Commonwealth? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that while we are seeking to improve our trade it will be helpful to exports if we impose controls, not only on imports from certain countries, on which I agree they should be imposed in order to preserve employments here, but further to limit imports from State trading areas, in view of the repercussions which may follow from that policy?
    Mr. Erroll: It does indeed help our exporters if by controlling imports from State trading countries we are thereby able to bargain for increased exports to those countries.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Irvine Valleys Area, Ayrshire
    Mr. Rossasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present position and prospects of the lace industry, he will add the Irvine Valleys area of Ayrshire to the schedule of development districts under the Local Employment Act.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. While the lace industry in the Irvine Valleys has been contracting, workers have been able to get employment in Kilmarnock and the numbers of unemployed have remained fairly steady. I do not consider that high and persistent unemployment is threatened in the district as a whole.
    Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since I tabled this Question yet another factory, that of William Morton and Co., has closed? Is he also aware that this is an industry which traditionally employs married women who naturally will not be shown on the register as unemployed because they have not been paying unemployment insurance and must be employed locally? At least five factories are vacant and good skilled labour is available. This is just the kind of place where the right hon. Gentleman could make a success of the Local Employment Act if it were properly applied. Will he look at this matter again?
    Mr. Erroll: Nearly all the redundant workers in the lace industry in this

    625
    locality have, in the past, found work in Kilmarnock. I understand that knitting machines for the production of Terylene lace and net have been installed by a number of firms, which justifies a hope for some improvement in this industry.
    Mr. Ross: I could continue this discussion, but may I merely say that, owning to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment?

    Office Building
    Mr. Rossasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to control the location of office building and development.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ross: I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade remembers a speech made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 2nd July, 1959? Does he agree that
    "… there is no reason why more office work, for example, should not be done in Scotland rather than in the congested areas of London and the Midlands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 635.]
    That is what the right hon. Gentleman said at that time. Will he persuade his Government colleagues to give a lead in this matter, because it would result in a considerable amount of work which would be of great value to Scotland?
    Mr. Erroll: It is only comparatively recently that I have begun to acquire a past. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of my former speech. There is no change in my attitude of mind to this matter, but the control of office building is a very different thing from the control of industrial location.
    Sir H. Harrison: Is it not true that office accommodation is just as valuable as factories in the development of our industry because more people are employed in offices? Some of their accommodation is bad. Would not an improvement in it help our export trade?
    Mr. Erroll: I am glad to support what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.
    Mr. Jay: Since in the opinion of everyone except the President of the Board of Trade the exclusion of office
    626
    development from the industrial development certificate system is undermining the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's location of industry and employment policy, will he not deal with this issue in a less offhand manner? Will he reexamine it seriously with the intention of doing something about it?
    Mr. Erroll: There is nothing offhand about my attitude to this matter. It has been examined very thoroughly, and it is certainly not undermining my location of industry policy.
    Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do nothing more about it?

    Umbrella Industry
    Mr. Sorensenasked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the apprehension of umbrella manufacturers in this country at the prospect of unfair competition between British manufacturers and Japanese importers of umbrellas into this country, whether he has now received a further deputation on this matter from representatives of this industry subsequent to his meeting with representatives of the industry on 15th August, 1961.
    Mr. Erroll: No, Sir, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State is to receive a deputation of umbrella manufacturers on 30th May.
    Mr. Sorensen: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not going to receive a deputation. Since a deputation was received by another Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the result of it?
    Mr. Erroll: The deputation is going to see my hon. Friend on 30th May.

    Industrial Development, South Ayrshire
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent new industries have recently been established in South Ayrshire.
    Mr. Erroll: No industries new to South Ayrshire have been established recently, but about 160 new jobs have arisen or will arise from expansions by firms already in the area.
    Mr. Hughes: Since the Minister has just said that he accepts a certain

    627
    amount of responsibility for providing employment in Scotland, does not he think that a new initiative is needed in this part of the world because of the possibility of pit closures? Will he keep that in mind?
    Mr. Erroll: I have the prospect of pit closures in all parts of Scotland very much in mind. That was why I added Kirkcaldy to the list of development districts last Monday. The Girvan and Cumnock employment exchange areas are already development districts and therefore are on the list shown to prospective industrialists who may wish to go to Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that, although Girvan has been on the schedule of development districts since the Act was passed, not a single job has been provided there by the Board of Trade?
    Mr. Erroll: No new industries have been provided there.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    London and Guildhall Museums (Amalgamation)
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will now make a statement regarding the proposal for an amalgamation of the London Museum with the Guildhall Museum.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have been in consultation with the Trustees of the London Museum, the Corporation of the City of London and the London County Council on this matter. I am glad to say that all parties have worked out together a scheme to amalgamate the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum and to house the combined Museum in a new building to be erected on a site in the City of London. They have now agreed in principle that the scheme should proceed on the basis that the capital and running costs would be borne jointly and in equal shares by the Exchequer, the City Corporation and the London County Council. A Bill to give effect to these proposals will be introduced in due course. I hope that the House will welcome this as an imaginative project which will bring into
    628
    being for the first time a single museum covering the history and archaeology of the whole of London. I am circulating further details of the Government's proposals with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Financial Secretary aware that this very sensible decision will be greatly welcomed by all who take an interest in the matter? Can he say precisely where the new Museum will be located?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am circulating further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which the hon. Gentleman will see. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have no doubt that the proposals, which have been worked out over a long period of time, will be an extremely good bargain for the people of this country as a whole, and especially for the people of London.
    Sir G. Nicholson: I should like to join my voice to those who welcome this proposal. Is my hon. Friend taking particular care to ensure that the site will be large enough, because the archaeological remains and objects of general interest coming from London are increasing at a great rate and it would be a thousand pities if in a few years or a few score years the site were found to be too small and the problem arose again?
    Sir E. Boyle: I am quite satisfied that the plan, which has been worked out over a long period with all three bodies concerned, will take into account the need, on the one hand, for due economy of public expenditure and, on the other, the long-term future from the point of view of the people of London.
    Mr. Paget: What will Kensington Palace now be used for?
    Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would table a Question to the Minister of Works about that, because it is he and not the Treasury who is directly responsible for Kensington Palace.
    Following are the details:
    As far as can be seen at present building will begin in two or three years' time and the expenditure will fall over the years 1964–66. The Museum would be managed by a Governing Body consisting of nominees in equal numbers of the three contributing authorities.

    629
    An Interim Board of Governors is being set up immediately to draw up plans for the combined Museum, and to advise the Government, the City Corporation and the London County Council on matters arising out of the proposed amalgamation. I am pleased to say that Lord Harcourt has accepted an invitation made on behalf of the three appointing authorities to become the first chairman of this body. The following are the members of the Interim Board of Governors for the proposed combined Museum:
    Appointed by the Prime Minister

    Viscount Harcourt, K.C.M.G., C.B.E. (Chairman).

    The Earl of Euston.

    Lord Nugent, G.C.V.O., M.C.

    Lord Rennell, K.B.E., C.B.

    The Hon. Lionel Brett, F.R.I.B.A.

    Dr. Joan Evans, D. Litt., D. Lit., F.S.A.

    Appointed by the Corporation of the City of London

    Mr. Alderman Trinder, M.A.

    T. E. Chester Barratt, Esq., C.B.E., M.A., LLB.

    R. F. Champness. Esq., M.A., LI.M.

    Lord Ebbisham, T.D.

    H. R. Jacobs, Esq.

    C. Skilbeck, Esq., Deputy.

    Appointed by the London County Council

    Mrs. Freda Corbet, B.A., J.P., M.P.

    W. G. Fiske. Esq., C.B.E

    Mrs. Unity Lister, O.B.E.

    William W. Livingston, Esq.

    Mrs. Marjorie McIntosh, B.A.

    A. Reginald Stamp, Esq.

    Historic Monuments and Buildings
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now announce the recommendations of the Working Party set up under his chairmanship to reassess the nature, scope and organisation of Exchequer-financed work throughout Great Britain on identifying, recording and research into historic monuments and buildings.
    Sir E. Boyle: I hope to make a statement very soon. I am now having discussions with the Chairmen of the three Royal Commissions on Historic Monuments.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that these negotiations have been going on for a very long time and it is desirable that he should make a statement very shortly?
    Sir E. Boyle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am at the moment actually in the course of having certain private discussions about this. I hope
    630
    that it will be possible to make a statement to the House in a very short time.

    Old-Age Pensioners (Imported Gifts)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the correspondence between himself and the hon. Member for North-West Leicester regarding the imposition of Customs' duty on tobacco sent to an old age pensioner in the North-West Leicester constituency, if he will instruct Customs officers to waive charges on gifts of tobacco and spirits of small value sent to old-age pensioners in this country by relatives and friends abroad.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): No, Sir. Tobacco and spirits are liable to very high rates of Customs duty; any concession for imported gifts of this kind would lead to gross inequity and would be open to widespread abuse, resulting in heavy loss of revenue.
    Sir B. Janner: Is the Economic Secretary aware that he is talking about a man who reaches his seventieth birthday soon, an old-age pensioner, who has been charged £6 11s. for 28 ounces of tobacco worth three dollars, the tobacco having been sent to him by his own sister? Surely we are not sufficiently mean as not to allow a concession in an exceptional case like that? Will he reconsider the matter and ensure that on future occasions we do not act in this mean way?
    Mr. Barber: If the hon. Gentleman himself considers the matter more carefully, I am sure that he will appreciate that there would be very great practical difficulties in distinguishing between gifts and purchases and also between parcels for old-age pensioners and parcels for other people. Further, to do what he suggests would really amount to a benefit in kind for pensioners who are fortunate enough to receive gifts of tobacco and liquor from abroad. I do not think that this is a proposal which we should take further.

    Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Jayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now proposes

    631
    to reduce the rate of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board.
    Mr. Barber: No immediate reduction in the rates of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board is proposed, but these rates will be reduced if there is a fall in the market rates for local authority borrowing.
    Mr. Jay: Why is it that when the Bank Rate rises the Public Works Loan Board rate always rises but when the Bank Rate comes down the Public Works Loan Board rate apparently does not come down? How can the Treasury justify when the Bank Rate is only 4½ per cent. the Public Works Loan Board rate remaining at over 6 per cent.?
    Mr. Barber: I can only point out to the right hon. Gentleman what I am sure he must already know. There has in fact been no appreciable reduction in long-term rates following the four recent reductions in the Bank Rate. As I said in my Answer, the P.W.L.B. rates will certainly be reduced if there is a fall in the market rates for local authority borrowing.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Economic Secretary aware that his answer will not satisfy local authorities, whose housing operations are being seriously hampered by these very high rates?
    Mr. Warbey: Is the position now that the rates of interest which local authorities have to pay for work of public importance, including housing, are no longer determined by the Government but by whatever the private moneylenders can get on the open market?
    Mr. Barber: It has been the case, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, since October, 1955, that the rates of borrowing from the P.W.L.B. have been kept in line with the rates ruling on the market. There is nothing new about this. As I said—I repeat it—if the market rates fall there will be a reduction in the P.W.L.B. rates.

  DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY
  Mr. Ginsburgasked the Prime Minister what action has been taken to co-ordinate the activities of the several departments concerned in the execution of the Government's distribution of industry policy.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Co-ordination is achieved through regular and frequent consultation between the Departments concerned.
  Mr. Ginsburg: Is not that an extremely complacent reply? Is there not urgent need for a Government policy for the distribution of industry? Is it not a fact that some areas are starved of industry while in other areas too much industry is coming in? Finally, is it not a fact that the Local Employment Act, while it is a beneficial Measure in some respects, is totally inadequate as a measure for dealing with distribution of industry policy?
  The Prime Minister: I do not see how co-ordination can be achieved except by consultation between Departments. As regards the working of the Act, I think that on the whole it has been very satisfactory in carrying out the purpose for which it was intended.
  Mr. Steele: Would the Prime Minister examine the replies made this afternoon by the President of the Board of Trade in connection with employment and industry in Scotland, because the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Power are working at cross purposes? The Minister of Power is increasing the price of coal in an area of high unemployment. The President of the Board of Trade is trying to induce industry to go there.
  The Prime Minister: I will certainly study those replies, but this question deals with the location of industry and the issue of industrial development certificates under the Act.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH SHIPPING)
  Dame Irene Wardasked the Prime Minister whether he is in touch with the Government of the United States of America over the further developments by United States shipping interests against the British shipping community.
  The Prime Minister: When I discussed shipping questions with President Kennedy he asked me to let him have a detailed memorandum. This I have now sent.
  Dame Irene Ward: When my right hon. Friend was discussing this matter with President Kennedy, did he inform the President what the views of the general public of a mature country would really be? In other words, did he point out to him that, arising out of our long history, we were very tolerant up to a point, but that when our interests are really threatened it affects the general public's view of that great country? Does not my right hon. Friend think that, if he gave a little historical survey of our history to the President, it might help to overcome the difficulty?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestions, but we had a fairly full discussion. What I have now done is, at the President's request, to send him a detailed memorandum on the very varied aspects of this problem, which cover quite a wide field.
  Mr. Mellish: Can we expect the reply from the President to be made known to the House?
  The Prime Minister: No. We are in communication all the time and, apart from this, the normal diplomatic methods will be applied. I assure the House that both the United Kingdom and other countries are doing all they can to remedy what we think are things which should be put right.
  Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us welcome the initiative of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the Minister of Transport in bringing together the genuine maritime Powers, but that there is some urgency in trying to get the agreement of these genuine maritime Powers to presenting a strong, united and forceful front to the Americans to change their malpractices?
  The Prime Minister: The object of this was to get a joint approach.
  Mr. A. Lewis: Whilst welcoming the Prime Minister's reply, may I ask him to explain why, when he first answered Questions in this House after seeing President Kennedy, he could not reveal what had transpired between the President and himself, other than what was in the communiqué because the talks were private, secret and confidential,
  634
  yet is now giving further information to his hon. Friends that is not in the communiqué. Why can he give private and confidential information on some things and not on others?
  The Prime Minister: This was mentioned in the communiqué but, if I have gone a little beyond it, I must apologise to the House.

  DOCTORS (RECRUITMENT)
  Mr. Pagetasked the Prime Minister if he will institute an inquiry into the recruitment of doctors for the Services and for the National Health Service, in order to ascertain how the best use can be made of the limited number of doctors available.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers have given close attention to the problem of recruitment of doctors for the Armed Forces in recent months, and details of the measures which are being introduced for attracting more doctors into the Armed Forces have recently been announced.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said on 29th November last, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland had already carried out a review bearing on the recruitment of doctors generally. There is close and continuous co-ordination between the Health and Defence Departments, and I see no need for a further inquiry.
  Mr. Paget: Is it not the fact that the additional doctors who are attracted to the Services must be attracted from the National Health Service which is itself very short of doctors? Is not this auction between Government Departments a little odd, and have the Departments really examined the extent to which the Forces in this country can co-ordinate their medical services and economise on the extent to which, whilst in England, they use the National Health Service, and the extent to which they can make use of the services of retired consultants, who are often very capable men and, at 65, are able to do a lot of work of this sort? Is it not

  635
  worth their while looking into the problem?
  The Prime Minister: I think that all these suggestions are being borne in mind, and some acted upon. Medical officers have to be posted to all parts of the world, and it would be hardly fair to those already serving if all the attractive posts were taken by volunteers from civil life. We have to recognise, with regard to the general supply, that the Services no longer have to release doctors on National Service, so those doctors are no longer available.
  Mr. Paget: But surely there is a case for looking into it. Is not this a case where we ought to set up a committee, when there is such a demand from Government Departments on such a limited supply of doctors?
  The Prime Minister: If I thought that a new committee would help, I would certainly look into the suggestion. Discussions are at present taking place with the British Medical Association, and we have also had the benefit of a panel of very distinguished advisers—Sir Cecil Wakeley, Dr. E. R. Boland and Sir Stanford Cade—who, in a sense, form a committee for this purpose.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While I recognise the importance of having enough doctors and dentists in the Services, how do these particular proposals fit in with the Government's pay-pause policy?
  The Prime Minister: This is a decision that was announced, and I think that it was right. It is not possible to keep absolutely to the letter of any system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and in this particular case, where we are moving from National Service to voluntary service, we have had to recognise the difference there is between having conscripted men, or doctors, and employing them voluntarily.
  Mr. Gaitskell: But is not the point that the Government feel it necessary to raise the pay of these doctors and dentists because there is a shortage of them, and do not exactly the same considerations apply in the case of the nurses?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In that case, we are not moving from a compulsory, conscript Service to voluntary service.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether he will represent to President Kennedy the concern felt at the possible violation of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1948, by America's proposed high altitude tests.
  The Prime Minister: I am informed that the provisions of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1948, have no bearing on this matter.
  Mrs. Castle: Is it not the fact that the avowed purpose of the high-altitude tests is to produce a temporary blackout in radio and radar communications in the Pacific area? Is it not our duty under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, to which both we and the United States are signatories, to do everything in our power to help to maintain this radio communication? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what would happen if any ship or aircraft should find itself in distress during the period of this temporary blacking-out of communications?
  The Prime Minister: That is another question. The Question I am asked refers to the relevance of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1948, but that Convention deals solely with the construction and equipment of ships engaged on international voyages.
  Mr. M. Foot: Can the Prime Minister confirm the statement attributed to the United States President in one newspaper this morning that he is holding up some of these high-altitude tests while further investigations are made? Will not the Prime Minister at least welcome this decision, if it is the decision, of the President of the United States, and will he not ask that in the course of those investigations, British scientists, including Sir Bernard Lovell, should be able to examine the American proposals?
  The Prime Minister: I have not seen that statement, but I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, and if he would like to ask a further Question next week I shall do my best to answer it.

  POLARIS SUBMARINES
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether he will discuss the question of additional Polaris submarines now being based on Holy Loch with the United States Government, with a view to revising the United Kingdom agreement with them.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No changes are contemplated in the arrangements for the use of the Holy Loch facilities by these submarines, and no revision of the agreement is therefore necessary.
  Mr. Hughes: But does the Prime Minister know anything about the report that eight of these Polaris submarines are soon to be located in the Clyde; that there is a programme for forty, and that one submarine recently fired a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific? The result is that the Russians are likely to test their high megaton bombs in order to destroy these submarines. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that saturation point has come, and that some effort should be made to end the arms race?
  The Prime Minister: That is another question. This Question deals with whether it is necessary to amend the agreement for the location of these submarines at Holy Loch. I am informed that there is unlikely to be any increase in the number of submarines using the loch at any one time.

  DISARMAMENT (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
  Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister whether he was consulted by President Kennedy about the United States proposals for general and complete disarmament laid before the Committee of Eighteen Nations in Geneva on 18th April; and whether he will make these proposals available to hon. Members in a Command Paper.
  The Prime Minister: There has been full and continuous consultation between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government about all the pro, posals put forward by the United States Government at the Geneva Conference. The text of their Outline Treaty has been
  638
  released, and has been put in the Library.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: As the Prime Minister says in his letter to Khrushchev that this is the most important and urgent of all questions in the world, is it not desirable that hon. Members should have a full context available in a White Paper with, if possible, the Russian draft of 19th March?
  The Prime Minister: I am anxious to meet the House's wishes in any way we possibly can. What we are trying to do at present is to get all the documents and the official records that are being issued in their final form during the first fortnight of the conference, and these will be in the Library in the next few days. Perhaps I might later consider whether we should publish a White Paper giving all the relevant documents in a single form.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but is he aware that it is really impossible to follow what is going on at Geneva without the full context of the two proposals, and that one or two copies put in the Library do not meet the needs of hon. Members who desire to have the document to refer to?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly take that into account. I think that it is a matter of deciding when is the most convenient point in the conference to publish documents, and a substantive account of what is taking place.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Road Transport (Chemicals)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to publish the results of the tests he has been conducting into the transport of chemicals by road.
    The Joint Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 19th April to a Question by the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). The tests have not yet been completed.
    Mrs. Castle: When are we likely to have the results of those tests? Is not

    639
    the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there has been considerable anxiety in the House following the demonstration of the dangers to the public from explosions of these chemicals while they are in transit by road, and of the feeling that there should be urgent action to regulate this traffic? Can he say how much longer we have to wait?
    Mr. Renton: These are elaborate laboratory tests and, as the hon. Lady knows, they are not being carried out by the Government, but I hope that we shall not have very long to wait for the results now. The importance of the matter is to try to find a way of stopping these accidents in future. If we can find the right answer, it is worth taking trouble.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it not also very important to recognise the need for urgency? There is great public feeling about this in the areas affected, and, although it is necessary to get the right results, is it not also very necessary to allay public feeling?
    Mr. Renton: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

DOCKS (DISPUTE)
Mr. Gunter (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour if he can make a statement about the dispute in the dock industry.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I am sorry to say that the negotiations at the meeting of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, held on Tuesday, did not result in a settlement that evening of the dispute arising from the trade union side's claim for increased wages and a shorter working week. The following morning—that is yesterday—my officers met representatives of both sides, but it was clear from their respective attitudes that there was, at that stage, no prospect of reaching an agreement.
I am, of course, keeping in the closest touch with the situation and the services of my Department are available at any time to the parties. Further, I shall not hesitate to take the initiative in intervening again if I feel that such action would be helpful and, in any case, I intend to have informal conversations with the leaders of each side later today.
Mr. Gunter: As the Minister knows, I would be the last to say anything at the moment which might embarrass him, but surely he is aware that many of us feel that his Department has been most casual in its approach to this very serious situation.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, for the purpose of clarification, how many out of the total labour force in the docks are involved as time workers and are, therefore, concerned with the dispute of 6d. a day?
Secondly, is it true that the only efforts at conciliation by his Department took place yesterday morning, when the employers were met by his officials at 10 a.m., and the trade unions were heard at 11.15 a.m.? It appears that his officials made up their minds that nothing could be done and that, within an hour, the trade union representatives were back outside in the street. Is this what the conciliation machinery of the Ministry of Labour has been reduced to? Was there no effort to bring the two parties together?
Is the Minister not aware that there is a growing impression developing that the employers are adamant about the 6d. because the Government want them to be adamant about it? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a categorical assurance that should the employers want to make an offer the Government will let them do so?
Mr. Hare: I hardly think that some of those supplementary questions will help the present situation.
Mr. C. Pannell: The Minister has not helped it much.
Mr. Hare: I do not accept the implication of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) that my Department has been casual. If there is any criticism it should be of me and not of my Department.
Mr. Pannell: We all know that.
Mr. Hare: I think that the House should be aware of the facts. Negotiations took place at a meeting of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry and did not, in fact, cease till half-past seven on Tuesday evening. Within a quarter of an hour I had asked both sides to meet my

641
officials on Wednesday morning. It was quite clear from what both sides had to say—they saw my officials separately—that their attitudes were absolutely and entirely rigid. It is not a bad thing, when dealing with human beings, to allow people to have a chance of sleeping on the attitudes that they may have.
Mr. C. Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman has been sleeping for weeks.
Mr. Hare: I think it was right that I should allow people to have second thoughts on the attitudes that they had taken up and I proposed, therefore, having given them that chance, to have these talks this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the percentage of men on time rates working in the dock industry. The figures are: 30 per cent. in Liverpool, 10 per cent. in London, and 15 per cent. in the South Western ports, but my information is that approximately 50 per cent. of the wage bill of this industry is, in fact, based on time rates. The reason is that overtime—for example, of piece-workers—is based on time rates, and that port ancillary workers, like the tally-clerks and others, are based on time rates.
I thought that the last question of the hon. Member for Southwark was a damaging one, which really tried to imply that the Government bad given instructions to the port employers about what wage offer they should make. The Government's attitude on the wage policy is absolutely clear. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been no contact with either the Government or myself on the offer in this particular wage dispute.
Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Government will raise no objection whatever if the employers make a further offer in order to bridge the gap between them and the trade unions?
Mr. Hare: I think that it would be utterly wrong for any Minister of Labour to take any side in this issue at the moment.
Mr. K. Lewis: Since this matter is vital for the country and it is important that people should be fully informed on the matter, can my right hon. Friend tell
642
the House exactly what offer has been made to the dockers by the employers?
Mr. Hare: The employers are offering 3 per cent. on the time and piece rate to take effect now and what is broadly equivalent to a further 4½ per cent. to take effect on 1st January, 1963, by means of a reduction from 44 hours to 42. In addition, they offer an increase in the fall-back rate of 8s. 3d. on the existing fall-back rate of £7 8s. 6d. and attendance money of 6d. on 7s.
Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister say when the claim was first lodged, when the Government first took notice and intervened in the dispute, and whether the sole matter now at issue is the 6d. a day for time workers?
Mr. Hare: The issue is on the extra demand on the time rate which the trade union side has asked for. This is a 1½ per cent. increase on the time rate offer which has been made. That is the issue on which the discussions broke down.
Mr. Grimond: When was the claim first lodged and when did the Government first take note of it?
Mr. Hare: The claim was lodged some time ago—some six months—and the negotiating machinery of the industry has been in action and culminated in the agreement of both sides for the meeting last Tuesday.
Mr. N. Pannell: Can the Minister say anything about the position of the National Amalgamated Stevedores' and Dockers' Union—otherwise the "blue" union—in this respect, in view of the dispute between this union and the Transport and General Workers' Union in Liverpool?
Mr. Hare: I think that my hon. Friend knows that the National Amalgamated Stevedores' and Dockers' Union is not a member of the National Joint Council, but it does represent, as I think my hon. Friend said, an important section of the dockers. My officials saw their representatives this morning and I shall be having a talk with them later tomorrow morning.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Minister aware that this is an extremely dangerous situation? We have only two or three days

643
before the strike may begin. Is he aware that the difference betwen the two sides appears to be an extraordinarily narrow one and that it would be the height of folly to allow a strike to take place when the margin of difference between them is as small as this?
Can the right hon. Gentleman make it clear where the responsibility lies here? Is he prepared, I ask him again, to give an assurance that if the employers make a further offer in order to try to bridge this gap and avoid a strike there will be no objection whatever from the Government? If he is not prepared to do that, is he willing to accept the responsibility of the Government for what might follow?
Mr. Hare: Again, with great respect to the Leader of the Opposition, that is a most irresponsible question. It is not the duty of the Minister of Labour to comment on the details of these negotiations. Our hope on both sides of the House is that both sides in this issue will get together and that an honourable and fair solution will be reached.
Mr. Gaitskell: Does the Minister realise that that reply is entirely unconvincing and that what is important here is to pin down where the responsibility lies? We are entitled as the Opposition to ask the Government whether they are or are not intervening in this dispute in the sense of bringing pressure to bear upon the employers not to make a further offer. Will he make it plain whether or not that is so?
Mr. Hare: I have already said that the Government have not brought pressure to bear on the employers. I made that absolutely clear. It was said also, if I may remind the House, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in answer to questions yesterday. That question has been answered. I think that it is not fair to the two sides or to me in my rôle as Minister of Labour that I should have to answer the sort of questions which the Leader of the Opposition has put.
Mr. C. Pannell: Does not the Minister appreciate that it has been the Government's pay pause policy over a period which has coloured the whole of the negotiations in this matter? Is not he aware that the Prime Minister, a few
644
minutes ago, when dealing with medical manpower, suggested that the Government's policy did not apply to the doctors? Are we to understand that the Government draw a line between the noble professions and the filthy trades?
Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman, who is very well aware of what goes on in the House, knows perfectly well the general principles of the Government's position in regard to incomes policy. I think that, when delicate negotiations are going on, questions of this sort are not conducive to what I think hon. Members opposite and, I am sure, my right hon. and hon. Friends want, namely, helping to promote a settlement.
Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us in the House have constituencies composed almost entirely of workers in the dock industry. I know that you are always very fair in your judgment, Sir, but is it not right that at least some of us should be allowed to express a view or put a question?
Mr. Speaker: I am in the hands of the House. We have had quite a lot of questions on this statement already.
Mr. Mellish: I have not been able to ask one yet, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest, but we really cannot debate the matter without a formal Question.
Mr. Mellish: It is only a matter of time, Mr. Speaker, before, perhaps, we have what might be a disaster for the country.
May I put this to the Minister? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this claim was lodged last October and that it was a 7½ per cent. claim based purely on the rise in the cost of living? Does he not know that the unions have almost fallen over backwards to try to reach a compromise with the employers and that, now that they have got down to this situation, it is plain that there is tremendous good will throughout the country towards both the unions and the workers in this matter? They are willing to meet the employers at this very moment. I appeal to the Minister to bring both sides together to get some sense into the matter.
Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Gentleman could not have listened to my statement. I said that the original claim went in six months ago. I have taken note of what he says. I shall be meeting both sides this very afternoon, and, in the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the country as a whole, I feel that we had better leave things as they are.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH MAY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate will take place on Nurses Pay, on the appropriate Votes.
Motions on Fertilisers and Ploughing Grants Schemes for the United Kingdom.
TUESDAY, 15TH MAY—We shall begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, which will be continued on WEDNESDAY, 16TH MAY.
THURSDAY, 17TH MAY—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Committee.
There will be a debate on Education, which will arise on the appropriate Votes.
Lords Amendments to the South Africa Bill.
FRIDAY, 18TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 21ST MAY—Further consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in our opinion, it will be necessary before long, and, in any case, before the Whitsun Recess, to have a discussion upon the Common Market negotiations, to try to clarify the real issues which are now emerging during the course of these negotiations? Will he bear that in mind? Is he aware, also, that it will shortly be necessary to have a debate on foreign affairs, covering the
646
Berlin situation and various other aspects, including the N.A.T.O. Conference?
Mr. Macleod: Both those are, of course, topics of the first importance which, no doubt, the House will wish to debate. We should be glad to discuss the timing of them.
Dame Irene Ward: Are we to have an intervention from the Treasury in next Monday's debate on nurses' pay? Are we really going to get down to business on that matter?
Mr. Macleod: We took note of what my hon. Friend said last week. The debate will be wound up from this side of the House by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. M. Foot: Has the Leader of the House been able to give consideration to the questions which I have put to him during the past two or three weeks about whether there should be a debate specifically referring to the matter of hydrogen bomb tests? Does he realise that it is extremely difficult to discuss by Question and Answer either the complications of the proposals put by the neutral nations at Geneva, where negotiations are still proceeding on such matters as the high altitude tests about which, apparently, the President of the United States is now beginning to alter his opinion because of protests which have been made? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would conform far better with the dignity of the House, whatever views right hon. and hon. Members may take about H-bomb tests, that, when events of such mammoth importance are taking place, we should have a debate here so that the matter may be discussed and hon. Members may state their views about it?
Mr. Macleod: I understand the point which the hon. Gentleman makes, although he will agree that some of the questions which were put to me last week were put under the misapprehension that these tests would take place from Christmas Island rather than from Johnstone Island. On the timing of a debate, I made the Government's position clear last week. The Leader of the Opposition gave notice a few moments ago that he would wish to discuss the possibility and timing of a foreign

647
affairs debate. Perhaps we could wait to see what scope there will be in that debate.
Mr. M. Foot: But many more tests will have taken place before then.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a very grave error to have a debate on the Common Market negotiations in the middle of those negotiations, and that to do so would be a substantial hindrence to our negotiators in Brussels? Is my right hon. Friend aware that most hon. Members in the House are prepared to await the final outcome—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and then adjudicate upon that?
Mr. Macleod: It is difficult in this situation to know what is the most helpful time to have a debate, whether one should have it while the discussions are going on or as they are coming to a close. I remind my hon. Friend that we have not taken any decision on the timing of a debate. These discussions are going on, and all we have said across the two Dispatch Boxes is that, at some time, it would be desirable to have such a debate and we would have discussions on the timing of it.
Mr. Wigg: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the early day Motion in my name, a copy of which I have sent to him, asking the House to deplore the action of the Minister of Defence in summoning a special Press conference yesterday afternoon to give information about the increase in the strength of the Rhine Army and the additional cost, information which he failed to give the House?
Will the right hon. Gentleman choose between the two alternatives open to him, either find time for my Motion or ask the Minister of Defence to come to the House and explain his action in calling this conference and the gross disrespect he has shown to the House of Commons?
Mr. Macleod: Without accepting everything that the hon. Gentleman has put, may I say, first, that I am grateful to him for giving me notice of the terms of the early day Motion he is putting on the Order Paper; and, secondly, that I will discuss the matter at once with my right hon. Friend and consider what
648
action it is appropriate to take in the House.
Mr. Peyton: Doubtless my right hon. Friend has had plenty of time now to look at the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, which I mentioned to him last week. Is he aware that it was with absolutely stunned surprise that I heard this Bill objected to on Friday last? Will he now take an early opportunity of consulting the Minister of Transport on what he could do to advance the fortunes of this very useful little Measure, which is calculated, for once, to help the customer?
Mr. Macleod: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the position. I give him an undertaking that I shall not object to his Bill, but I cannot, obviously, give such an undertaking on behalf of every Member of the House. Like everyone else, he must take his chance in these matters as they come.
Mr. G. Brown: May I revert to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)? Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of Defence has made a habit, over a long period, of making important announcements about defence policy outside the House and hardly ever making them inside the House? Is he further aware that the Minister had every chance yesterday to make this important new announcement of departure from Government policy in the House, but that he did not do so but went straight from the House and immediately did it outside?
Apart from the Motion, does not the Leader of the House think that it is a requirement that the Minister of Defence should come here on the earliest possible occasion and tell the House what he told the Press last night?
Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, arguing the merits of the early day Motion. What I have said, I think, covers both the point which he made and the point which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) made. I will consider this matter. Indeed, I have already started consultation on the early day Motion which is being put on the Order Paper. In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, I will consider what statement, if any, should be made to the House.
Mr. Donnelly: May I return to the question of the two gentlemen in Moscow who are sustained there through the good offices of Her Majesty's Government? The Leader of the House will recollect that last week he said that it could not possibly arise on this week's business. Next week it could arise. I have a Question down for the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and I shall be only too happy to withdraw that Question if the Leader of the House will make arrangements to have a full and proper statement made so that the misapprehensions which no doubt exist can be cleared up.
Mr. Macleod: I should have thought that this matter could quite well be dealt with by the Question which the hon. Member has on the Order Paper to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mr. Shinwell: May I revert to the question of the proposed debate on the Common Market? I understand that the Leader of the House has agreed with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the debate should take place before Whitsun. In that event, do I understand that the Government, in order to provide facilities far a reasonable and factual debate, will inform hon. Members, perhaps through a White Paper or in some other fashion, about the process of the negotiations and some of the details of the negotiations, including the political implications? If not, does he not realise that the debate, without such information, would be purely academic and of very little value?
Mr. Macleod: I will take note of that. I did not go as far in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The Leader of the Opposition said that it would be desirable for this debate and, I think, the foreign affairs debate to take place before the Whitsun Recess, and I said that we will discuss the timing of these matters. I should be very glad, in relation to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Brussels negotiations, to see whether information could be made available to the House by way of an interim report in some way or another.
Sir L. Plummer: Last week the Leader of the House said that he would
650
consider my request that there should be a debate on the Radcliffe Report and on the Government's decisions arising from that Report. Can he now say when such time will be found?
Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. Not yet. The hon. Member will recall that the Prime Minister said that disoussions with the staff side of the National Whitley Council were to be opened. These discussions are continuing and I do not think that it would be appropriate, at any rate at this stage, to have a discussion.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Minister understand the volume and variety of criticism there is in the country at present on the question of nuclear tests? It has been expressed by scientists such as Sir Bernard Lovell and leaders of Church opinion such as the Archbishop of Canterbury. Does he not realise that people are asking questions: what is the House of Commons doing, why is it shirking a debate, and why is the House going on unofficial strike without this momentous issue even being discussed?
Mr. Macleod: That certainly is not true. These matters are discussed regularly. They are often discussed at Question Time. They have been discussed in response to statements which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made to the House. There is no question of shirking a debate on this matter. But I made it clear last week that as we have consistently supported a general policy in this matter which is common with the United States, we as a Government do not think it necessary to seek the formal approval of the House by way of confidence or in any other way.
Mr. Mendelson: Arising out of the earlier reply and considering the rather uncertain nature of the date for the debate on the Common Market, may I ask whether the Leader of the House does not recall that when the Lord Privy Seal last gave an interim report—a long interim report—the gave a definite promise to the House that quite soon an opportunity would be given to discuss that interim report and that we should not be faced with a fait accompli at the end of the negotiations? In view of that, is it not right that before Whitsun a date should be fixed for a debate on the Common Market?
Mr. Macleod: With respect, I think that final decisions are much further away than the hon. Member's question indicates. In view of what the Leader of the Opposition said, we will discuss the most suitable timing, and as far as we can we will attempt to meet the wishes of both sides of the House in this matter.
Mr. Driberg: Since the right hon. Gentleman says that the question of nuclear testing is often discussed at Question Time and after statements by the Prime Minister and others, may I ask whether he does not recall that the Prime Minister himself, and other Ministers, have frequently complained that it is quite impossible to discuss these important issues by Question and Answer?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, but there are opportunities of this nature. On 25th May both the second and third Motions on the Order Paper, one of which is in the name of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), are on this subject.
Mr. Warbey: In preparation for the debate on the Common Market, will the Government publish a White Paper giving an authentic English translation of the Treaty of Rome and the Bonn Declaration, so that hon. Members and people of the country generally may know exactly what it is to which the Government have already committed the country?
Mr. Macleod: That comes under the general umbrella of the question asked earlier by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). We will consider that point.
Mr. Driberg: Since the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the qualified good fortune in the Ballot yesterday of another hon. Member and myself, would he be good enough to say that he will find time for a debate on this extremely important issue if by any chance the debate on the first Motion on 25th May should be unduly prolonged, in view of the very great interest in the subject?
Mr. Macleod: I accept that this is a qualified opportunity and may well not arise, because there is enormous interest in the first Motion. That has to do with Service pensions, and there are few matters in which there is more interest in the House than that. I could not give an undertaking in the terms which the hon. Member requests.

BILL PRESENTED
  DRAINAGE RATES
  Bill to authorise the use of an alternative method of assessing drainage rates in the case of land falling within subsection (4) of section twenty-two of the Land Drainage Act, 1961, presented by Mr. Denys Bullard; supported by Sir Harry Legge-Bourke, Mr. Deer, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Moyle, and Mr. Pym; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th May, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £50, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the following services connected with Home Office Affairs, namely:—

    Civil Estimates, 1962–63

    £

    Class III, Vote 1, Home Office

    10

    Class III, Vote 3, Home Office (Civil Defence Services)

    10

    Class III, Vote 5, Police, England and Wales

    10

    Class III, Vote 7, Prisons, England and Wales

    10

    Class III, Vote 9, Child Care, England and Wales

    10

    Total

    £50

  HOME OFFICE AFFAIRS
  4.0 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): It is by permission of the Committee that I am permitted to speak first on this Motion. It is a pure coincidence that the Home Office Estimates, which are not discussed every year, should be put down for the very day that I am leaving for Africa. I am obliged to the Committee for enabling me to review the Estimates before I have to leave. I shall not be able to be here during the later stages of the debate. It would be impossible at this stage to alter the proposed tour, with all its detailed arrangements. I am sorry about that, because I have always been brought up to treat the House of Commons and the Committee in the way it should be treated.
  I hope, therefore, that the Committee will bear with me now while I review the various subjects covered in the Votes on the Order Paper. I will take them in my own order, but I think I shall cover most of them.
  654
  The Committees will remember that in the White Paper on Penal Practice in a Changing Society I said that in the war against crime the nation depended on three main instruments—an efficient police force, the deterrent effect of the criminal law and our system for treating offenders. I will deal with these three things before I come to the other Votes.
  It is apparent that during 1961 indictable crime continued to increase at much the same rate, unfortunately, as it did in 1960 and 1959. I should also like to make the point that the prevention of crime is not a matter solely for the Government and the official machine. The work of the police, the powers of the courts, and the provision we make for dealing with delinquents all make their contribution towards preventing crime and reforming criminals. But this is not just a matter of good government—of providing this kind of institution or that; I shall be giving the latest news about the building programme—or of harsher or more constructive penalties.
  Crime is a problem in which every organisation concerned with the wellbeing of the community has a part to play, and it was for this reason that, last November, I held a conference of leaders of the Churches and local authorities and representatives of many organisations concerned with moral welfare, and particularly education authorities and those concerned with the upbringing of children. We met to discuss the steps that might be taken to prevent delinquency. As a result of that conference I have received valuable suggestions from a number of individuals and organisations, and hope to receive more.
  One development is that the Independent Television Authority has undertaken to finance an inquiry into the impact of television on the young, with particular reference to its effect on the incidence of delinquency. I have had discussions on this with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., and last week-end a conference of experts in the field of criminology, psychology and the social services was held to consider possible lines of investigation. This is a valuable development, and I hope that something will come of it.

  655
  I will take the matters that I mentioned in their order. I will deal, first, with the police. Following the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Police, substantial increases in police pay, operative from September, 1960, were immediately implemented; and these new pay scales have helped to bring about a most significant improvement in the numbers of policemen.
  In 1960, the total strength of the police service in England and Wales declined by nearly 450 men and women. During the next sixteen months, that is, up to the end of April, numbers went up by over 3,800. That is a very considerable change—from a minus to a plus.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: No pay pause.
  Mr. Butler: On previous occasions, recruitment has tended to fall off after a pay rise, once the initial impetus has worn off. This time, I decided to try to counteract this by arranging for a national recruiting campaign to take place in February and March. This campaign was the first of its kind. It was undertaken jointly by the Home Office and the police authorities, with whom the cost was shared.
  I am glad to tell the Committee that the recruiting figure for April—611 men—was the best monthly figure for ten years. There has thus been a very real improvement since the Royal Commission's interim Report was published and acted upon.
  But it is still true that in some forces, notably the Metropolitan Police, recruitment remains slow, and we still have a long way to go before all forces can be regarded as up to the strength required to meet the demands now being made on them. The main demands are in the new built-up areas, which put a great strain on the cadres and necessitate an increased effort for the police forces over and above what they would have had if they had remained without the new built-up areas. That is why in the big cities and conurbations the problem is more serious than anywhere else.
  Last August, I presented to Parliament a White Paper on Police Training, which seems to have been generally welcomed. Since then, I can now inform the Committee,
  656
  the arrangements for a twelve months' course at the Police College for constables of outstanding ability have gone ahead, and the first course will start next September. Plans are also being made for a senior staff course, designed to equip officers for the highest ranks in the Service.
  The Royal Commission on the Police proposes to present its final report in the very near future and we are all awaiting its conclusions with very great interest. In due course, no doubt, we shall have an opportunity of considering in the Committee or the House some of its final conclusions. The report on the police is, I think, on the whole satisfactory, but we still need the drive for recruits to be continued with the same determination as it has been pursued recently.
  The second subject I mentioned was the criminal law. Our objects are twofold. First, we want to ensure that the law, while providing adequate protection for the rights of others and conducing to proper standards of behaviour, does not impose restrictions on conduct which opinion today regards as unnecessary or undesirable—and does not, therefore, tend to bring the whole body of criminal law into disrepute.
  It was for this reason that the Government introduced Measures to amend the law relating to betting and gaming, licensing and street offences. All these Measures are now successfully in operation. They are all the fruit of the last two or three years. As the Committee knows to its cost, there has probably been recently as much legislation from the Home Office angle as at any time. As time goes on, we shall look at other social legislation to see whether similar changes are required. The first requirement is to bring the law into tune with ordinary behaviour.
  Secondly, we want to ensure that the law and practice regulating the machinery of the courts, and the powers available to them for dealing with offenders, are fully adequate. That is why we have implemented the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee, and introduced reforms in the law relating to the treatment of young offenders, in the Criminal Justice Acts of the past two years. That is why I have also established a Standing Committee

  657
  on Criminal Law Reform, same of whose fruits we have already legislated upon in this last Session of Parliament. So much for the criminal law and its review and the decisions of the Committee for the House to act upon them.
  I now come to the third point that I mentioned in my opening remark—our system for treating offenders. Today, the total population of prisons, borstals and detention centres is no less than 31,000—a considerable rise over the past few years. The Committee will realise that up till 1953 building plans were being made against the background of an expected fall in the population, and actually the forward building plans that we made between 1953 and 1956 were against the background of an actual fall in the prison population. Since that date there has come the rise, which has persisted and is one of the main problems of our society today.
  To meet it, we had to concentrate our resources initially on obtaining and adapting existing premises to deal with the immediate surplus prison population. It is interesting to note that, even before I published the White Paper on Penal Practice in a Changing Society, the number of new establishments provided since the war in this way—that is, by taking back old prisons which have been given up and taking over Service camps, country houses, and so on—is no less than 40, of which 16 have come into use since the prison population began to rise in 1956.
  In addition, two new secure establishments have been built, each costing about £1 million. Thus, since the war, we have brought into use 42 establishments. In the White Paper, I set out a further programme, and I will now explain its present state. Since the time of the White Paper, which is not very long ago, 10 new establishments have been taken into occupation for young offenders, and I shall be describing further developments in relation to that, because, during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act, hon. Members expressed anxiety that if the Act was to work we must have the institutions to help it work.
  These establishments include the first remand centre ever to be built in this country, a large establishment at Ashford,
  658
  Middlesex, capable of taking over 300 inmates; five new detention centres; two security establishments—at Aylesbury and Hindley—which can be used either as borstals or as young prisoners' centres; and two open borstals.
  Six further establishments for young offenders will be opened this year. The first will be a closed borstal for girls at Bulwood, in Essex, to be opened a week today. Four new detention centres are to be opened during the course of the summer, and a closed borstal for boys at Swinfen, near Lichfield, later this year. Besides this, there are 13 further establishments for young offenders in the programme. Of these, there is already under construction a large remand centre at Risley, Lancashire. This is a big one which will take both adults and juveniles. There are also a closed borstal for boys at Wellingborough, and a further detention centre.
  Plans are also advanced for the remaining seven remand centres to which hon. Members have attached so much importance. These will, when completed, cover the whole country, as I have announced before, and construction of all seven will start during this financial year. Thus, although we are covering what some hon. Members regarded as a lag in the programme for remand centres—because I do not think that anybody can describe the present building programme as being other than for rather far ahead—a further closed borstal for boys at Barby, Northants, is on the drawing board, and sites for two more detention centres for boys are under discussion with the local authorities. These will bring the detention centres to 14 in all.
  During the passage of the Criminal Justice Act, I said that I hoped that the number of detention centres would rise to 14, and we are now in sight, not exactly of the completion of the programme—because we may have to go further—but of the completion of the programme as undertaken then. A public inquiry will shortly be held into a proposal to construct a new closed borstal for girls on a site at Eastmoor, near York.
  So much for the programme for young offenders, which, I think, comes up to the undertaking we gave to provide what is necessary to serve the courts

  659
  both in relation to detention centres and I hope, in due course, to remand centres.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking as to when this building programme will be completed? Is he talking of a programme of several years?
  Mr. Butler: I have used the expressions "on the drawing board" and "in discussion with local authorities" but these are only for the last few of the establishments. The others I mentioned are for the most part concluded. The last two detention centres, making 14 in all, will not be concluded for about a year. But we are in sight of bringing the whole of this programme into completion within the next year or two.
  Mr. Charles Royle: When will Risley be completed?
  Mr. Butler: I cannot give an exact date, but it is making progress.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: As the right hon. Gentleman is due to leave the country quite soon, perhaps he will deal now with a matter I recently raised concerning open detention centres for young offenders—in which it is largely a matter of reformation—and the closed borstals to which he has referred. Is there no halfway stage for certain youngsters with a record of absconding where they could get a combination of both types of treatment?
  Mr. Butler: I remitted to my Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders the scheme for the treatment of offenders called the "Boston Scheme", undertaken in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Council is investigating a report on this method. Naturally, we have this matter very much in mind, and we all honour the memory of Sir Basil Henriques, who was associated so closely with this work and whose views were so valuable. We are open to the study of various methods and, of course, they can be adopted from time to time even in the institutions existing now.
  Since the White Paper, three new establishments have been opened for adults, all of them open prisons. Four other establishments for adults are under
  660
  construction. Two of them—the psychiatric institution at Grendon and a women's prison at Styal, Cheshire—will open in a few months' time. I attach the greatest importance to this psychiatric prison, of which I had the honour of laying the foundation stone during the time of the late chairman of the Prison Commission, whose work we all remember today.
  The third to open, early next year, will be the new security prison at Blundeston, Suffolk. This will be an entirely new design and will be the prototype for five further prisons for men. I am also glad to say that a site at Theydon Mount, in Essex, has at last been settled for a new women's prison near London to replace Holloway, and this will release Holloway for men. In total, this is the largest single building programme, I am informed by my advisers, for a hundred years. The Government can be fairly said to be at least attempting to tackle this very severe problem of overcrowding in prisons with determination.
  Now I want to say something about prison staff. The prison staff have faced, and are facing, the difficulties of their overcrowded establishments with loyalty and determination, and deserve the fullest gratitude of the public for their splendid work. I am glad to tell the Committee that the recruitment situation is now better than it has been for some time. For example, the training school at Wakefield, which some hon. Members may know about, and which has 150 places, has had to be supplemented by a temporary school at Leyhill, in Gloucestershire, with 80 places. At present, both of these training centres are full. This is a very good sign for recruitment. At the end of 1956, the number of male prison officers was 4,282. Today, it is 5,707, an increase of 1,425, or 35 per cent. in five and a half years. While, of course, the strain upon the prison staff has increased, and still larger numbers are wanted, there is at least a satisfactory tendency.
  We have also made headway with employment in prisons, and I am greatly obliged to my Advisory Council on the Employment of Prisoners, whose first report was published at the end of last July. It contains many interesting ideas

  661
  on this most difficult and vital problem. To stimulate production, the Council re-commended the introduction of a new earnings scheme, with improved incentives. This scheme, I am glad to say, was introduced last August, and it certainly seems to have achieved some improvement in productivity.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: No pay pause?
  Mr. Butler: I do not think that its scope quite comes within the range of the pay pause.
  The earnings are still comparatively small, but they have considerably improved since I went to the Home Office. I think that it is a healthy improvement, and it certainly leads to greater productivity. Some prison workshops have already been reorganised, on the lines of the report of the Council, for line-production, with encouraging results. In referring to this aspect, especially in view of the presence of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson), who serves on A.C.T.O., my speech would not be complete if I did not say a word about research.
  Research into the various aspects of the penal system is continuing. This includes studies by the Home Office Research Institute over a considerable field. Subjects which are being studied include preventive detention, upon which I am very much looking forward to receiving its report since there is considerable anxiety about it, recidivism and the effects of senior attendance centre treatment compared with borstal training. That takes up the point raised by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin).
  Research with the aid of Home Office grant is also continuing in the universities. I mention especially the Cambridge Institute, which not only got off to a very good start, but is now an ornament not only to itself but to the university. This research includes a large-scale study of young offenders and a study of the possible factors associated with recidivism, or those who have the chronic habit of returning to prison.
  I now mention the probation service. This debate gives me the first opportunity I have had since the recent Report of the Morison Committee of
  662
  referring to the probation system and the work of the probation service. I think that both sides of the House would wish to join in thanking the Committee for the comprehensive and well-reasoned document that it has produced. I particularly welcome the emphasis which the Report placed on the place that the probation system must occupy in a progressive penal policy.
  I propose to examine, in consultation with my Probation Advisory and Training Board, the proposals that the Committee has made for improving the training arrangements. This examination will certainly be aided by the appointment, which I was happy to be able to announce last week, of Mr. T. A. F. Noble, Vice-Chancellor designate of Leicester University and a member of the Morison Committee, to be the first independent Chairman of the Board.
  A major feature of the Morison Report is the recommendation for the very substantial improvement of probation officers' salaries. As I informed the House on 16th March, this recommendation calls for careful study in the light not only of the Report, but also of the Government's incomes policy. As a first step, I referred the Report to the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service.
  I thought it right to inform the Committee that on the basis of the principles set out in the White Paper on Incomes Policy, I should not at this stage be justified in approving any increase which exceeded 2½ per cent. I went on to explain, however, that the Government were in no doubt that the probation service ought to receive a substantial increase of pay at the appropriate time, and that, in view of the long period for which they had been awaiting the Report of the Morison Committee, their claims ought to be treated as sympathetically as possible within the limitations imposed by the Government's general economic policy.
  I told the Committee that with this in mind the Government were prepared to undertake that the claims of the probation service would be examined at the beginning of next year, when we hope to have entered the next phase of the incomes policy, in which arrangements must be made to deal with special cases without departing from the general

  663
  principle that increases in pay should be related to increases in productivity.
  I was informed yesterday that the Committee has agreed that probation officers of all ranks should receive an increase of 10 per cent. with effect from 1st April, without prejudice to the recommendations of the Morison Committee and on the understanding that they will be examined early next year.
  The Committee has asked me to make regulations to this effect. This is, naturally, under immediate consideration and I hope that it will be possible to give an indication of our conclusions next week. I must not raise hopes unduly, but hon. Members will, I think, see that the conclusion to which I have referred deserves the immediate attention of the Government.
  Mr. Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to clarify that point? As he realises, the whole burden of the Morison Committee's Report is that to secure improvement in the probation service there must be an increase in pay. Is he saying that the recommendation for an increase of 10 per cent. to operate immediately is being favourably considered by the Government?
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. All I have said is that I have only this morning received the recommendation. My colleagues wish to examine it and an announcement about it will be made next week. I cannot go further than that today. I have, however, announced what the Government previously stated in regard to the prospect for the Morison award.
  I should like to say something about remand homes and approved schools. As hon. Members know, the central Government do not themselves provide these. The duty of providing remand homes rests upon local authorities, and approved schools may be provided either by local authorities or by voluntary organisations. I am concerned to do what I can within this framework to ensure that adequate provision is made. I and my colleagues in the Government, the Joint Under-Secretaries and the Minister of State, have during the last few years attempted to pay as many visits to approved schools as we possibly
  664
  could because they have been of encouragement.
  The number of boys in approved schools has increased by about 24 per cent. in the last five years and over a similar period the number of remands has risen by over 33 per cent. for boys and 16 per cent. for girls.
  The following steps have been taken to increase accommodation. Two years ago, I approved a programme of approved school building which in 1961 provided about 150 new places in boys' schools and this year should provide about 300 more. By the end of 1964, we shall have increased the number of places by about 1,500, or 20 per cent. over the numbers available in 1961. The current shortages of places in remand homes is due partly to the fact that boys and girls are having to wait an unreasonably long time in remand homes before going on to approved schools. I hope, therefore, that the efforts we are making to provide more places in the schools will soon remove this particular difficulty. In addition, the courts are making an increased use of the homes, and more juveniles are coming before the courts.
  The Home Office has been in touch with a number of local authorities with a view to providing more places. Since last June the number of places for boys has increased by 11 per cent.—from 910 to 1,015. Another 50 are in prospect in the near future and we are hoping that more will follow for boys and girls in all the areas of greatest need.
  I cannot, in the compass of a speech before the Committee, cover every important aspect of the area of work covered by the Home Office, but no review would be complete without mention of the Immigration and Nationality Division, particularly as we published only yesterday the annual White Paper giving, for 1961, the number of foreigners entering and leaving the United Kingdom. We have recently spent a great deal of time discussing immigration policy in relation to the Commonwealth and I propose to leave my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to deal with any particular points which hon. Members may raise on this matter.
  My hon. and learned Friend will also devote a portion of his speech to civil defence. I would only say that we have

  665
  latterly improved the programme for civil defence. The question of evacuation is under consideration and discussion with the local authorities. The Civil Defence College is doing its work in the most capable and efficient way, as I have had the personal opportunity of testing. When my hon. and learned Friend, at the end of the debate, describes in more detail some of the improvements, he will take into account points raised by hon. Members in their speeches.
  The decisions which have been taken and the increased expenditure which has been authorised have given a clear lead for the development and improvement of this vital service and I should like
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Before my right hon. Friend leaves civil defence, can he tell the Committee where the sub-division of responsibility lies between his hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and himself? To what extent is he brought into civil defence matters and to what extent are they solely under the control of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State?
  Mr. Butler: While my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State takes a special interest in civil defence, I may safely say that every decision of importance comes to the Secretary of State, which is the only way to conduct business in a major office of State. I am greatly obliged to my hon. and learned Friend, but I must honestly say that the responsibility rests squarely on my shoulders with his aid. I have the responsibility for dealing with the local authorities, with the Civil Defence Corps and with all those involved in the affairs of civil defence.
  In concluding, I should like to refer to one theme which constantly and rightly recurs throughout the various activities of the Home Office. This is the liberty of the individual within the law. We live in a society which is highly organised and complex, in which the citizen and the State are brought constantly and increasingly into contact. We must, therefore, be vigilant to see that the individual's liberty is not infringed. That is a duty, which, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will know, all Home Secretaries must accept.
  666
  But there is another side to the medal, It is important that the individual should realise and exercise the responsibility which the free citizenship of a democracy carries with it. We shall never bring under control the problem of criminal behaviour unless we, as individuals and parents, continuously assert and insist upon the standards which preclude such activities. We shall never have a fully efficient police force unless we, as citizens, support it. We shall only make our social services, like those concerned with the care of homeless children, humane and successful if the community interests itself in them and assists with its help and friendship those who are in their care.
  The Home Secretary must do all that he can, in the liberal tradition he has inherited, and that I have inherited, to maintain our fundamental rights and liberties as individuals subject only to the rule of law; and also to persuade those free citizens to give the State—and their fellow citizens—the responsible service without which we shall not achieve the full life, in an ordered and orderly society, which this age of plenty offers to us.
  4.33 p.m.
  Miss Alice Bacon: We understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will have to leave before the end of the debate, and I want to assure him that there is no dark plot on the part of the Opposition to prevent him from taking his journey. Indeed, we wish him well in that. All that I would say is that I am sure that by the time I and others of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have spoken it will be apparent why we believe that, with so many outstanding problems facing him as Home Secretary, that is fully one man's job without his having any other responsibilities.
  As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the scope of this debate is extremely wide. We are discussing today the affairs of a Department which affects the life of every one in the country far more than any other Department of State does. Very great power is vested in the Home Secretary and he has great responsibilities. It is difficult to choose the subjects on which we should speak. There

  667
  is the whole of the children's department, the penal system, the fire service, the police, civil defence and aliens, not forgetting such minor points as burials and cremations and the protection of wild birds. Obviously, it is impossible to talk about all these.
  There are four important sections of Home Office work with which I do not propose to deal, because I know that others of my hon. Friends will be dealing with them. First, there is civil defence, which is very important; secondly, the need for a review of the legal aid system; thirdly, home safety: and, fourthly, aliens.
  I should like to offer the right hon. Gentleman one word of congratulation on the way in which he stood his ground during the past year with regard to corporal punishment and resisted efforts from some of his hon. Friends to get it restored. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that this is the fifth year of the working of the Homicide Act. While I cannot go into that in any great detail—it would need a whole day's debate on its own—it is the fifth year, and we wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to review the working of the Act. I know that he has not said that he would review the working of the Act in five years, but I think that he has said that it would have to go at least five years before there was a review. Those five years have passed.
  The right hon. Gentleman has the unenviable task of deciding whether or not those convicted of murder shall be reprieved. It is a task which none of us would like to bear. Many people were extremely uneasy about the Hanratty affair. I feel that he may have committed the crime and that it is likely that he did, but I also feel that there was just that little uncertainty about it, and I know that many people were uneasy. I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I and many hon. Members on this side of the Committee, as well as some hon. Members opposite, would like to relieve him of this great responsibility by the abolition of capital punishment altogether.
  In the last few years one of the features of Home Office affairs has been the number of Royal Commissions,
  668
  Committees of Inquiry, Advisory Committees, etc., engaged in producing reports for the Home Secretary. It is all to the good that experts should produce what are sometimes extremely valuable reports. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends are prepared to wait a reasonable time for action pending these reports. This is a good thing provided that the fact that a committee is sitting is not made an excuse for doing little in the meantime on urgent current problems and that when committees have reported the House of Commons will be given an opportunity to discuss those matters with a view to Government action.
  I am not arguing that any Government should always accept the recommendations of any committee, but we should not ignore them entirely and we should always have the opportunity to discuss them and come to some conclusion about them. What has worried me in recent years is that on many occasions the right hon. Gentleman has answered Questions by saying that he is awaiting the report of such and such a committee. I cannot count, and it would be almost impossible for anybody to count, the number of Questions which have been answered in that way.
  Not only has there been stalling on Questions, but Amendments to Bills have been turned down and Private Members' Bills have been rejected pending the report of some committee. I will give some examples. It will be remembered that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) both tried to put through Bills to provide compensation for the victims of crimes of violence. In both cases the right hon. Gentleman said that he was awaiting the report of a committee. That committee reported in June, 1961, and we have not yet had an indication from the right hon. Gentleman of his attitude on this very important matter. It is a subject on which he can count on the support of both sides of the Committee and a good deal of support in the country. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State to give us some idea of the Government's attitude in this matter.
  There is then the Report of the Ingle-by Committee on Children and Young

  669
  Persons, which reported in 1960. We were promised a comprehensive Measure, which we have not had. I want to take one small but important point from this Committee's Report. It will be remembered that about two years ago, when we were dealing with the Indecency With Children Measure, some of us on this side of the Committee attempted to raise the age of criminal responsibility for the purposes of that Measure from 8 to 14 years. The age of criminal responsibility in this country, which is eight, is abnormally low.
  Every member of the Standing Committee concerned spoke in favour of my Amendment to that effect, but it was finally turned down on the recommendation of the then Minister of State, who argued that the Ingleby Committee was about to report and would include a recommendation on the age of criminal responsibility in its findings. The Committee recommended that the age should be raised to 12, but we were told by the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) on 28th November, 1961, that he was not persuaded that the time was opportune to raise the age of criminal responsibility. This is another example of the House of Commons being put off by promise of something in the future only to find, when the committee concerned has reported, that no action is taken by the Government.
  I must also mention the Offices Measure, because my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and the office workers have been badly let down in that no regulations under that Measure have been provided on the ground that the Bill would probably be overtaken by a more comprehensive Measure. But we have not had either that comprehensive Measure or the regulations, and the office and shop workers are still waiting for some Measure so that their conditions of employment may be improved.
  I was very interested in what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the Morison Committee on the Probation Service. I have not yet had time properly to assimilate the figures which he gave and I am not quite sure what he meant when he said that there would be a 10 per cent. increase, but that he was not
  670
  certain about the timing. As quickly as I could, I looked up what the Morison Committee recommended. It said that there should be an increase in the salaries of certain higher grade probation officers, from £1,025 to £1,350, while other grades should have increases from £625 to £750 a year.
  The recommendations of the Morison Committee seem to envisage a much greater increase in the salaries of probation officers than the 10 per cent. mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It is symptomatic of the times that a television actor portraying a probation officer should have said that £450 an appearance was not enough for him and that he must have £850 an appearance, when our real probation officers are paid such scandalously low salaries.
  We are now awaiting further reports, as the right hon. Gentleman said, from his Advisory Council—the report on preventive detention, the report on after-care, and the report on the Boston training centres. We expect shortly to have the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police. I hope that when those reports are published, we shall have an opportunity to consider them and to register our opinions on them.
  I now turn to young people and penal matters. It is now about a year since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act. When it was going through the House, we drew attention to the serious position concerning young people who had committed offences. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that the position has been getting worse. There is a shortage of remand homes which is causing magistrates all over the country more trouble and more headaches than anything else.
  The Minister of State will remember that at the last meeting of the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill he said that there was no shortage of remand home places. He said:
  "As to the alleged shortage of remand homes, to which the hon. Lady referred, I must challenge her here, because there is a total of 52 remand homes in this country … but there is no court which has not got a remand home at its disposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 2nd March, 1961; c. 824.]
  That was not true then and if the hon. and learned Gentleman did not know it

  671
  then, I am sure that he will admit that it is certainly not true now.
  The shortage of remand home places is serious. I have many newspaper cuttings with me on the situation. One says that a court was told that no remand home place anywhere in the country could be found for a boy of 16; a boy in Bradford could not be sent to any remand home; a magistrate has just retired to protest about the shortage of remand homes. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the waste of time and money and effort in taking children to far corners of England and fetching them back two or three days later when they are remanded in custody?
  I have one or two examples of that taken from Leeds, but they could be multiplied all over the country. On 1st June, 1961, a woman police constable with a male driver escorted a 15-year-old girl to Carlisle by road, a round trip of 250 miles, and fetched her back three weeks later for another court appearance in Leeds. On 7th June, two women police constables escorted a 15-year-old girl by train to London, a round trip of 390 miles, and fetched her back seven days later for a further court appearance in Leeds. The cost in telephone calls alone must be enormous. We were told that at one place about £250 a year was spent on telephone calls alone. These examples can be repeated in places all over the country.
  The right hon. Gentleman cannot continue to say, as he said this afternoon, that this is a duty of the local authorities. It is his duty to see that there are sufficient remand homes. If local authorities are still to be his agents, he must exercise some power over them. He must also consider the financial arrangements between the Government and the local authorities to see whether they are such as to induce the local authorities to provide more remand homes. As he has just said, one of the great troubles is that there are many young people in remand homes who ought not to be there but who are there while they wait for places in approved schools. It is that situation which causes the bottleneck. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman mention the new remand centre at Ashford, Middlesex, because during the Committee
  672
  stage of the Criminal Justice Bill the Government were defeated and it was decided that 15-year-olds should be kept out of prison pending the opening of remand centres.
  Remand centres were first provided far in a Criminal Justice Act in 1948 by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—that was fourteen years ago. When we reached the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill, the right hon. Gentleman took out the words the Committee had inserted, and announced a programme for remand centres which would not have been announced had the Government not been defeated in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The hon. Lady can be satisfied in that her adventure has at least had some success, for it has hurried on the Government's programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c. 302.]
  On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman talked about the remand centre at Risley being like an immense battleship in the north of England. We have heard about this remand centre for a long time, and we wonder when it will be opened.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the remand centre at Ashford. I apologise to the Committee for criticising an institution which I have not visited, for reasons which I am certain the Committee will appreciate. I have accepted the word of reliable people whom I know extremely well who have visited this centre and have come away with some rather disquieting reports. Let me be fair about this. Any new venture has teething troubles, and the enormous turnover of children who go to this remand centre presents a great problem for the staff who are doing a good job and working under the most difficult conditions. Again on the credit side, I am told that the reports prepared for the magistrates are extremely good and much better than the reports provided before the centre was opened.
  Having said that, I must say that I was appalled to hear of some of the arrangements at the centre where there are some boys of school age, some over school age, some on remand awaiting trial, and some awaiting sentence after having been convicted. Again, there are some boys who stay on much longer than these categories who are committed

  673
  to approved schools and are awaiting places. Finally, and this is what appalled me most, a party of young prisoners is taken there from Wormwood Scrubs to do the domestic work. I thought that the idea of a remand centre was to take young people away from the atmosphere of the prison, yet in this remand centre a group of young prisoners is engaged on domestic work.
  Although this centre was opened in July, the first teacher did not arrive until the end of March this year, so the children of school age received no education for eight months. If any parent failed to provide education for his child for that length of time, he would be brought before the courts and dealt with. I want this remand centre to be a success because it is a prototype for the construction of others, and yet the right hon. Gentleman failed to provide proper educational facilities for this considerable length of time.
  The worst feature of the centre is that because these young men from Wormwood Scrubs are working there—because there are not adequate teachers both for education and for recreation in the evening—these young boys are locked in their cells from 5 o'clock in the afternoon until 7 o'clock the following morning. These are single cells, but because the centre is so overcrowded there are three boys to each cell. I am not grumbling about this, because I think that if young boys of 13 to 15 are locked in cells, there should be three boys to a cell rather than one.
  We hurried on the construction of remand centres, but they have been opened without much thought being given to them. The Home Office has had plenty of time to think about the problems involved, because the Criminal Justice Act setting them up was passed in 1948 and the first remand centre was not opened until last year. I understand also that no remand centre rules have been adopted, and it seems that the trouble here is that remand centres are the responsibility of the Prison Commissioners, while approved schools are the responsibility of the Children's Department. I think that the Government should reconsider the present division of responsibilities.
  That leads me to deal with approved schools. As the right hon. Gentleman
  674
  said, the building programme is going ahead but there are many shortages. What powers have been taken under the Criminal Justice Act to control the managers of voluntary approved schools? The Act gave the Home Secretary adequate powers to control them, and I should like to know what is being done.
  With regard to borstal accommodation, I was pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I thank him for adopting the suggestion that I made some months ago that a new borstal institution should be opened in the north of England so that girls in that area would not have to travel to Essex if they were sent to borstal. I stress now, as I have stressed before, that children who are sent to an institution should be sent to one as near their homes as possible so that they can receive frequent visits from their parents and families.
  There ought to be a radical review of the provision of institutions for young people. It seems that there is an artificial distinction between approved schools and borstals. I have seen closed approved schools and open borstals, and there does not seem to be very much difference between the two régimes. Borstals are supposed to be more severe than approved schools, yet the maximum stay at borstal is less than at an approved school.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: The hon. Lady is rather less than fair in failing to observe the fundamental difference that approved schools are schools.
  Miss Bacon: I agree, and if I had my way approved schools would be more like ordinary schools than they are at the moment. In any future reorganisation we shall have to consider whether a child of school age should be treated as a maladjusted child and sent to a special school of some kind instead of being sent to an approved school or borstal.
  I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk about training centres. I am disappointed that more authorities have not undertaken attendance centre work. This is valuable because it gives some kind of training to the boy or girl while he or she is living at home. I think that we take young people away from their homes much too easily.

  675
  Unless it is a bad case, taking a boy or girl away from home creates as many problems as it solves. I think, too, that these young people are taken away from their homes for excessively long periods, and sent to areas far from their homes. Again, I still think that we ought to consider whether a court should not just stipulate some sentence of custodial treatment and leave it to the psychiatrists and social workers to decide what that treatment should be.
  A further point about these institutions is that villages, and sometimes towns, get their Members of Parliament to oppose the opening of either a remand home or an approved school in their areas. This is a despicable thing to do. The Leeds remand home has been held up for some time—it was being built on the outskirts of Leeds—because the people of a little village outside Leeds did not want a remand home anywhere near them. What are we to do with these people? Somehow or other we have failed them. Are we now to put them out of sight, and say that they will not be allowed anywhere near other people's homes?
  I turn now to the question of prisons. It is difficult to deal adequately with this in a short time; it could be the subject of a whole day's debate. It is impossible to generalise about our prisons. Anybody who has visited prisons in the last few years knows that widely different conditions obtain in them. There is all the difference in the world between Holloway and the open prison for women at Askham Grange in Yorkshire. They are two completely different types of institution. Then we have the local prisons, which are very overcrowded, and the regional training prisons.
  In many of our overcrowded local prisons men are sleeping three in a cell, but the sleeping arrangements are not the worst feature of such prisons. Three in a cell means overcrowding during the day. It means that a prisoner does not have a full day's work to do. It means that the workshops are overcrowded. Some prisoners are working only for twenty hours a week. In such conditions, when prisoners sit about with nothing to do, small things tend to be magnified. I am sure that all hon.
  676
  Members must have had letters from prisoners at some time or other containing the most minute complaints. The Joint Under-Secretary is smiling, but I always try to attend to these letters, because I know that when a prisoner has been sitting about with nothing to do even quite a small thing may assume enormous proportions in his mind. Prisoners are often treated like children. It may be that some are rather childlike, but when they are released we expect them to live like men and women.
  I want to make one point about local prisons, arising from the coming into operation of the recommendations of the Streatfeild Report. I welcome the fact that there is to be a more rapid turnover of prisoners, that remands will be shorter, and that the courts will sit more frequently, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this, in turn, will present local prisons with an even greater problem than they have at present. There will be more frequent comings and goings, and these will take up more of the time of the staff. It would be a good thing if we could so arrange matters that in future local prisons were used simply for remands and short-term prisoners. It is impossible for the staffs of local prisons, faced with the enormous amount of overcrowding and a terrific turnover—with comings and goings every day—to provide adequate educational training facilities for the longer-term prisoners, who might be serving four-year sentences. I hope that this matter will be borne in mind by the right hon. Gentleman.
  During the last few months people have begun increasingly to worry about what goes on in our prisons. I have visited a number of them and, with hardly any exceptions, I found that the governors have been very good and devoted men and women. But I have been horrified by some of the things that I have seen, such as the degradation that sometimes exists. On the other hand, I have been pleasantly surprised at some things, especially the way in which, in some women's prisons, the prisoners are allowed to decorate their cells and make them look homelike.
  But when we visit a prison it is difficult for us to know what we are really seeing and what we are not seeing. It is very disquieting to read some of the

  677
  things which are written by people who have been in prison. Many allegations are made by them. I should like to know what is meant by "disciplining" a prisoner. The prison visitor does not see this. The only thing that I have seen which has had any connection with it was a disciplining cell in a girls' borstal—and I did not like it at all.
  We should try to ensure that life in prison approximates more nearly to normal, with normal work and a normal working week. Generally speaking, the kind of work carried out by the prisoners is not the kind that they will do when they leave prison. I realise that the kind of buildings we have make it almost impossible to provide the kind of workshops and factories that we would like.
  I almost wish that we could have some sort of island experiment, although I know that it would be rather impracticable. The treatment of criminals is one thing, and the prevention of crime is another, as the right hon. Gentleman said. How are we to prevent the continuation of the steep increase in crime that we have had in the last few years? The right hon. Gentleman has pinpointed some of the possible steps that we can take. When the detection rate is high the crime figures are low, and I am pleased to learn that there has been a great increase in the police service. We must remember that the increase in pay has had a great deal to do with that, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that point in mind when he is considering the pay of prison and probation officers, and others in the prison service.
  I now turn to the question of aftercare. I know that this is the subject of an inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman's Advisory Committee. Nevertheless, I think it right to say that too many of our prisoners find their way back into prison very quickly.
  Some would probably do so whatever we did for them, but it is very difficult for a prisoner leaving prison to go straight, even if he wishes to do so. We all know of cases illustrating this fact. We all receive letters—sometimes very pathetic letters—from prisoners who say that although, a year or two ago, they were looking forward to leaving prison, as the time to leave was approaching
  678
  they were becoming more frightened of going out than they had been of coming in. I have a letter from a prisoner who says:
  "Very soon I shall have to think about my future, but believe me, I dread the thought of doing so. Why?—because I have been locked up now for almost two and a half years, and the thought that in the near future I shall be released from here with no home to go and with the chances of obtaining a job being very grim, due to the fact that I am an 'old lag'. But the fact is that I am not 40 years old yet."
  Another letter which I have received says:
  "It is not right to send a man straight out to the outside world, after being locked up for years. It should be carefully done—gradual—to ease the strain for a man. A few are lucky, but a lot are not considered much. I am without a home outside and had nobody to visit me, and I have been in prison now for seven years."
  We cannot say that people are all good or all bad. There is a good deal of bad in the best of us and a good deal of good in the worst of us. The men who wrote the letter from which I have just quoted only recently sent me something that is now one of my most treasured possessions, and which I was very touched to receive—a Christmas card which he drew for me himself and sent to me, using up one of his valuable ration of letters, hoping that I should soon be better after my recent illness. These are the kind of men who are having to face the outside world. There is some good in all of us.
  Last year we had the example of the man released from Chelmsford gaol with £1 in his pocket and a ticket to London when he had asked for a ticket to Durham where his only relative, a sister, lived. After sitting at King's Cross Station for several hours and after trying to get through the barrier he wondered how he could get to Durham, because it was Saturday and there was no place open to which he could go till Monday. He stole a mailbag for which offence he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Fortunately for him, some lawyers took up the case and succeeded in having the sentence quashed.
  I wonder how many released prisoners today sit an railway stations with no home to go to, no work and no stamped insurance card, which is very important, and who will find themselves quickly

  679
  back in prison again. It is no use shutting a man in prison for years and then allowing him to come out in such a state of mind that he commits worse crimes.
  I have said already that we must have adequately trained and paid workers in the prison service, and the same applies to social workers and probation officers. As for the increase in crime over the last few years, I believe that it has been a reflection of the kind of society in which we live today. Young people who follow the paths which lead to borstal and prison are to a large extent the products of the society which we have made for them. Most of the children in approved schools come from broken homes. A great many are brought up to have false values. Is it their fault or ours that they are guided by distorted values which must bring disaster?
  This is the gambling age, the age when one doubtful deal often makes a man enough money to live the rest of his life in idleness. It is the age of the take-over bid speculator and the age when ordinary men and women dream of winning big prizes. Is it surprising that these young people, when they realise that the mammoth prizes are unlikely to come their way, see a short cut by robbing a bank, stealing a mailbag or even attacking an old woman in a sweatshop? These crimes have become almost a routine of life in a bandit age and honest work seems to be a mug's game.
  We talk about schools and youth services and they can help, but we need a co-ordinated effort. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has decided to have an inquiry into television. As an ex-teacher I say that the influence of the school is nothing like as great as the influence of the home, and it is in the home that most can be done to help these young people. There is not so much conscious neglect by parents, though there might be some, but many parents do not seem to understand their children. The gulf between the adult world and young children today is probably greater than it has ever been.
  These are great questions and the Home Secretary has many responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman spoke
  680
  about the liberty of the individual. I am reminded that Dr. Johnson once said:
  "The danger of unbounded liberty and the danger of bounding it have produced a problem in the science of government which human understanding seems hitherto unable to solve."
  It is on the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders that these great responsibilities rest, but it is on the shoulders of everybody, not only in the House of Commons but in the country, that the responsibility rests to set such an example to our young children that we may see in the not too distant future some of the solutions to the difficulties which we face today.
  5.15 p.m.
  Sir Robert Cary: I should like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) on the splendid recovery she has made from so severe an illness, and to say on behalf of all of us what a pleasure it was for us to hear her address the Committee with her usual fluency, buoyancy and effectiveness. May that long continue and may that illness never return to impair her life again. I should also like to wish my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary good fortune on the important journey which he is undertaking to another continent. It concerns other matters but I am sure that, irrespective of opinions on the subject which may be held by hon. Members, all of us would wish a successful outcome to that special journey.
  As I listened to my right hon. Friend giving his review in opening the debate I was reminded of the enormous number of social duties which now fall to the Home Secretary. I recall a distinguished predcessor of my right hon. Friend, the late Lord Simon, telling me many years ago that the duty of a Home Secretary was to keep all secondary matters in his Department at secondary level and never to allow one to become a major embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government. It would seem that almost all the problems of the Home Office today have become major matters and sometimes matters of the greatest embarrassment.
  The most happy and satisfying note struck by my right hon. Friend was his account of the wonderful outcome of his successful campaign to improve recruitment to the police force. It seems to me that no society becomes possible as

  681
  a workable society unless it has an efficient, well-maintained and well remunerated police force. On a smaller matter I was also delighted to hear that within a few months' time, the new women's prison at Styal in Cheshire will be open. I hope that as a result of the transfer of prisoners from Holloway to a new women's prison in Essex and the transfer of the women's section of the great prison in Strangeways to the new Styal Prison there will be increased accommodation for male prisoners which will relieve the present intolerable burden of having two or three prisoners living in a cell designed for one.
  If the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East will forgive my saying so, she touched upon a matter at the beginning of her speech concerning Hanratty with which I did not altogether agree. I agree with her that special cases of that kind leave a slight uneasiness in the mind. The jury were out for a long time but it is not for any hon. Member to comment on the delicacies of a case like that and I thought that the hon. Lady said that "perhaps" Hanratty did commit the crime. There is a slight unease in my mind that sometimes British justice, wonderful though it be, could be wrong. I follow closely some of these cases and I never escape from a slight unease when the verdict of "Guilty" takes the logical course and, under the Prerogative, the Home Secretary in his wisdom allows justice to be done and the penalty to be fulfilled.
  I have intervened in the debate chiefly to dwell upon one question—that of civil defence, Vote 3—with which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will deal quite substantially at the end of this debate. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East will forgive me if I do not follow her into some of the very interesting matters she raised, except to say that I agree with her about young children being taken away from home and placed in institutions, sometimes far away. In many cases, it would be much better to leave the child in the home.
  On Vote 3 I wish to raise a few matters, and I do so for three reasons. First, as hon. Members of the Committee may appreciate, I have the privilege of representing one of the largest cities
  682
  in our country, containing a population of nearly I million, and within thirty miles of that city there is a population almost bigger than that centred on London itself. When I think of the snail's pace of the disarmament conference going on at Geneva, and the sounding board into which it is converted by the Russians; when I think also of the fundamentally important decision taken by President Kennedy on Thursday overturning the Eisenhower doctrine that the distribution of small atomic weapons might limit or contain a war within a small circumference; and remembering, as the President pointed out, the enormous danger contained in that policy of limited atomic weapons—when I think of these things, I feel that it is not a less dangerous world in which we live, but, perhaps, a slightly more dangerous world.
  For that reason, for some months now I have been exercised in my mind as to the state of our civil defences, which, for the first time, must now be treated on a far more realistic basis than they have been treated in recent years. Apart from the realistic aspect of civil defence, hon. Members may be unaware of the commitments into which we have entered under this Vote. I gather from the Defence White Paper that expenditure in the present year is £18 million, and that for next year, according to the same White Paper, it is to be £19 million. This is the plan for the next ten years—an expenditure of roughly £20 million a year, to which we have committed ourselves in civil defence. An expenditure of no less than £200 million, in spite of inflation and in spite of the many economic difficulties, is not unimportant. There are many Departments of State which I am sure would like to imprison for the next ten years a sum as substantial as £200 million, given out at the rate of £20 million a year. Therefore, I was delighted to hear what the Home Secretary said at the end of his remarks about his visit to the Civil Defence College and the good work that is being done there.
  When we analyse this service, and it is not altogether centred in the Civil Defence Corps, because it comes under the general heading of civil defence services, we find that the first line in our home defence preparations is the warning

  683
  and monitoring organisation manned by the Royal Observer Corps, which has reached a most advanced stage of preparedness. Behind that first line exist the Civil Defence Corps, the Auxiliary Fire Service, the National Hospital Service Reserve, the Special Constabulary and the Industrial Civil Defence Service.
  The important point about these organisations and the structures behind the alerting group of the Royal Observer Corps is that they are highly geared and at an advanced stage of preparedness. Naturally, in all this activity, the Home Office touches directly the work of the regular police. I have had occasion to go rather deeply into the question of these services in the city which I am privileged to represent, and splendid work is being done. I think the hinge on which most of this work turns is the wardens' service, and it is in the recruitment of wardens that the Civil Defence Corps will succeed or fail.
  At the moment, Manchester has an establishment of 1,703 wardens, and an effective strength of 690. Senior appointments, such as those of chief warden, deputy chief warden and assistant chief warden and the section posts staff have already been made. There are twelve volunteer part-time instructors and about 550 wardens who are regularly trained, but, unfortunately, in all that work, recruiting is extremely slow. The vital necessity in the Civil Defence Corps is this recruitment of wardens.
  But that is not the end of the efforts being made, because the Chief Constable is head of the wardens section and works most closely with the head of the Civil Defence Corps. All the police in the city, and this would apply to any other of our large cities, are trained in warden's section duties. For example, last year 144 constables were trained in standard rescue work, 156 were trained in organisation control and tactics, and 31 inspectors had a course of advanced training, some of them at the Civil Defence College named by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. This year, all 70 inspectors of the force will have been trained at advanced level, and the advanced training of 200 sergeants will begin. There are no fewer than 17
  684
  instructors in civil defence in the regular police force.
  It seems to me to be quite obvious that the regular police are a vital part in the whole plan of civil defence. At the beginning of my speech, I expressed satisfaction on hearing the Home Secretary say what he did about the success of his recruitment campaign for the police. Apart from their duties in the event of an emergency, there would be an appalling new scale of duties which would fall to the regular police forces of our country. The special constabulary are already embroiled in the present civil defence scheme. Therefore, I am exercised in my mind whether the present pattern of civil defence and the spending of this vast sum of £200 million over the next ten years is rightly conceived at the moment. There are other methods of promoting enthusiasm, but in a great city like Manchester to attempt to promote enthusiasm for civil defence is almost attempting the impossible. One hears all the old platitudes about peace and the hope that good sense will prevail in international affairs, but seventeen Foreign Ministers sitting in Geneva at the moment do not seem to be making much progress.
  When I listened to the broadcast from Washington on Thursday last after President Kennedy's Press conference, on the danger even of accidental war in the world today, I felt, and I beg my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to realise this, that a special duty rests upon the Government to concentrate their minds upon making civil defence, on which they are spending this amount of money, an effective instrument in our defence plan. In some respects civil defence is as important as the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army. It is an effective part of our conventional forces.
  I wonder whether the Minister of State would consider this matter from a different angle. I wonder whether he would ask the regimental associations of the Territorial Army to assist in providing some task for the Territorial battalions, and some of the "shadow" battalions, in civil defence. If such work is already undertaken perhaps it might be extended. The great gatherings which attend regimental reunions reveal that hundreds, perhaps thousands of

  685
  middle aged men would be prepared to give service to their country in a voluntarily capacity. Perhaps some interest could be stimulated through the agency of the Army.
  In the First World War the Manchester Regiment raised no fewer than forty-four service battalions, providing five divisions of infantry to take part in the slaughterhouses that were the battles of the Somme. The contribution in the last war was just as great and the efforts of other cities such, as that represented by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East, were no less. I think that an appeal to some of the institutions to which these older men belong might yield useful results and bring the Secretary of State for War into closer co-operation with those in charge of civil defence.
  Perhaps it is inevitable, perhaps it cannot be avoided, but as an old Member of this House who was here in prewar days I have been through all these stages before. I remember the preparations. The Home Secretary talked about evacuation, although there would hardly be time for that. I took part in one small plan which made possible the evacuation work in the last war and when I think back about it I realise how efficient the arrangements were. They were extraordinarily well carried out. On 3rd September, 1939, there were no fewer than 200,000 hospital beds vacant and ready to receive the casualties which we anticipated would need them in the first few weeks. Then the Government were extremely competent in discharging the obvious social obligation which rested on them. Of course we had had a year of warning following the Munich operation. That was fortuitous. But when the inevitable did occur, it was as well that the plans worked smoothly, although we did not then know that we were in for nine months of what was called the "phoney war".
  Tests have started again with the Americans, to be followed by the Russian tests, to be followed by what—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: By more tests.
  Sir R. Cary:—and ending where? Perhaps that is best left to the imagination. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister
  686
  of State, let us make all aspects of our defence effort equally effective.
  5.35 p.m.
  Sir George Benson: I think that we are entitled to be proud of our system of justice of which the Home Office is the custodian. We are entitled to be proud of the care taken to protect the rights of an accused person and to ensure that there is fair trial. It is true that, on occasions, miscarriages of justice have occurred, but every hon. Member would agree that they are extremely rare. The finding of guilt is one thing, but the real problem is the sentencing policy of the courts. I am not sure whether it is the right one.
  When we examine the activities of our courts we find that there is something more like chaos than a policy. Within the maximum sentence fixed by law the courts have an opportunity to vary the sentences imposed and each court would seem to be a law unto itself. A very interesting document, known as the Supplementary Criminal Statistics, is published each year. It is a duplicated sheet which contains a great deal more detailed information about the activities of our courts than is to be found in the ordinary criminal statistics.
  One particularly interesting table gives the sentencing policy of magistrates' courts. It is interesting, but it is also extremely disturbing. It has been said that all men are equal before the law, but the administration of the law is by no means equal to all men. The latest figures, those for 1960, show that the average magistrates' court sends 18 per cent. of its adult male indictables to prison, Bournemouth, Brighton and East-bourne sent 29 per cent., Peterborough sent 34 per cent., and Rotherham sent 35 per cent., so the probability of getting into prison did not depend on the type of crime, but upon the court before which the offender appeared.
  On the other end of the sentencing scale we find, as compared with 35 per cent. of imprisonments of adult male indictable at Rotherham, that Nottingham sent 14 per cent., Hereford sent 10 per cent., Carmarthen sent 12 per cent., Bootle sent 6 per cent., and Mid-Wales only 4 per cent. We get a fantastic variation in the sentencing policy of the

  687
  courts and I regard that as an extremely serious matter. The national average for all the magistrates' courts is 18 per cent. of the adult indictables sent to prison, but it varies from 35 per cent. in Rotherham to 4 per cent. in Mid-Wales.
  In the juvenile courts we find that the spread of the sentencing policy is even more fantastic. Merioneth Juvenile Court put 79 per cent. on probation, whereas Swansea put 14·8 per cent. on probation. Merioneth puts on probation five times as many as Swansea. Cambridge sends 27 per cent. to approved schools and Wigan sends 3·8 per cent. Cambridge uses approved schools eight times as frequently as Wigan.
  Other statistics are: absolute discharge, Cambridge 1 per cent.; Carmarthen 48·9 per cent.; Carmarthen uses absolute discharge forty-nine times as frequently as Cambridge. Conditional discharge, Exeter 0·4 per cent; Southampton, 28·5 per cent. Southampton uses conditional discharge seventy-one times as frequently as Exeter. Fines, Lincoln ·04 per cent.; Rotherham 15·4 per cent. Rotherham uses fines three hundred and eighty times as frequently as Lincoln.
  This is fantastic. What is the use of that beautiful phrase, "All men are equal before the law"? It is perfectly true that the Home Secretary cannot dictate this policy. But I suggest, in view of this extraordinary variation in sentencing policy, that there should be some means of educating courts. Magistrates courts' sentences are short compared with sentences in senior courts. Persons sent to prison by magistrates can be a very small proportion compared with those sent by the higher courts. Nevertheless, there is no question that overcrowding in the prisons today is due far more to the very sharp increases in the length of sentences which has taken place since the war than to the number of sentences.
  There is a very current belief that severe sentences are more effective as deterrents than milder sentences. That belief cannot be substantiated by any facts I know. Conditional discharge has exactly the same result as imprisonment for first offenders, and fining and binding over are the same. There is a mass of evidence to show that for first
  688
  offenders mild methods are just as effective as severe methods.
  We have to realise our profound ignorance on the whole question of sentencing and its results. We have a very effective research unit in the Home Office. It grew from very small proportions. I think that I can claim a certain amount of credit, because its origin was as the result of a memorandum which I sent to the Home Secretary pointing out that borstal records were magnificent material for research. From that time the research unit has grown to a staff of nearly 20 and it is one of the most important and valuable pieces of machinery in the Home Office.
  Our main trouble in the handling of delinquency is the fact that we know so little about it. Tradition, habit and custom and drawing deductions from premises which are extremely doubtful have made penal treatment haphazard. It requires to be put on a sound and a really just basis. It requires behind it an immensely greater amount of detailed knowledge than we have at present.
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: It is difficult to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) in discussion of criminal matters, for I have reason to know that he probably has forgotten more about some aspects of penal reform, particularly those related to statistical matters and research, than some of us will ever know. I always feel anxious about his pessimism in regard to research. I know that he does not intend to convey the feeling that research will not bring us closer to the truth, but I share his feeling that research hitherto has been wholly inadequate.
  We are indebted to the Opposition for this rare opportunity to have a look in all the Home Office cupboards—perhaps "down the corridors" would be a happier phrase—although before the end of the debate the Minister of State will have a long and mixed list of detailed subjects to which to reply. The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) referred to at least four subjects, none of which is on my list, but I wish to refer to what she said.
  One thing that the hon. Lady said should be stressed. That is the handicap

  689
  imposed on the programme of penal reform by senseless opposition to new institutions in various parts of the country. I am aware of the delay which can occur when a spoke is put in the wheel, described by the Home Secretary. Six months, and in many cases twice that time, is spent in argument between local authorities about whether an institution should go on one side or the other of a boundary. I am entirely with the hon. Lady in what she said on that subject.
  I want to deal primarily with two matters, but I wish first to touch briefly on one on which I hope the Minister of State will have something to say. For some months the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been conducting a campaign on the subject of vivisection and the administration of the Act of 1876. The concern of many people for animals is widely enough known to hon. Members. Even if it is not fully shared, it deserves a great deal of sympathy.
  It is inevitable that there should be concern over this subject, quite apart from the campaign by the R.S.P.C.A. It is a mistake to attribute all the concern to the campaign, which is not accurate in all its details. This research work, unfortunately, cannot be given a public window. What is not seen, of course, is suspect. The nature and volume of the work, I suppose, must have changed a great deal since 1876, and there is at least a prima facie case for uneasiness.
  Of course, the claim of medical research in this respect is not to be denied, and I say in justice to those conducting the campaign that it is not denied. But, without accepting all their allegations, I feel that there is anxiety, and there are hon. Members of the Committee who probably have been made aware of this. There is a degree of public interest outside members of the R.S.P.C.A. which should be taken seriously. If the Act is satisfactory and the administration is irreproachable, which I am inclined to believe, there is a very good reason for making this clear.
  As one who puts all human claims above any claim which may be advanced on behalf of an animal, I say that I should 1),:, sorry to see a violent antivivisection campaign get under way, which would make this important work
  690
  more difficult. I can see no objection to a simple inquiry, preferably by one individual whose name commanded respect here and among those concerned in this matter, possibly—and I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) for this suggestion—someone like a High Court judge, because this is a technical subject which needs the attention of someone with an ability to master the technical facts involved quickly.
  I urge on my hon. and learned Friend that an inquiry of this sort, carried out quickly by one man, could do no harm. It might allay disquiet, and in the long run it would assist the Home Office and those associated with this difficult and vital work.
  I turn to one of the principal matters on which I should like to speak. Inevitably, the subject of the police in relation to law and order is somewhat overshadowed by the forthcoming report of the Royal Commission on the Police, although I give first importance to the figures which the Home Secretary was able to announce which, we may say, flow directly from the first and interim Report of the Royal Commission. Steps were taken on the basis of that Report which have led to this remarkable and heartening increase in police recruiting figures.
  It is inevitable that during the last year much of the discussion, certainly the discussion in the House of Commons in which many of us have taken part, has centred round matters like penalties, the powers of the courts to punish and the nature of punishment, rather than other aspects. These matters occupied the House of Commons and the Committee considering the Criminal Justice Bill last year.
  I should be the last person to question the great importance of this work which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put in hand or the difficulties which have confronted him. Some hon. Members are aware of the leeway which has to be made up. Perhaps not all are aware of the particular difficulty which arises and which I encounter in many places, namely, the number of people who falsely associate the rising line in crime on the graph, which all countries in the West, certainly all industrialised countries, have experienced, with the policies which my right hon.

  691
  Friend has tried to pursue on penal reform. That is muddled thinking with a vengeance. We are not without people in this country who associate the two things and for that reason express themselves as adverse to what my right hon. Friend is trying to do.
  Sufficient stress is not laid on the fact that in the reformation of the criminal ultimately lies the greatest safeguard for society, which is what society is most concerned about. In other words, what my right hon. Friend is pursuing is not soft treatment of the criminal, but ultimately the safest course for the society to which, sooner or later, the criminal must return.
  I acknowledge what the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East said in giving credit to my right hon. Friend for pursuing certain aspects of his policy against a fair measure of public opinion. I only hope that we shall keep abreast of what happens in the new institutions and with what flows from the new policy embodied in the Criminal Justice Act by not only research, on which the Home Secretary had some satisfactory things to say, but by keeping the keenest ear cocked to what magistrates, those in charge of the detention centres, and those who belong to the sadly inflated profession which is designed to remedy parental failure, have to say about the development of the new policies which have been put into effect.
  I have no doubt that much of this policy will be successful, but some of it will be less successful than we hoped when the Criminal Justice Bill was being considered. The earlier we can get information about what is succeeding and what is failing—this is in line with what the hon. Member for Chesterfield was saying—the better. It is far better to cut a loss and change the policy than to pursue a line which takes us down a blind alley. I think particularly of the reformation of the young criminal.
  The main point that I wish to make, however, is this. A view which I have held for some time is that possibly the biggest single factor in reducing crime is not the form of detention, but the effectiveness of detection. This has been recognised by a number of expert bodies, not least the Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders, and it has been
  692
  stressed by Mr. Leon Radzinowicz, Director of the Institute of Criminology in Cambridge. I sometimes wonder whether it is sufficiently recognised by those who have to foot the bill for the police.
  The figures, by which I set some store, are most disturbing. The percentage of offences cleared up for the whole country has been falling steadily, certainly since before the war. In 1938, for the whole country, it was about 50 per cent. For the last recorded year, 1960, it was 44·4 per cent. I do not wish to exaggerate, but that represents a steady decline. In the Metropolitan area, for obvious reasons—this is no reflection on the Metropolitan Police—the figures are much more alarming. In London, in 1958, 27·5 per cent. of reported crime was cleared up. In 1960, the last year for which the Commissioner reported, it was 25·1 per cent.
  There are reasons for this, but it entitles Professor Radzinowicz to say, as he has said:
  "We cannot resign ourselves to a situation in which, for example, seven out of ten robbers remain undetected and, therefore, unpunished, thus conveying the impression, which is highly contagious, that the risk involved in criminal behaviour can be for all practical purposes ignored."
  The professor went on to point out that the number of robberies in private premises in London not cleared up in 1960 was nearly twice as high as the total for all such offences in 1950, adding—and these are the telling words—
  "Impunity on such a scale becomes in itself a cause of the increase in crime."
  I have no doubt that the Royal Commission on the Police has taken full note of all this. Indeed, it must have been one of the principal matters with which it was concerned and on which it based its recommendations.
  There are still too many people who see a note of irony in the fact that, in times of relative prosperity, we appear to need more, not fewer, policemen. Some people still regard this as a paradox which it is difficult to accept. It may be ironic, but it is no mystery. Some light was thrown on this subject in a remarkable book written by Professor Galbraith called "The Affluent Society". He made this simple point, that the more property there is about, the more protection is needed for it. In more prosperous

  693
  times we require more policemen to protect property than in less prosperous times. I hope that hon. Members will not regard this as unduly cynical. I regard it as very near the mark.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Sec-rotary referred more than once in terms of pain, regret and surprise to what he described as this paradox—a rise in crime in a nation enjoying relative prosperity. I do not regard it as a paradox. It is, alas, a logical state of affairs and it is as well to recognise it. Society today may be affluent, but much of it is also very predatory, and until we are ready to enter into the next phase I am inclined to think that the need for more policemen and better policemen—by "better policemen" I mean better-equipped policemen—will remain with us.
  I cannot believe that the Royal Commission will find otherwise. It is important, in view of the crime figures, that the House and the country should recognise this fact because, in my view, we shall face here mounting costs. The job of re-equipping the police force to meet this new challenge will not be done cheaply. If the figures my right hon. Friend gave this afternoon are worked out in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, they will mean quite a lot to some of the joint authorities which administer our police forces.
  The country has always to make up its mind not only whether it is willing to meet the cost, but how it is to meet it. It should be stressed—I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will acknowledge this—that there will be no protection from this wave of crime without paying for it. It is vain to shout at my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as many do, for heavier and stiffer penalties, which the courts already have power to impose. Detection as well as detention will have to play its part and those who call for stiffer sentences will have to pay for sharper detection.
  I hope that the Royal Commission will recognise the rôle that the police have played and still play, but in a diminishing way because of their hitherto diminishing numbers, in what I call preventive work, particularly among the young. Speaking as one who represents rural areas, I can tell
  694
  the Committee how much one depends upon what some would regard as the old-fashioned work, the preventive work, of the rural constable, who knew his families and their problems and knew where to look for them. He knew when to put in a word at the right moment. More of that would have saved a great many of these young people in the institutions. There is in this sense no substitute for the village constable or, in urban areas, for the "bobby" on the street.
  I note with increasing regret the schism between the law-abiding citizen and the police, who were formerly an alliance against crime. This schism has been brought about by the advent of the motor car. For psychological reasons which we all appreciate, those who possess motor cars no longer feel quite at one with all policemen as they did thirty or forty years ago. The bond between the majority and the police must be restored. This is one of the great elements in breaking the crime wave. I do not despair of the constable once again becoming the friend of the family, which is traditionally what he always has been in this country. This could make a great contribution to solving the problem of juvenile delinquency.
  I want to touch, finally, on a difficult subject which comes to the Home Office from many directions. This relates partly to the remarks with which the Home Secretary concluded his speech. I refer to the capacity of the Home Office to deal with what I would broadly call objectionable matters conveyed through books, films, television, posters, advertising, films, and so on. This is the thorniest subject, but I do not think that that should discourage one from tackling it. My own instincts are extremely liberal on all this. I think that a healthy nation should be able to tolerate a great deal of vulgarity. Indeed, one might say that a degree of vulgarity is essential to the health of the nation. That is probably true.
  I dislike censorship in principle. I should like to see it diminished in every possible field. But a robust attitude over this cannot blink away the fact that there is a good deal of nasty stuff being purveyed today for reasons of pure commercialism, though it is often

  695
  wrapped up in a much more specious guise.
  What troubles me is this. I hope that the Committee will share this view with me. I think that we are moving—a very good thing, too—towards a much more liberal attitude in all these matters—towards censorship, towards restriction, and so on. This is a matter for rejoicing. At the same time, a minority perceive in this greater degree of tolerance an opportunity to exploit and cash in on it. I shall not advertise books or films or anything else by naming examples, but no hon. Member has to go far to find examples of what I have in mind. There is, for example, the cult of the highly disagreeable play, a play designed not only to titillate with vulgarity, which is harmless and often most enjoyable, but to shock and to satisfy the baser and the basest instincts.
  The danger is not that this sort of thing will corrupt public morals. I regard that as most improbable. All the evidence that I can find on the subject is that this debased stuff, certainly in relation to television, touches only the most impressionable and weakest among us and that the majority of people, even young people, dismiss with impunity the crudest scenes containing the greatest violence.
  The danger is that, unless checked, this sort of thing will provoke an agitation against my right hon. Friend and the Home Office for more restriction, more censorship, and more control. That is the peril in some of this stuff which is now being purveyed. These people—I do not suggest that they are numerous, but there are enough of them to be troublesome—are the enemies of the cause which they speciously seek to advertise. This should be recognised.
  An examination of the arrangements which lie somewhat loosely along the Home Office corridors shows that we are not very well equipped or covered against this contingency. Our arrangements are miscellaneous. For plays, there is the Lord Chamberlain. For books, we have an Act of Parliament, which we have all seen in action. For films, we have the British Board of Censors. I at once pay tribute to the work which Lord Morrison and Mr. Trevelyan do. I say, in parenthesis,
  696
  however, that the Board does not appear to have any control over the advertising of films. I know that complaints about the nature of advertisements have been brought to the door of the Home Office. For the Press, we have the Press Council. In respect of television, we have arrangements with which we are all painfully familiar.
  I do not object to this diverse approach. There is no particular safety or virtue in uniformity. But I question whether, taking them all together, they are meeting the need, because here the Home Office, quite falsely, is regarded by many people, I think most people, as having political, if not moral, responsibility. It would be interesting to know how many deputations, letters and exhibits—I am not asking my hon. and learned Friend to tell us—the Home Office has received during the last year or two on this subject. In my day at the Home Office horror comics were coming in in very large numbers. I dare say that they have had their successors.
  The Home Office powers, short of the worst abuses, which can be referred to the police and dealt with under the law, are negligible. The Home Office powers to ordain moral standards do not exist, and I devoutly hope that this will so remain, because the last thing we want is a Government Department which seeks to establish moral standards or which in any way tries to deal with moral standards through the law.
  What is tiresome is that there should be general misunderstanding about what the Home Office sphere of responsibility is and how much it can do. In reality, it has a great deal of responsibility, without corresponding power. Failure to exercise this responsibility is widely regarded—for instance, by constituents who bring me books and posters—as neglect, contempt by the Home Secretary and the Government for contemporary standards. This might apply to any Government.
  This is a subject on which, taken broadly, the Home Office would be well advised to clear, if not its own mind, at least that of the public. It is sure to arise most sharply when we discuss the Pilkington report. We do not know what recommendations that report will contain, but standards will be discussed, and any deficiencies will be laid at the door of the Home Office.

  697
  There should be a much clearer definition of principles than either we or the public now have. Given that, it would be easier to impress on all concerned their fundamental obligation to put their house in order. I regard this as a job for those who are concerned with the particular industries, and it is important that that should be made clear. What is damaging is an appearance of Home Office non possumus which nervous silence, punctuated by equivocal statements made to deputations, is apt to give—the impression that the Home Office is not willing to act. I find that to be a matter of no small concern to quite a lot of people, and not just people in the Church of England. People are very swift to judge the Government by the moral tone prevailing.
  Possibly the best way of regulating all this is through the industries themselves, but for this to be achieved it must be made clear where the obligations lie, and those industries must be encouraged to get on with it. If industries can stop price cutting by firms, as they do, it should not be impossible for publishers to prevent other publishers from selling either dirty books or books with objectionable covers. What we need here is not more censorship, but some of the relish shown in catching odd men out in price resale maintenance displayed in keeping out objectionable matter from the industry concerned.
  These are random thoughts, and I apologise to the Committee for taking up its time with them, but I suggest that the subject merits reflection; and that there would be benefit to be had from a considered statement on an appropriate occasion by the Home Secretary, redefining where the responsibility of the Home Office, the industries, and this House should lie.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Royle: Sir Robert, some of us who try to catch your eye during Home Office debates will be getting to know each other soon. It does not seem very long since I followed the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in one of these debates, and it is a great temptation to seek to follow the lines he has taken, particularly in the latter part of his speech. He referred to an absorbing subject, and roused a
  698
  great deal of interest among hon. Members. I shall read his speech with very great interest. I should have liked very much to follow him and to have gone through the whole gamut of Home Office work, but I made up my mind to resist all temptation to do that, and to concentrate on only one subject.
  The subject about which I want to talk was touched on by the Home Secretary himself, and very lightly by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon)—the Departmental Committee's Report on the Probation Service. I feel very strongly on this matter, and if I devote what time I have at my disposal to it alone I hope that the Committee will forgive me. I regard this section as a blot on the work of the Home Office and of the Home Secretary.
  Before the appointment of the Departmental Committee whose Report is now before us, the last similar inquiry was held as long ago as 1936 and, if I may say so, the present inquiry was only set on foot after great pressure by some of us on this side of the Committee, }with the help of some hon. Members opposite. It was only after that pressure had been applied that the Home Secretary agreed to set up another inquiry into the activities of the probation service. The Committee has for three years been considering what could be done about the service, and what the current situation is.
  I would remind the Committee that since 1936, many duties have been put on the probation officers, and I should like to enumerate a few of them. In addition to what we regard as normal probation work—looking after probationers—the probation officers now have to supervise orders under the Children and Young Persons Acts; they have money payment supervision; after-care; guardianship ad litem; inquiries on behalf of the divorce courts about children; guardianship of infants; matrimonial reconciliation work; what arises from two Criminal Justice Acts; liaison with approved schools; liaison with the higher courts—and loads of voluntary work. All that is done for miserable salaries, and the officers sometimes work in appalling accommodation.
  This Report makes many recommendations—they run to 157 paragraphs—and I fully appreciate that a great deal of work will be necessary at the Home

  699
  Office in giving full consideration to it. I hope that in due course, through legislation, some of the recommendations will be put into operation.
  As I say, the Committee sat for three years, and it reported five months ago. During those five months, some of us have asked Questions about what was transpiring on the important matter of probation officers' salaries. This side of the Report should be tackled at once. The Departmental Committee's suggestions on this topic are contained in paragraphs 153 to 157 inclusive, and I shall not weary hon. Members by reading them, as they can be easily turned up. They are very strong statements.
  Before I deal with salaries, I should like to say a word or two about training and recruitment. The expansion of the service has never kept pace with its work. It has been compelled to recruit a very large proportion of untrained people. In Salford, there is the utmost difficulty in filling vacancies for probation officers. Very often the difficulty arises because, unfortunately, Salford is not one of the most salubrious places, and we find that many of those appointed move on fairly quickly to more salubrious areas. As a result, the compulsion all the time is to engage untrained officers. Training after appointment is not an adequate alternative to full training beforehand. The real need now is for a drive in recruitment and in training.
  That brings me to my main point—salaries. I suggest to the Minister that without an adjustment in salaries, any talk of greater recruitment is a complete farce. If that is not so, can we be told what suggestions the Home Office has to get more probation officers to fill the great need? I suggest that an immediate consideration of their salary position is the only way to improve recruitment and I assert that the treatment meted out to them in recent years has been abominable.
  Their basic salaries do not take into account the added duties placed on them. They have just had a cost of living increase and have received one rise since the Morison Committee started its deliberations. They have not put in for further increases because, for a long time, they have been told about the
  700
  report that is to be presented. The Home Secretary has constantly said, "We are awaiting the report", but in the midst of it all came the latest wage squeeze, followed by the second phase, under which increases of 2½ per cent. may be permitted.
  A probation officer aged 22 gets a starting salary of £625 a year rising to a maximum of £1,025 after thirteen years. A senior officer starts at £1,075 and reaches his maximum of £1,195 after some years. Does anyone doubt the importance of the work they do? It is ridiculous that the negotiating machinery is at present made up of three members of the Central Council of Probation Committees, four representatives of the County Councils' Association, four representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations, two officials of the Home Office and twelve members of the probation officers' staff side.
  The decisions reached by that National Joint Negotiating Committee are, in effect, prescribed by the Secretary of State. They are fixed by Statutory Instrument and while the Home Secretary always says—and will, no doubt, continue to say—that he is guided by its recommendations, I wonder whether that is always so? There was a wage squeeze in 1957 and, at that time, its recommendations were turned down. The Negotiating Committee then suggested that probation officers should get more money and they now find themselves in the same position.
  Paragraph 347 of the Morison Report states:
  "Our concern has been only with whether the control of probation service salaries is justified in the necessarily unique circumstances of that service. We should not wish to be taken as expressing a general view on ministerial prescription of salaries in fields where ministers are not employers or are not the sole employers. We are satisfied that ministerial prescription of probation officers' salaries now serves no sufficient purpose and we recommend that, in future, the salaries should be freely determined by negotiation. In reaching this conclusion we have examined both the contribution of the existing control to the efficiency of the service and its value as a protection of the central authorities' interests."
  That is what I feel about the present negotiating machinery. Only if radical changes take place in it will probation officers get a fair crack of the whip. I want a complete reappraisal of the

  701
  Morison Report and it would be fitting if more justices of the peace and fewer representatives of the paying authorities were involved. That would be fair because magistrates are constantly in touch with probation officers and are fully aware of the work they do.
  To bring hon. Members up to date on the salary position, I urge them to remember that the Departmental Committee was set up by the Home Secretary. It sat for three years, presented its Report last December, and recommended a 30 per cent. immediate average salary increase. What was the result? Questions were asked and the Home Secretary referred the matter to the Negotiating Committee. The case for the increase was expressed throughout the Report and that it should be immediate and retrospective. However, it was merely referred to the Negotiating Committee with almost an instruction that, under no circumstances, should that Committee depart from the needs of the present economic situation and the salary freeze imposed by the Government in other respects.
  Why did this not happen to the police? I realise that their case arose at a time when a wage freeze was not in operation, and also that the hon. Member for Ashford referred to the necessity for the prevention rather than for the treatment of crime. I agree with him in that and also that the police should have had their increase. However, when the Royal Commission was set up to consider police pay, it was asked by the Secretary of State to make an interim report on wages, and the very substantial increases which were then recommended were put into operation almost immediately.
  Would anyone suggest that probation officers are not, in different ways, rendering equal service to the community regarding justice and the administration of the law? That there is a wage squeeze I accept and I also agree that the matter was referred to the Negotiating Committee. I also realise that, under the second phase, 2½ per cent. increases are to be allowed—overshadowed by Her Majesty's Government's policy of income restraint.
  As I say, the Negotiating Committee received that intimation. They met last Monday and presented their answer.
  702
  They suggested that there should be an immediate 10 per cent. increase without any reference Whatever to the Report of the Departmental Committee. What does the Home Office feel about this situation? I hope that we shall get more information later than we got from the Home Secretary.
  I do not wish to go at great length into the various reports and the countless words that have been written on this subject. Realising that other hon. Members wish to speak, I do not desire to occupy undue time on this one subject, but I have with me a copy of a letter which the Negotiating Committee sent to the Home Secretary. These are its recommendations:
  "(1) that consideration of the proposals of the Departmental Committee be postponed on the understanding that the case of probation officers will be treated as a special case at 'the head of the queue' at the beginning of 1963".
  There will be a great many people at the head of that queue in 1963.
  The letter goes on:
  "(2) that an interim increase of 10 per cent. be made on existing rates of salary for all members of the service, to take effect on and from 1st April, 1962;
  (3) that the foregoing recommendations are made without prejudice to the positions which may ultimately be taken by both Sides of the Committee in relation to the Report and Recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
  "In thus recommending an increase in pay which goes beyond what the Government have suggested as appropriate in this phase of their incomes policy, the Joint Committee wish to draw attention to—

  (a) the very long period (over three years) which has elapsed since the Departmental Committee were first appointed, with pay as a major feature of the terms of reference;

  (b) the period of over five months since the Departmental Committee were able to reach their conclusions and sign their Report;

  (c) the restraint exercised by the Staff Side on pay matters during the last three years (and particularly during the last year and a half) when early publication of the Report was confidently expected;

  (d) the very special case of the service for special treatment."

  It has been my purpose—I hope that I have not entirely failed—to make as fervent a plea as I possibly can for this service. They are not dockers, miners or policemen. There will be no great economic crisis in this country if the probation officers come out on strike,

  703
  and, apparently, nobody will be worried. They are men and women in a calling, devoting their lives to a great social work of vast importance. They have never put salaries first. If we ignore their claim at this time, we shall be cashing in on their devotion to duty.
  Every magistrate knows the value of the probation service. When we face our great difficulties on the bench and we ask ourselves what we can do with someone before us, we "pass the buck" and suggest that the probation officer should talk to him or her. The probation officer's report comes back in due course and assists us in our decisions.
  I apologise for having spent so much time on this matter. I should not have done so if I had not felt very deeply about the subject. My appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that he should convey to his right hon. Friend the urgency of the matter and agree, at least as a first step, to the recommendation of the Negotiating Committee that an immediate 10 per cent. rise in salary should be given, and that the full recommendations of the Departmental Committee should be put into operation early next year. I wish that it could be sooner. I know that that is impossible, but, for goodness' sake, let us give them the 10 per cent. and show that, at least, the work they do is being appreciated.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: I make no apology for returning to the subject touched on by my hon. Friend for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), because it is one which is causing a good deal of anxiety among a great many people today. I refer to the laboratories for experiments on animals which are under the supervision and inspection of the Home Office in accordance with the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. I suggest that it might be reasonable to look in closer detail at that Act, which was passed so long ago.
  I say at once that I am not against these laboratories. I feel that everyone should realise the tremendous contribution which they have made to the advance of medicine. Nevertheless, I have some suggestions to make which
  704
  would, I feel, help to allay the public anxiety which has been due both to the R.S.P.C.A. circular and to some articles written in local papers, not, perhaps, always as accurate as they might be.
  I have had a certain amount of firsthand experience of these laboratories. In the 1930s, when I was chairman of the management committee of the 75 London hospitals, I made it my business to go round all our laboratories as a matter of course. Eighteen months ago, I had quite a number of letters from constituents about this matter and I felt that I should like to bring my knowledge up to date and see a laboratory at this time. To my surprise, I found a great deal of resistance when I applied for permission to go and see one. However, being an extremely persistent person, I eventually got my application accepted, and I visited one of the extremely good laboratories in London.
  I am quite certain from what I have seen, and the inquiries I have made, that the animals are kept in extremely good condition with, perhaps, a reservation in regard to monkeys. It is very difficult to keep these sensitive animals in surroundings which are congenial to them. However, I think that it must be accepted that, if animals were not in a good condition, they would not be suitable for the purpose for which they are kept.
  I am sure that there would be less anxiety if there were not so much secrecy surrounding the laboratories. It is not that there is anything to hide, but I think that there is a tendency on the part of the medical profession to surround itself with a certain amount of mystery. I hate to think that this is handed down from the witch-doctor! Nowadays, with all the television sessions, which we have on medical matters, and so forth, I feel that, if our admirable doctors were a little more forthright they would gain yet further in public esteem and a lot of uneasiness would disappear. So long as these laboratories are inaccessible, the public will fear the worst.
  I come now to my suggestions. First, we should inquire whether there are sufficient inspectors and whether the number of centres licensed could be reduced. Is it necessary to have quite so many? It is, of course, important

  705
  to ensure that operations are carried out properly. People are worried about the operations. Because the general public thinks that an operation is always a surgical one, it should be emphasised that 90 per cent. of the operations on animals are injections such as we ourselves have to submit to from time to time. However, we must be certain that the inspectorate is sufficiently well staffed to do its job.
  Would it be possible, perhaps, for Members of Parliament or experts in zoology to visit these laboratories from time to time? I am sure that it would make a good impression on the public to know that laymen were allowed within the precincts of these places. There is a feeling in the public mind, the medical world being connected so much with sickness and pain, that doctors are sometimes inclined to become hardened to both these afflictions.
  I do not agree with that. Their great mission in life is to relieve pain and heal sickness. The Advisory Board is composed of ten very eminent doctors and surgeons, and one asks oneself whether perhaps these very busy gentlemen have the time to give detailed attention to the subject, and whether it might not also help from the public point of view if one member of the Board were a woman. Women are not supposed to be quite so hardened or callous about these things as the male sex. One might have a woman doctor or nursing expert or zoologist on the Board. Certainly, I should like to see a woman on the Board, also a layman, so that the Board does not give the impression of having a vested interest in these laboratories, which, I am afraid, is the position at present.
  It would also help if the Home Office, when it makes out the yearly report, explained to the public the tremendous benefits we have derived from the experiments in these laboratories. It could explain how we have practically eradicated tuberculosis, how poliomyelitis has been brought under control, and how many drugs have been found to alleviate pain. The laboratories have had their share in these results.
  I sat by the bedside of a very beloved child of eighteen months and watched it die of tubercular meningitis. It was not
  706
  my child, but it was a very distressing episode, and if one has seen that happen, and realises that now it is a very rare disease, and that these laboratories have contributed to the solving of these problems, one cannot but be grateful to these animals, big or small.
  It is a curious thing how the bigger the animal the more distressed is the public. Yet I feel that whether they are mice or horses, our responsibility to the animals is exactly similar, that we should show our gratitude to them—if one can put it in that way—by making quite certain that they are kept in comfort as far as is possible, and that if they have to be destroyed, they are destroyed painlessly.
  I should like the Home Office to realise the great feeling that is behind this matter at present, and I ask it to see whether it could help, perhaps on these lines, to alleviate that feeling.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) on bringing before the Committee the particular subject of which she spoke, because to my certain knowledge there is on this issue very great misgiving among a large number of very humane and sympathetic people. I think that it is, perhaps, more a matter for public relations than for anything else, and that an arrangement by which persons other than those interested in the remotest scientific diagnoses of disease could join the Advisory Board is desirable.
  I, for one, would then be a great deal more satisfied that an undue number of experiments on certain lines was not being conducted. I dealt with this problem once or twice as Home Secretary, when I received deputations on the matter, but, as I have said, this matter is more one of public relations than of anything else.
  On Sunday, I read in the Observer's Weekend Review an article written by someone who is now telling us all the secrets of the way in which we are misgoverned. He included in the article, on the Civil Service, the following paragraph:
  "The most notoriously self-centred department are the Home Office"—

  707
  Let us be quite clear. All the other Government Departments have sprung from the Home Office. The Home Office is left with all the things that nobody else wants. Therefore, to call it self-centred really is a bit steep.
  "who regulate and badger aliens and visitors with little consideration of Commonwealth or foreign interests, or even of human decency; the intense conservatism of the Home Office has trapped nearly every would-be-reforming Home Secretary. The overriding aim of the Home Office is to avoid trouble"—
  Who does not go about trying to avoid trouble? Why single out the Home Office for that?—
  "like Bournemouth landladies, however much trouble that may cause elsewhere. And they reached their shabby triumph in the Immigration Bill of 1961."
  I must say that, during the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, what most struck me was the little enthusiasm shown for it by those who were promoting it. It was interesting to watch the way in which the Home Secretary, beseiged by the hon. Members for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) and a few other hon. Members behind him, allowed the Bill to wander on, and then produced at the end a White Paper which, as far as I can see, was produced to prove that in the future there may possibly be, but only possibly, in a remote part of the Commonwealth, a gentleman who will be regarded with great distinction because he is the man who has been refused admission to the United Kingdom under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. There will be very few such persons if the White Paper is administered in the way that the Home Secretary promised that it would be.
  I have a great suspicion of the statistics of most of the subjects we have been discussing today. I am not perturbed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Sir G. Benson) said about the way in which one court, over a certain period, sends more persons to prison than another. One needs to be able to examine each of the cases. One of the difficulties that confronts the Secretary of State and the magistracy is the fact that every case in a magistrates' court is distinctive. To think that it is possible to have a uniform standard is erroneous. The circumstances of the defendant, the
  708
  amount of provocation he receives in certain kinds of cases—all of these factors vary.
  But I agree with my hon. Friend that the problem of what one is to do with a person after he has been convicted in a magistrates' court or at quarter sessions is the real test of the capacity of the bench to discharge its duty to the community, to the offender and to the person who has been offended. I am not surprised that from time to time the records of certain courts vary. It may be proof that a genuine effort is made to apply to each case the treatment that is most needed.
  I reinforce the special plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) about the question of probation officers. The Home Secretary's astuteness is catching up on him. He was the first to start this kind of thing. He appointed the Royal Commission on the Police and asked for an interim report on police pay. He accepted the Commission's first Report, the recommendations of which, I understood from what we were told at the time, cost the country £10 million for constables only.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): It was not quite as much as that.
  Mr. Ede: The figure of £10 million was generally stated at the time. It was a fairly big sum compared with what the nurses are likely to get.
  On to the constable's salary had to be added the differentials of each grade above until, when one came to what the chief constables would get, serious perturbation was created among the senior officers of county and county borough councils when they suddenly found the stratosphere into which the chief constable's salary had managed to soar.
  I am not opposing the pay that was given to the police. In the first place, they had been underpaid for a good many years. They had three or four increases of pay during my Home Secretaryship. All those increases were resisted with greater or less intensity by the police authorities. In the end, I had to rely on one provision in the Police Act and to get the Prime Minister to appoint an arbitrator to deal specifically

  709
  with their salaries. In that way, after there had been a preliminary rejection at the Police Council, the award under Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve brought peace into the service for a time.
  I am not complaining about the increase in pay that was given to constables, although it had serious repercussions for me, because at once the teachers pointed out that the village constable would now get, at an earlier age than the headmaster at his maximum, a higher salary than the headmaster of the village school. The wave that has compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his weakness, to fix on the figure of 2½ per cent. as the best that he can do, started with what happened to the police.
  I do not want to say much more about the Royal Commission, because I imagine that most of what will now come from it will require legislation. While I have heard a lot of new legislation advocated this afternoon, I shall probably be told that I ought to know better than to get on to that kind of thing. I hope that when the Report is received, the administrative side will be considered urgently and that a place may be found for the necessary legislation before the end of the present Parliament.
  The Home Secretary has been very astute. He is not seriously hampered by the shackles that most of his other colleagues in the spending Departments have to carry under the general grant. He was astute enough to keep all his big spending services away from the general grant. They are still on a percentage grant, which he can use both as an encouragement and as a punishment to authorities who are unwilling to carry out the more enlightened phases of his policy.
  I have been very pleased with the way in which the work of the children's officers and the Children's Department in the Home Office has been developing in recent years. There was a battle at the time about which was the appropriate Department to look after the children. My friends in the educational world were angry with me at the time because I did not consider that the Ministry of Education was the proper one to deal with them.
  A child is something more than a pupil. Very good parents sometimes
  710
  must have battles with very good school masters and school mistresses about the way in which the raw material which they supply to the school master and the school mistress shall be moulded. Neither did I think that a child was of necessity a patient. Medical advice may be required, but one does not want a child to be perpetually regarded as a patient.
  It seemed to me that the right way to treat the child was to treat him as a growing citizen and to put this service under the Home Office, which has to deal with the successive stages of citizenship. I agree, however, with what the Home Secretary said this afternoon about the real rôle of his Department. He has to discharge two duties simultaneously. He has to preserve law and order and to maintain individual freedom. To do the two simultaneously efficiently is about the heaviest task that can fall on any man.
  Either individual liberty to the extent of anarchy or law and order to the extent that it is carried out in the authoritarian countries can be carried through by a determined process. To maintain the two with the balance that enables a gracious life to be lived is, however, a very heavy task.
  I rejoice that, when the time came that the reallocation of the service inside the local government area came to be decided, it was provided in the Children Act that for the first three years of its administration there should be a separate committee for the children, reporting separately direct to the local authority and not to the education committee or the medical services committee. When the three years had passed, as far as I have been able to discover no local authority reallocated the service.
  After the inquiry which took place into the Dennis O'Neill case, which hon. Members who have taken an interest in the subject over a period of years will remember, I felt that to make the local authority feel its responsibility the children's committee must not be a sub-committee of another committee, with the danger that when the monthly or quarterly report was made from the main committee, of which the children's committee was a sub-committee, to the authority, one would get a short paragraph like this: "We

  711
  have considered the report of the children's sub-committee and have given the necessary instructions thereon." The children's committee reports directly to the authority, and the authority has to accept the responsibility of considering the report and dealing with it.
  There are only one or two other matters that have been discussed today on which I want to touch briefly. I am glad to hear that buildings for the institutions that are required under successive Criminal Justice Acts are now being erected and brought into operation. I am glad to hear also that the number of open prisons and open borstals is increasing. I was much touched by the letters read by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) from a couple of prisoners dreading the time when they would be out of an institution and back again in the world where they had not many friends. To become institutionalised is one of the dangers that some people have great risks of encountering in the Welfare State.
  What I have said about human liberty applies particularly here. After all, liberty implies responsibility on the free person. If a person has been kept within a prison or any other institution so long that he has become merely part of the routine machine, it is very serious for him if at any time he should have to evercise his initiative.
  I remember a colleague of mine, in my early days in this House, who had been a police officer, saying, "What better life could you have than being a prisoner? You wake up in the morning. Your meals are always ready at the right time—somebody has thought them out for you. Your work is arranged for you. When you came to the evening there is a time for you to go to bed. Life flows evenly." That may very well be the life of a prisoner, but for a prisoner to become so institutionalised that he dreads having to exercise the most elementary responsibilities of freedom means that he has had inflicted upon him a very terrible punishment indeed.
  I hope that the arrangements we make for after-care in the Criminal Justice Act will be vigorously implemented and that
  712
  help will be given to these people to reestablish themselves. I hope that this will not be lost sight of, because the letters read by my hon. Friend this afternoon were very tragic reminders of the fate that can befall people. Whatever their crimes may have been, they cannot have deserved the punishment of the fear of being outside, which the prison has obviously left on their minds.
  I hope that some institutions will be found where selected prisoners can work in more fredom on ordinary jobs from which they can get some sense of self-respect than has been sometimes the case in the past. I have told the House before of an experiment carried out near Burton-on-Trent, where men were put on a job which showed some result at the end of each day and at the end of each week. It was a job that lasted some months, and there was something to show for their work of which they could be proud. The more that selected men can be employed outside prison walls and given a chance of seeing the world at large in its ordinary state, the better it will be, I am quite sure, for many of those men when it comes to rehabilitation and returning to their proper places in society.
  There are so many departments of the Home Office that if one attempted to utter four sentences on each, one's speech would be far longer than ought to be tolerated in Committee of Supply, and I shall not go very much further beyond what I have already said.
  I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) advised very wisely this afternoon on the question of censorship with regard to some of the things that are apt to impress certain sections of the population. Censorship will get us nowhere. Once a young person gets it into his mind, "This is something that they do not want us to read", it is the one way to ensure that that book will be in every schoolboy's locker, and, from what we heard during the "Lady Chatterley's Lover" trial, I am not sure that it will not be in every schoolgirl's reticule as well.
  We must try to surround our young people with an atmosphere of naturalness, in which their minds will be influenced by what they see other people doing, by people realising that what they

  713
  do is the most potent force in the framing of young people's existence. The idea that everybody does it, and, therefore, it does not matter, is one of the worst surroundings that youth can have.
  We do not often discuss Home Office matters. But the Home Secretary can be reasonably satisfied with the kind of comments about the Department which have been made in the debate. Such suggestions as have been offered for the improvement of the administration of any of its services have been uttered in the belief that what the Observer said about staff is a gross slander of people who have to discharge very difficult duties and occasionally advise on matters of the utmost delicacy.
  Lord Attlee told me when he sent me to the Home Office "Your first job is to prevent a third-class row from developing into a first-class crisis". At any rate, I managed to avoid that, if I did not always earn complete praise for what I did. That is one of the things which this great Department has to bear in mind. It is the custodian of all that is best of the British way of life and if, through its staff, the Minister gets advice which enables him to maintain and improve that way of life, then it is a Department in which anyone can be proud to serve, whether as a Minister or even as one of the messengers who go along the corridors delivering papers.
  7.11 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Worsley: I intend to devote my remarks to one of the many Departments of the Home Office to which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) did not devote four sentences, and I should like to begin by referring to the remarkable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) because I want to refer to Vote 3, namely, civil defence.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Worsley: I welcome the news that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is to refer at some length to civil defence. I am a newcomer to the House of Commons, but during the time I have been here there has been no discussion of civil defence.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Worsley: I have been told by those with longer experience that it is more than eight years since there was a debate on civil defence. That is an indication of the extraordinary capacity of the House of Commons to avoid certain subjects which are of such obvious importance.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Worsley: I am somewhat alarmed at finding such great agreement with what I am saying coming from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). As I go on, he may find less with which to agree.
  In view of our failure to discuss these matters, it is natural that, as with so many other things, it has been left to another place to discuss civil defence, and there was an interesting debate there only last month. I wish that we had the opportunity for a general debate on civil defence here. There are matters which are wider than those which can be discussed today on the general question of Ministerial responsibility and so on, but this debate provides an opportunity to discuss this important topic.
  In round terms, local authorities and the Government are spending about £20 million a year on civil defence. It is noteworthy that in the last two years the figure has risen from about £15 million. Perhaps less than in any other service of Government is the actual cost an indication of the effectiveness, or non-effectiveness, of what is going on. The problem of civil defence is not simply an additional subject on the side of civil administration. The problem of civil defence is how in the calamity of war the civil administration is to adapt itself to deal with the situation which arises. It is no part of my desire to press for greater expenditure, but I want to show how much I disagree with some hon. Members by defending the expenditure which is being made.
  Civil defence has two justifications. The first is that if there is a conventional or nuclear defence effort while civil defence is neglected, the rest of the world will not believe that we are serious about the nuclear balance. I do not wish to deal with that side of the matter, as it fits more into a defence debate, but it is one reason why on a Home Office Vote we have one aspect of defence expenditure.

  715
  I know that there are hon. Members who disagree with this type of expenditure. I respect them for their judgment, but I find it difficult to understand those who oppose civil defence for any purpose, because whatever one's views about defence and the nuclear balance and so on, on broad humanitarian reasons there is an absolutely overwhelming case for effective civil defence. We all passionately want to avoid war, but until we get disarmament, we must appreciate and accept the possibility of war. We shall not get disarmament until the nations agree to inspection.
  In the event of a nuclear attack, there would be immediate casualties on a pitiful scale, but there would almost certainly be a greater number of people whose survival would depend on what happened immediately after the disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for With ington naturally spoke of his own constituency and the great conurbation of Manchester. My mind goes to the West Riding. It is typical of the way in which we live in this country that we tend to live in groups of cities. The sort of pattern which might easily result if a nuclear device were exploded in this country is total destruction in one city, but a ring of towns all round where everything for the future of the people concerned would depend on what was done immediately to cope with the situation.
  This involves two separate things. It needs first an organisation ready in advance to cope with the situation, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give a good deal more information than is generally available about the present readiness of our civil defence force.
  I should like to ask several specific questions. To what extent is the Minister of State satisfied with recruiting figures? To what extent is he satisfied with the number of wardens actually available? To what extent is he satisfied that the age of civil defence staff is suitable? I have the impression, which I should very much like him to contradict, that although there is a band of people in civil defence whose devotion to public service is quite beyond praise, there are not enough of them—and one says this with some temerity—and too
  716
  many who have been in this service a long time and whose age is rising, possibly people who have been in since the end of the war and whose effectiveness, although they doubtless have an important part to play, is such that if a disaster came, their age would not suit them for more active work and for the work of leadership. I should like to know something for the ratios of the different ages in the civil defence service.
  Is the Minister satisfied with the recruiting figures? Is he satisfied with the recent civil defence recruiting campaign? Are the figures good? Is he sure that the campaign is getting to the right people? Will the Minister bear in mind that when we are appealing to people to cope with the problems of a nuclear war we must somehow get away from the image of the past war? There is a great feeling, which it is the purpose of civil defence to dispel, that because weapons are so intolerably more powerful and destructive there is no point in doing anything about civil defence.
  Are we sure that the publicity being put out is not simply reminding people of the last war? Is it forward-looking publicity that will encourage people to volunteer for civil defence, realising that something can be done in modern conditions? Perhaps, too, the Minister can say something about the technical side. Are these units properly equipped? In other words, if somebody volunteers for civil defence, is the equipment available to make it seem to him that he is doing a useful job? We are familiar with stories immediately before the war of recruits for various services who spent all their time practising with dummy weapons and equipment. Are we giving people proper equipment to use? We owe it to those who are prepared to volunteer to provide proper equipment. What about the communications upon which civil defence depends? These have been mentioned in recent Defence White Papers, and if there is to be a civil defence system almost everything will depend on communications being effective at local and national level.
  Finally, and I am sorry to ask so many questions, is the standard among the Corps authorities throughout the country reasonably level? I have little doubt that the best are good, but I get the impression that some local authorities will not give civil defence the support

  717
  that they should, either because of inertia—and I say this, too, with some temerity—or because of political prejudice. It is well known that before the last war certain local authorities—and I will not mention any names—did not give what were then called air raid precautions the attention that they should have done. It is also well known that political prejudice played it part in this. This is a wicked thing to contemplate, but there is no doubt that in certain cities there were more casualities than there should have been at the beginning of the last war because of political prejudices affecting the decisions of the councils concerned.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I happen to have been in charge of all matters arising from enemy attack in a town which had every one of its houses bombed at least five times. It was the banner town of Labour in Kent. Prejudice did not play any part there. The hon. Gentleman should not make these flagrant assertions.
  Mr. Loughlin: Name the towns.
  Mr. Pannell: Leeds, which I represent, did not suffer in the same way, and Keighley was hardly touched. What is the basis, except political prejudice on his part, on which the hon. Gentleman makes these assertions?
  Mr. Worsley: I said advisedly that I did not intend to mention the towns, and I intend to stand by that decision. It is within the recollection of the Committee that there is truth in what I have said. Indeed, one has only to look at recent events in certain towns to realise that this is so. I am not accusing the Opposition in general. For goodness sake let me make that clear. I am saying that among the extreme Left there is a school of thought which is opposed to civil defence. This is demonstrably true. It is within the recollection of hon. Members who have been here longer than I have—I was only a boy at the beginning of the war—that this sort of political prejudice affected the behaviour of certain towns.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give us some more information about the regular cadre of civil defence personnel and their training. However effective the actual system of civil defence, however effective the
  718
  organisation, unless the people of the country have some basic knowledge of what will be required if an emergency arises, inevitably the effectiveness of the cadre will be limited. I am aware that in spreading information of this kind one is facing a psychological problem of great difficulty. It would be very easy, while attempting to spread information, to spread instead panic, and on occasions something of this sort has happened in America.
  I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the W.V.S. one-in-five scheme. The noble Lady, Baroness Swanborough, speaking in another place in the debate to which I referred earlier, said:
  "In this scheme we have undertaken to inform one woman in five, in the simplest possible language, of the dangers that might have to be faced if a nuclear war were to take place and the simple, ordinary things that a woman could do in such an event, for her family and for her neighbours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th April, 1962; Vol. 239, c. 296.]
  I understand that this W.V.S. scheme has had a considerable effect. I am told that the lectures have been of high quality, and that they have spread this information in a general unalarming and un-panic-making way. I think that this is an example on which we could base a general dissemination of knowledge.
  If we in the House of Commons take civil defence seriously, then we must let the country see that we do. If, as I have been told, we have not discussed this matter for eight years, I find it hard to encourage the Committee to say to the rest of the country, "You are not taking this thing seriously enough". I think that we ought to insist in discussing this matter more frequently, and that we ought to obtain from the Home Office more information about civil defence.
  The only regular report about civil defence appears in the Defence White Papers, and the reference is naturally only a brief one. I think that there is an unanswerable case for a greater degree of publicity about civil defence. I think that we should discuss it more readily, and encourage the Home Office to publicise it by an annual report, and perhaps by speeches. At any rate, there should be less of a feeling of secrecy, less of a feeling of a closed shop, about

  719
  the whole matter of civil defence, and we should discuss it more regularly. If we do, the feeling will percolate down that civil defence matters, that something can be done, and that the House of Commons and the Government will give a lead in doing it.
  The Chairman: In calling the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to speak next, I am calling him to speak on the main Question and not to move his Amendment, because, as the Committee appreciates, if the Amendment were moved it would have the effect of very much restricting the debate and would prevent other hon. Members from discussing the other subjects before the Committee.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: This is a curious debate, ranging over a wide area of subjects, and I should be the last to wish that it should be limited in any way. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) that we should have a day to discuss prisons, prison reform, crime, and law and justice generally. I know a good deal about prisons, in many ways. I know a little from the inside and a little from the outside. I shall not go into the question now, except to say that I recently visited many of the prisons that I stayed in for a time as a patient forty years ago. I went to Wormwood Scrubs, Pentonville, Dartmoor, and several prisons in Scotland.
  There has been a great change in the attitude of society towards the criminal, and it is a very welcome change. Prisoners today no longer spend a long time in solitary confinement, and they no longer wear broad arrows, as I did. On the whole, the prison administration is doing a very good job within the limits of its power and finance. As more than one hon. Member has pointed out, the trouble arises when the criminal is ultimately released from gaol.
  I am glad to hear that Holloway is going. I hope that Pentonville will soon go. I also believe that Dartmoor is definitely on the list to be closed down. It would be a good thing if the House took a whole day to discuss questions concerning prisons, crime and the duty of the Home Office towards an increasingly serious social problem.
  720
  But, like the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), I want to speak about civil defence and to ask some questions about it. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Keighley that it is regretable that we have not had a serious debate on the matter for eight years. That fact has long been a matter of great concern to me. If defence does not affect the civil population, what does it mean? Hon. Members opposite and I have taken part in many debates on defence. If defence is regarded as something remote—as a discussion between different schools of thought on the question whether there should be nuclear weapons or conventional weapons—and if we are to discuss the question of defence purely from the point of view of military strategy, we are forgetting what defence is about. When we think of defence we should be thinking of the 50 million people in this island who are affected by decisions on defence.
  I listened for two days to the defence debate, when only two speeches were made which dealt with civil defence. When the Minister of Defence wound up the debate he entirely neglected the subject. When I subsequently asked him why he had done this he said that it was because he had not had time, and not because he wished to minimise in any way the importance of civil defence. It was a strange thing that this House, in discussing defence, did not have time to discuss the really important question of the defence of the lives of our population.
  At last we have an opportunity to do so—but let us see how the subject is being dealt with. It is regarded as a footnote to questions concerning probation officers, and as an afterthought to discussions about the police and legal matters. From hon. Members on both sides of the House there should have been a demand for a day's debate on civil defence at the end of the defence debate, when we voted the huge sum of £1,720 million. We should have a definite day for a debate on civil defence, to correlate the matter with what is, after all, the bedrock of the argument and discussion.
  I entirely agree that it is an absolute scandal that we have neglected this

  721
  subject for so long. It has been regarded as the dirty little secret of defence. But people outside are asking about it. One of the great issues now under discussion on the wireless, in the public houses and everywhere is the "Ban the Bomb" campaign. There has been a conspiracy in the House not to have a really thorough clash of opinion on this momentous question, but, instead, to pass it over without a debate. Hon. Members have said, "Do not let us have a debate on tests. Let us talk about all the old political questions—about old-age pensions, or any damned thing, except what the people in the country are asking about. I therefore welcome this opportunity to ask a few questions on the subject.
  The hon. Member for Withington asked what would happen in the case of a city such as Manchester. What civil defence is there for the population of Manchester in the event of nuclear war? What defence is there for a city like Glasgow in such circumstances? During the debate on the Polaris agreement the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that anything within 100 miles of Glasgow would be burned to a cinder if a nuclear bomb were dropped, and that this was something that had to be accepted.
  If it has to be accepted for Glasgow, it has to be accepted for Manchester, London and the rest of the country. The destructive power of modern weapons increases every hour of every day of every month. The whole concept of civil defence and the defence of the civil population cannot be examined from the point of view that we should have all our preparations ready to protect a few millions in Manchester, Glasgow and London.
  Every day people are asking what is the meaning of the new tests. We have been told that they are taking place 500 miles up, and that the danger from fall-out has practically disappeared. I would like to hear from the Home Office how far the danger has been increased as a result of the latest tests. We are assured that they are comparatively innocuous and that there is very little fall-out. We are told that when these tremendous weapons are exploded 500 miles up in
  722
  the stratosphere they will not hurt humanity at all. I shall believe that when they explode one of these big bombs over Washington or New York. That will be the test.
  We are told that these tests are not like the dirty Russian or Communist tests, which distributed strontium and other fall-out all over the Christian world. The Russian tests were denounced until all the adjectives were exhausted. The Prime Minister referred to them as brutal and cynical, and the Leader of the Opposition said that he looked upon the Russians with deep disgust and cold hatred. Yet four months afterwards, they are engaged in defending the same kind of test, while all over the world people are asking if all this is not nauseating hypocrisy. I believe that it is.
  I cannot see the difference between the deadly effect of the fall-out which comes from a Russian bomb—and I dissociated myself from the Russian bomb tests at the time—and that from any other bomb. I do not see any difference in morality or military necessity at all in the argument between one bomb and another. We have to regard neither the West nor the East as in any way superior to the other. The enemy of humanity is the H-bomb, and we have to examine the effect which it will be likely to have in this country.
  The Russian bomb, so we are told, was a 50-megaton bomb, and there may have been a 100-megaton bomb. I should like to ask the Home Office how that fact affects the Ministry's estimates of what is likely to occur in this country. If half-a-dozen of these bombs arrive by rocket from the Soviet Union, it is quite clear that this country will be destroyed, or practically destroyed, with only a very small number of the population left alive. I ask the Home Office representative whether he will answer the questions that were put in two very interesting articles in the Manchester Guardian, as it then was, about eighteen months ago.
  What estimated death roll does the Home Office anticipate in the event of a nuclear war at present? If the answer is that it is so great that it means the destruction of this country, then I say that the time has come to realise that civil defence as we know it is a phrase which has little relevance to the

  723
  position we face today. I say this quite seriously. If 20, 30, or 40 million people are to be destroyed, we have to revise our whole conception of what constitutes civil and national defence.
  There could be no calamity which could be worse than the wholesale destruction of our towns and cities. During the last war we agreed, on humanitarian grounds and for historical reasons, that great cities like Paris and Rome should be regarded as open cities, which should not be bombed but should be regarded as neutral territories. If it is to be said that we are to have such huge destruction of our population, our towns should be declared open towns and our country should be an open country. It would be far better for our people to be neutral and outside the war altogether; and that is a sentiment that would be endorsed by the great majority of the people of the country if it came to the test, because they do not believe in suicide.
  We may talk to them dramatically about preferring to be dead rather than alive under Communism, but, under any system of society, people would prefer to be alive, so as to fight against totalitarianism or Fascism, or what they think are the evils of Communism. If we wipe out life, or a great part of it, then ordinary language has no meaning.
  I should like to ask whether the Home Office would give us some further facts about its evacuation scheme. I hope that we are not to be told that that is not a matter for the Home Office, but a matter for the Ministry of Health, which was the answer I received in reply to a Question. Could the Minister get down to brass tacks and tell us how we are to evacuate 6½ million people from the population centres? How are they to do it from London? There was an interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago in which a military expert asked how we are to solve the transport problem. How are we to transport the people of London who come under the categories for evacuation? Perhaps that is one of the questions to which we may or may not get an answer tonight, but it is a question which the people are asking.
  Surely the Government think that danger is imminent, that there is a possibility
  724
  of this nuclear holocaust, because otherwise they would not be conferring with the local authorities at present. I should like to get some further details. Do not let us have a collection of vague platitudes which are not a practical answer to the questions which people are asking.
  There is the question of shelters. I understand that there are no shelters against fall-out in this country at all, unless there are fall-out shelters for members of the Cabinet. I do not know. Should we not have a shelter policy? What about the American shelter policy? What about the Russian shelter policy? In Moscow last September, I asked what civil defence was for. I asked what they would do in the event of an H-bomb exploding over Moscow, and I was told an anecdote about the suppression of Armenian Radio. It was for asking awkward questions.
  One of the questions was, "What will you do in the event of an H-bomb dropping on Moscow?" The answer was, "Put yourself in a white sheet, and walk slowly to the cemetery." When asked, "Why a white sheet?", the reply was, "Oh, to stop panic". That is the sort of macabre anecdote that is told in Russia. I understand that Russia has no great shelter policy at all.
  What about the United States of America? In these days, we are accustomed to send our leaders over to the United States to talk with President Kennedy, and whatever President Kennedy says is the last word. The Minister of Defence says that the President of the United States has assured him that it is a military necessity. The Leader of the Opposition has had talks with President Kennedy, and what he says must be accepted as were the laws of the Medes and Persians. What did President Kennedy say about fall-out shelters in his very interesting address to Congress on 25th May, 1961? President Kennedy is in favour of having a scheme of shelters against fall-out. He says:
  "It is insurance we trust will never be needed—but insurance which we could never forgive ourselves for forgoing in the event of catastrophe. Once the validity of this concept is recognised, there is no point in delaying the initiation of a nationwide long-range programme of identifying present fall-out shelter capacity and providing shelter in new and

  725
  existing structures. Such a programme would protect millions of people against the hazards of radioactive fall-out in the event of a large-scale nuclear attack. Effective performance of the entire programme not only requires new legislative authority and more funds, but also sound organisational arrangements.
  Therefore, under the authority vested in me by Reorganisation Plan No. 1 of 1958, I am assigning responsibility for this programme to the top civilian authority already responsible for continental defence, the Secretary of Defence. It is important that this function remain civilian, in nature and leadership; and this feature will not be changed.
  The Office of Civil and Defence Mobilisation will be reconstituted as a small staff agency to assist in the co-ordination of these functions. To more accurately describe its role, its title should be changed to the Office of Emergency Planning."
  Is there an office of emergency planning in connection with the Home Office? If not, why not? Surely this country is as much in danger from fall-out as the United States of America. We are nearer to the bombs. Our peril is greater. This is a densely populated island off the west coast of Europe. We are told that it is on us that the bombs will fall. If this is regarded as essential for the protection of people in New York, Washington, or San Francisco, why should not it be a protection for our own people? We are responsible for the lives of the people who elect us as Members of this House. If we say that we cannot afford such a policy, that it is a grandiose scheme which would take an enormous amount of money to implement, the time has come to revise all our relations with the United States in this matter.
  If we cannot afford a defence policy for civilians, we ought to ban the bomb policy from this island in the interests of the people. I am glad that we have had this rather short and cursory debate. It is an important debate, sandwiched as it has been between these other items of equal importance. People are asking questions of us which we cannot answer. In future defence debates, whatever our point of view may be, I hope that we shall insist that civil defence is put among the priorities and that someone will provide the answers which at present we cannot give.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: As was pointed out at the beginning of his speech by the hon. Member for South
  726
  Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) one of the problems which we have been up against today is that people have been galloping off in different directions. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member when I say that I am not proposing to follow his horse but some of the other horses which we have seen running in the disparate collection of races which we have been watching.
  I wish to return to the question of the prison service and penal reform. That does not mean that I do not recognise the importance of the subjects referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. Like the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, I hope that in future we shall not be faced with the necessity of having five different debates in one. Instead of having several subjects to debate—civil defence, the prison service and other subjects, all of which are relevant but none of which we have been able to cover in a proper and orderly fashion—I hope that we shall have separate and distinct debates, so that we may know what we are talking about.
  I do not wish to pursue the most interesting arguments advanced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, but to confine myself to the progress report which was given to us this afternoon by the Home Secretary on the work of his Department, particularly in the field of penal reform. My mind went back, as I am sure did the minds of other hon. Members, to the debate on the Address in 1958, when my right hon. Friend first outlined his general ideas on this matter. The encouraging thing which the Home Secretary had to say today was that the building programme—which I must admit I regarded as a dream when he first outlined it in a White Paper, and something which we had no chance of getting through the Treasury—was becoming something of a reality. This is a matter upon which I am sure we can all congratulate my right hon. Friend and wish him well. But I find that with the growth of these various institutions, there is another danger arising, evidence of which I have detected in particular speeches during the interesting debate that we have had today, and of which we must beware.
  One of the real qualities which one must seek in the sphere of penal reform

  727
  is flexibility. It is almost impossible to maintain that treatment which is suitable for one person will inevitably do for someone else; or that there is a criminal type, or that all criminals are unlucky or unhappy or are searching for a way out. I do not know whether hon. Members have read a book recently published entitled, The Courage of his Convictions. If not, I urge them to read it. It is an interesting book, of a documentary nature, giving an account of conversations of a social worker with a recidivist in gaol who makes no secret of the fact that his business is crime; that he lives comfortably on about £2,000 a year from the proceeds of his criminal activities and that he has no desire whatever to reform.
  I admit that this shattered a large number of theories which I had held for a long time, including that, through an enlightened system of penal reform, one could bring almost anybody back to what I and others would regard as a normal and happy life. If this book be true, anti I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of its contents, it is clear that there is a type of man who does not care twopence whether he is put in gaol or not. That is one of the normal hazards of his life, just as it is one of the hazards of the life of a Member of Parliament that he may lose his seat. One of the hazards for this man is an occasional loss of liberty which may occur from time to time. He regards that in much the same way as an M.P. may regard the possible loss of his seat. His attitude is that after a period of five years' imprisonment, he can come out of prison and resume his old activities again.
  This is something which we must take seriously. What are we to do with this type of man? He cannot be shut up for ever, yet undoubtedly he is a danger to society. Is there no way in which even such a man as this can be reached? I hope that those at the Home Office have read this book. I am sure that the Home Secretary has read it and has considered whether there is any way to cope with this problem. So far, none of the things outlined in the speech by my right hon. Friend nor in the excellent speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss
  728
  Bacon) has touched the problem represented by that type of man. I have a feeling that the answer may lie in the long overdue Grendon Underwood Institute, the East Hubert Institute, for which we have been asking for so many years. When we come up against a problem of this kind we have not the psychiatric knowledge to deal with such a man. I am not sure that the problem can be solved even with the provision of such an institution.
  When I was living in America I was asked by the then Governor of New Jersey to do a series of articles on the new Jersey penal system. I was then a journalist, working in New Jersey. I went to the criminal diagnostic centre at Menlo Park. The psychiatrists in charge, some of whom had been working there for thirty years, freely admitted that occasionally they were confronted by men who presented a problem to which they literally did not know the answer; and that nothing in any of their experience or knowledge could show them the answer. I have a feeling that the more we progress in this field the more we shall discover that we do not know anything about it. We shall have to feel our way. We cannot put everything in books and announce, "If you are faced with this problem you will solve it in this way …"
  I noticed one or two signs of inflexibility. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East will not mind if I mention one which I detected in her speech. She said that we must have these institutions all over the country, and I agree wholeheartedly. I know something of the problem, for instance, of magistrates' courts in Westmorland where, if a child has to be sent on remand they have to send it seventy miles away. That is the minimum distance.
  The hon. Lady went on to say, and this is where I detected a slight inflexibility, that the children should be near enough to receive regular visits from their parents. That may be true of 99 per cent., but in the 1 per cent. of the cases that is the last thing that should happen. They should be as far away as possible. I know it sounds callous to say this, but I had a case in my constituency recently in which the child should be sent as far as possible from its parents.
  Miss Bacon: Of course I agree with that, but the trouble is that very often it is the 99 per cent. who are sent to the other end of England.
  Mr. Kirk: I was not trying to score a point over the hon. Lady, but I was saying that one has to be careful about making an absolute judgment in this matter. We have to cater for the exceptional cases more than the general cases.
  Mr. Loughlin: I rather understood my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) to make the point that juveniles had to travel long distances when they were put on remand for only a fortnight and that sometimes they had to travel 200 miles.
  Mr. Kirk: The hon. Lady certainly made that point and I agree, but it is fair to say that she also made the other point and I was underlining that I think one can go too far in that direction.
  On the question of flexibility, I wonder whether the more institutions we get the more we ought to see if we are using them properly. Take the case of the Ashford remand centre. No one was more pleased than I when that came into operation. The hon. Lady had some cricitisms to make about that and I, like her, hope that now it has got over its teething troubles the institution will succeed. I think I am right in saying that it caters for juveniles of 17 to 21.
  Miss Bacon: I think that it takes those under 17 also.
  Mr. Kirk: Those under 17 are sent there, but I do not think it is intended for that use. They are sent there because of the crowding in other remand homes. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will correct me if I am not right about that, but it is not vital to my argument.
  Juveniles are sent there by order of the court for a report and as the hon. Lady said the reports are very good indeed. A juvenile comes up for sentence and is then sent back to Ashford. Then in most cases the juvenile is sent to a classification school for six weeks to be classified. He then goes to an approved school or to borstal. Would it not be possible to do the classification at Ashford the first time the juvenile is
  730
  sent there so that when the child is before the magistrates he can be sent straight to the approved school or borstal. That would not only save a great deal of time, but it would make more places available and would disturb the boy or girl less than their being constantly switched from one institution to another until the right one is found. I know that sounds a small matter, but I think it could be made to have good effect.
  Are we using the institutions properly? I do not know if twenty hours' work a week in prison is general, but that is the only statistic we have. We are told that twenty hours' work a week is all that can be provided for the individual prisoner. For the rest of the time he has to be locked up in a cell and that gives rise to all the crises to which the hon. Lady referred. Would it not be possible, instead of trying to organise an educational system in the evening which means overtime and extra money—which, so far as I know, was why it was cut down some months ago—to try to organise it in the mornings and afternoons? Then it would not be necessary to pay overtime to the staff. I do not think it should be beyond the wit of man to devise a way whereby, during the normal working hours, prisoners could be doing a certain amount of adult education. Then there would not be the trouble of locking people away in cells for the greater part of the day.
  This is the sort of thing we ought to be considering. I think that from this "crash" building programme on which we have at last embarked we can see that in the next decade we shall have enough, or at least adequate, buildings with which to experiment. I should like to see some "organisation and methods" treatment of the whole penal system. Are we using the institutions aright? Are we doing so with the approved schools? They all seem to be of the same pattern. I remember from my American experience a school for male juvenile delinquents at Hopetown, New Jersey, which was in the house once occupied by Charles Lindbergh. The boys worked on the farm during the day and in the evening they were encouraged by psychiatric social workers of various kinds to talk out various

  731
  problems, and that had remarkable results. They were feeling their way and did not know what would come out of that experiment. They could do that kind of thing because they had a variety of institutions and, next to California, that appeared to be the best State in this respect. They had the flexibility which we have not got but which we must somehow acquire.
  I promised that I would not take up much of the time of the Committee, but there is another matter to which I want to refer which is not directly related to the prison service. Having listened carefully to the Home Secretary, I was very disappointed that he did not say a word about a subject dear to my heart, compensation to victims of violent crimes. The hon. Lady referred to this matter. She may recall that Margery Fry put forward such a proposal ten years ago. Two hon. Members have brought forward Private Members' Bills on this subject. The Solicitor-General interested himself in it and two weeks ago I thought that at last something was to be done when in a speech in his constituency he suggested that legislation was coming forward. Yet we learnt from The Times this week that that is not so and that there is no prospect of a Bill coming forward. Perhaps when he winds up the debate my hon. and learned Friend can give us some more cheerful news.
  I cannot believe that such a Bill would detain the House for very long or that any hon. Member would wish to hold up its passage. Nor need it be very complicated. I should have thought it would have been possible to get some scheme in the next Session, if not in this. It would have to be flexible as we should be feeling our way, but we should try to do what we can in this direction. This is a matter which is very long overdue and the amount of suffering which the absence of such legislation causes must be very great. There is no compensation for a sub-postmaster, or anyone else, who gets beaten up. That is something we could redress. I am sure that money is not the problem and that it could be done without much Parliamentary trouble.
  As I said at the beginning, this is the sort of day when there are so many
  732
  subjects one would like to cover. I should like to say something about emigration but that would be going off in all directions in one speech. I feel that this debate has been worth while, but I must come back to what I said at the beginning—I hope we never have this procedure again. The Home Office is too diverse a Department to be treated in this way. In future let us have individual Votes put down and discuss them in an orderly fashion, not like this.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: I share the view of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) that we should treat these matters separately. I find myself in the hon. Member's difficulty, since I should love to talk about civil defence and penal reform, both of which are subjects very near to my heart. However, I decided that I should say one or two things about our prison system, and that is what I propose to do, much as I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in many of his remarks, particularly those about the hypocrisy which many of us think the Government's programme of civil defence represents.
  The hon. Member for Gravesend mentioned the book The Courage of his Convictions, which was recently published and which, no doubt many hon. Members have read. He talked about the problems presented by a man who, apparently, does not have a desire for reform. But this is really where the problem both begins and ends. Reform must assume from the beginning that society is dealing with people who, by virtue of the kind of life which they have to lead, their background, and the moral feelings which they possess or do not possess, have little desire to be reformed.
  Because there is evidence that a person is a habitual criminal, going in and out of prison, who does not see that he is doing anything more than carrying out a certain profession, we must not assume that the possibility of reform of the criminal is lessened by the fact that we are made the more aware of the existence of this kind of person. But he was not that kind of person when he was a child. That is what we must remember. Reform begins not just in prison

  733
  but in the home and in the community.
  To that extent, prevention is one of the most important aspects of the job of any society which is trying to reduce the amount of crime and the amount of deviation from what it regards as the norm. It begins, perhaps, with our education system and with the way in which we try to integrate the individual in the community.
  Mr. Iremonger: I do not wish to be captious, but this is a matter in which it is extremely important to get points of detail right. It was in his earliest childhood that the subject of The Courage of his Convictions said, "An honest life is not for me". That was one of the most interesting things in the book.
  Mrs. Hart: No one will convince me that those are the first words which a baby utters. Of course they are not. We know that it is in the earliest days of childhood that many of the things which create the deviation emerge, but one does not abandon hope of reforming people because it is discovered that some of the things on which they go wrong happen in the very early years of childhood.
  We are by research through the Home Office, which has an extremely good programme of criminological research, in Cambridge and elsewhere—other universities are doing similar things—not only comparing methods of treatment to discover the results which they are achieving but also the basic causes of crime. Although good work is being done, it is still nowhere near enough, because we are dealing, perhaps, with the most fundamental problem in a community. We are trying to discover what makes a good society and a good individual.
  We need to devote much more money to research. To that extent, perhaps, we should be encouraging, with the expansion of research by the Home Office, the setting up of a human sciences research council, as many of us have pointed out to the Minister for Science. The more we expand the study of the factors related to crime, the more likely we are to find the right answers.
  What astonishes me is that every new piece of research seems to indicate that one of the old conclusions was wrong.
  734
  For example, there was a publication recently in Glasgow referring to boys on probation from which it emerged that the broken home is not a major factor in the causation of delinquency and the fact whether or not the parents are present in the home is far less relevant than the relationship in the home between the members of the family and the attitudes to the home practised by the parents. I suppose that that was a tentative conclusion which may or may not be confirmed by further studies. Here is one of our sacred myths, as it were, in the sphere of delinquency being shattered. It shows how urgent is the need for a greatly expanded programme of research so that we can begin to be a little more certain of the lines along which we should go.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend, with so much of which I agreed wholeheartedly, revealed the dichotomy that there is in our attitude to the penal system. On the one hand, there are exciting experiments, new developments, research, and groups of people, probation officers and criminologists carrying out wonderful work by experimental treatment of people. On the other hand, we have a prison system which is still, in some of its aspects, almost medieval and which is not dependent for its reform entirely on the new building programme, which we are glad to hear from the Home Secretary is proceeding reasonably satisfactorily, increases in staff, better conditions and pay for prison officers so that more of them are recruited, but on reform which could be achieved almost by a stroke of the pen.
  I gave notice to the Home Secretary that I proposed, if lucky enough to catch the Chairman's eye, to raise one or two questions relating to Mrs. Helen Allegranza in Holloway Prison. One of my hon. Friends saw the Home Secretary yesterday on this question, and there is, in fact, no longer any particular point that I wish to raise with the Minister of State. Nevertheless, one thing is happening as a result of the imprisonment of some Committee of 100 nuclear disarmers which is potentially valuable. Mrs. Allegranza is a Quaker. She is a pacifist, and the gentlest of creatures. There were others, such as Jane Buxton and Margaret Turner, who suffered a spell in Holloway Prison a year or two

  735
  ago as a result of demonstrations, came out and wrote a book about life in prison. There was a front page article in the Observer a month or two ago on the impressions of the prison system conveyed to Observer reporters by young men and women who had been in prison as a result of nuclear demonstrations.
  I do not think there is one hon. Member who does not disapprove of the activities of the Committee of 100 and of its kind of civil disobedience, but a new impetus in prison reform may be emerging as a result of the fact that young men and women are seeing from the inside what is happening in our prisons. I am sure that the Minister of State will have read the book by Jane Buxton and Margaret Turner called Gate Fever. It has been read by many members of the staffs of our prisons, and I am led to believe that they think that it is biased and does not give a true impression of what goes on in prison. It may be that there is some bias in the comments which are made and the conclusions which are drawn in that book, but these women give, as I am sure the Minister of State will agree, a reasonably factual account of day-to-day life in Holloway Prison, which has changed a little since then because that was two years ago.
  I know, for example, what Mrs. Allegranza's punishment was when she was fasting recently in Holloway. It is of value to know what some of these punishments consist of. We can find the outline of them in the Report of the Prison Commissioners. They are to be found in the table dealing with the offences and punishments in prisons for males and females. The figures for males are the most interesting. One table gives the details of the kind of punishment given for various kinds of offences which took place in prisons. Some of them were serious. They consisted of violence or damage to property. A large number of others consisted of merely of being idle or what is called insubordination or other breaches of regulations. Over 6,000 of the punishments awarded consisted of cellular confinement. I ssume—the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong—that that is what is normally called solitary confinement. Another 6,000 punishments—these were probably
  736
  awarded to the same people, because these figures relate to punishments, not to individuals—consisted of being put on restricted diet. Over 2,000 other punishments consisted of the postponement or suspension of privileges.
  I do not understand how any prison system whose primary aim inside the prison is that of reform can believe that solitary confinement in a cell will be of any assistance in achieving that end. Nor can I see how in 1962 we can regard restriction of diet as a justifiable method of treating any type of offence inside a prison. For example, a sentence of fifteen days No. 1 punishment diet consists of alternating three days of bread and water, then three days on what is called the "minimum diet for the maintenance of health". I cannot see the point of this. I hope that the Minister of State will agree that this is a hangover from the days when we regarded penal treatment as entirely a question of retribution and punishment, not involving the element of reform. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find it possible to agree that such methods are out of date now that we are trying to make reform the main purpose of prison treatment, apart from its deterrent influence and its preventive influence by removing the criminal or the potential criminal from society. As reform is now regarded as essential in the prison system, there can be no value, and only a great deal of harm, in this kind of medieval treatment.
  I understand that the cell in which solitary confinement is carried out at Holloway is a bare room. I know that Holloway is soon to go—the sooner the better. One wonders what kind of solitary confinement punishment it will be replaced by. What kind of changes will there be in the new prison buildings so that it will not be possible to have the same medieval treatments in the new buildings as we have in the old ones. I understand that one of the punishment cells at Holloway consists simply of a bare room with bare boards, with a mattress which is brought in only at night. In the cell at Holloway there are beetles and wood lice on the floor so that the prisoner concerned could feel reasonably satisfied that her cell was clean only after she had asked for soap and water and scrubbed it out herself.

  737
  This is an anachronism in our modern society. This does not demand extensive new building programmes. It does not demand larger numbers of prison officers. It does not even demand finance. It demands an up-to-date attitude to what goes on today inside our prisons. This is why I find it so strange that there should be this dichotomy. We talk of the wonderful new things and the wonderful new experiments and the marvellous new ideas which people are having and which the Home Office is having for up-to-date penal treatment, but at the same time the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners are content to allow the continued existence of out-of-date prison regulations embodying an attitude of retribution and not one of reform.
  I ask the Home Office to look at this matter very carefully to see what immediate steps it can take. I ask it to get the Prison Commissioners to examine the whole apparatus of prison regulations with a view to eliminating these old-fashioned medieval ones.
  I do not believe that we go far enough when we put into practice our up-to-date thinking about penal reform. I know that many conferences take place in Britain amongst criminologists, probation officers, and Home Office representatives. These conferences are attended by people from abroad. I know that there was one in Scotland not long ago. I hope that the Committee will not mind me, a Scottish Member, intervening in this debate. My reason for intervening is simply that it is clear that in all Home Office matters no reform will take place in Scotland until something is first done in London. For that reason, when I speak about the prison system in England and Wales I am also urging the need for prison reform in Scotland, because I know that it will stem from London, so to this extent Barlinnie and other institutions in Scotland come under the indirect control of the Home Office in London.
  I want to say a few words about the Swedish system. I have not been to Sweden. I should like to go and see her system for myself. The Minister of State probably knows much more about it than I do. Perhaps the hon. Member for Gravesend is acquainted with the Swedish system. I understand that in
  738
  Sweden the normal method of treating an offender is that he is admitted to an institution which has very high security indeed in its outer boundaries. In other words, once he is in it is far more difficult to effect an escape than it would be from a comparable English institution. Once in the institution, because there is maximum security on the outer boundaries, within it it is possible to have infinitely more freedom and an infinitely more informal attitude between prison officer and prisoner than we have ever contemplated.
  I believe also that the first thing that happens when a prisoner goes into a Swedish institution is that there is a case conference at which he, the prison governor, other prison officers, the psychiatrist, the psychiatric social worker, his wife and even his friends are present. They all sit dawn for a considerable time and discuss why the man is there, why he became a criminal, and what there is in his background which brought him to this state of affairs.
  If he is to be in prison for a long time, they also discuss the kind of work which he could best do whilst in prison. The longer the sentence, the more care they take in devising the best kind of activity for him to pursue whilst he is inside. Whilst he is in the institution he is not cut off from the community as a similar person is in Britain. This is one of the most valuable aspects of the Swedish system. I cannot see how reform can be effected by so completely divorcing a prisoner from the outside world. Several hon. Members have spoken of the difficulties of the prisoner who is released and goes back to his ordinary life. How much less these difficulties would be if he had not been so completely divorced from the community around him.
  Why should he be? Why is it good for him to be so deprived? Is not being in prison and being deprived of his liberty enough deterrent to others? Is it necessary that this element of retribution should again dominate the system, so that we regard it as treating a prisoner "soft" if we allow him more than one letter a week or more than one visitor a month? Is that the really up-to-date thinking that penal reform wants to maintain? Of course it is not. That is the contrast between the Swedish system

  739
  and ours. There, families and friends visit prisoners much more freely, and much more frequently—and without someone listening over their shoulders the whole time.
  I believe that here, in Britain, while we are pursuing our research into how to prevent crime and how most effectively to reform the criminal—while we are doing that, and should be doing more—we should be thinking of the practical steps we can make within the present system in order to allow it to embody many of the ideas that are now no longer particularly progressive but which are generally accepted as being the way our society is thinking on this subject.
  There would be exceptions, of course. There always will be the people who want to hang, flog and birch, but I think that they are growing fewer and, surely, one of the jobs of Government is to educate our own society to think in an up-to-date way on this question. We must have a conscious drive towards a good society, and I very much hope that during the next few months the Minister of State will find it possible for the Prison Commissioners, and the Home Office itself, to look at what can be done within our present system, without waiting for all the new buildings and all the expansion that is to take place. Let him wipe out of the regulations some of these out-of-date medieval concepts that have their origin, not in reform but in old-fashioned, out-worn ideas of retribution.
  8.30 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I will do my best to keep my speech to ten minutes, in the hope that other hon. Members may be called before the winding-up speeches.
  There has run through this debate from its beginning a line of compassion, no matter what the topic has been. A thread of common sense has also run through it, but there has been one very serious omission, and it was particularly brought to a head by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). It is that whenever one talks of people being punished one ought not to forget the people who have to do the punishing.
  One has sometimes to be as compassionate towards them as towards the
  740
  person who is punished and, if this debate on the Home Office Estimates does nothing else each year, it helps us always to bear in mind that we are dealing, amongst other things, with the salaries and pay of those people who, in the words of an American poetess, are Englishmen, and who are
  "… content day after day to do dull jobs that keep a nation strong."
  Many of these jobs are desperately dull, and could be made a great deal more interesting if the conditions under which they have to be carried out were better.
  We all owe a very great debt to those who work in Her Majesty's prisons, and to those who work as probation officers—to whom a great tribute was paid by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle). I would very much associate myself with some of the hon. Member's remarks. What a reflection it is on our modern age when an actor on television can be paid for a few performances as a probation officer far more than any of the probation officers he is imitating are paid in a whole year. There are many aspects to this subject, but let us not forget the debt the nation owes to those who do work that is frequently very unpleasant.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) referred to those young people who are getting the idea that hard work has become a "mug's game". There are some people in our civil defence who might have said the same thing once or twice during the course of their service in that admirable activity, and it is with their work that I want mainly to deal now.
  Their Lordships in another place had a very important debate on 5th April last on civil defence—and I say to hon. Members who bewail the fact that we in this House have not had a civil defence debate for eight years that they tend to forget that Parliament has two Chambers, and that perhaps we have to divide the labour a little, although a debate in this Chamber on civil defence is long overdue.
  In that debate, the noble Lord, Earl Bathurst, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, said that there were three objects of civil defence. The first was the provision of a reliable warning system. The second was the mitigation

  741
  of the effects of an attack. The third was the provision of communications in the organisation of revival. I am not sure about the third one; I think that the other two are certainly more important in anticipation of a disaster.
  An other thing that I feel the noble Lord left out was national morale. It is absolutely essential that we always remember that those who are serving Her Majesty overseas do so far more effectively if they know that everything that ought to be done is being done at home for their families. If men become engaged in hostilities in a local area overseas which they feel may possibly lead to something worse, it is some encouragement to their morale to know that, in any case, everything is being done for their families back home that ought to be done.
  First, there is this provision of a reliable warning system to which Lord Bathurst referred. The warning that is important here is the one that comes before any attack, and there appears now to be a vast network of warning against nuclear attack. We have it under the head of ABMEWS, which includes Fylingdales—and it is very disturbing to note how long that construction is taking, although I know that it is not the responsibility of the Minister. There is DEWLINE, in Canada. There is the United Kingdom radar network; the Royal Observer Corps—which has been mentioned in this debate and is partly in the Civil Defence Services Vote—and there are all the special arrangements with the G.P.O. and the B.B.C. Indications have been given in various places at various times that the B.B.C. and the G.P.O. are being considerably pressed to improve their means of giving their warning to the public.
  Let us suppose that, one Friday afternoon, a few hon. Members still about the House—perhaps waiting to vote on the Abolition of the Dangers of Over-Assiduous Attendance at the House Bill—coming back from luncheon, were to see on the tape machine, "Flash. Vast explosion reported in Ely area and mushroom cloud seen drifting west towards Huntingdon". What would happen? I know that someone would be bound to say, "That means two more by-elections. Poor old Renton and poor
  742
  old Legge-Bourke—what are their majorities?
  Let us suppose that the four-minute warning had been given before this attack took place. I ask hon. Members to think of what this business would mean in their own constituencies. I suppose that it would mean that in the Ely area the staff of the Thor rocket base would have had time to roll off the canopies from the Thor rockets and would have erected umbilicals of destruction, and that, just before, the Pentagon had agreed that the man at the console should be allowed to put in the key at the end of the count down so that the missile could be exploded.
  Then, in the words of the Poet Laureate,
  "The towers bent like moss
  Under the fiery figures of the sky
  Fire tore the sky in two
  The sick earth shook and tossed the cross askew"—
  It might be of Ely Cathedral—
  "The earthquake ran like thunder, the earth's bones
  Broke, the graves opened, there were falling stones."
  And over the Fenland there would be hanging from the sky that fungus, that mushroom trade mark of nuclear war.
  The civil defence chain of warning works down from the central Government. First, there is red—a siren warning of imminent air attack. In my constituency the siren is used already as a warning for the fire brigade to go to the help of farmers whose ricks are on fire. What is to be the warning, and how many people will know it?
  The next warning is grey—church bells—denoting danger that fall-out will arrive within one hour. How many people, particularly those in the outlying areas, will hear the church bells? Then there are the other signals. There is the black one a maroon warning of imminent danger of fall-out. People are warned to take refuge—but where? Then there is the white warning which will tell that there is no further danger from fall-out.
  I understand that Home Office warning officers are dotted about, at the R.A.F. air defence operations centres and the main radar stations in the United Kingdom. The siren will give a warning of four or five minutes only.

  743
  Then there as the whole list of governing factors: the chain from the central Government to the region, to the sub-region, to the group, on to the area, down to the sub-area, on to the sector post and on to the patrol area. How many of those will be left and standing and, anyway, how will they be able to communicate with each other? The groups will be relying, as they are now, on the G.P.O. telephone system. There are no wireless sets for them, it appears, except far a few "walkie-talkies" and a transmitter at a reconnaissance unit. Otherwise, there are no major wireless stations.
  I have been looking at the figures of the damage that would be done and what would happen to the G.P.O. telephone system from, say, a 20-kiloton bomb. A bomb of only that size would destroy all the G.P.O. exchange lines within two miles of the explosion. A one megaton bomb would affect a radius of 7½ miles and a 10-megaton bomb would destroy the lines within a radius of 16 miles. The warning and other activities of the civil defence, police, fire brigades and industry would have been almost completely restricted and, while some field cables might be laid, that could not happen until after the explosion. I know that in my constituency it would probably mean that the whole area would be out of contact. This wireless set business is becoming almost a scandal. The Isle of Ely has not had any new sets issued since July, 1959. These sets must be got, so that training can be made realistic.
  I agree that the wardens are the key link. The latest handbook, No. 6, has been well accepted and so have the two latest films. I am willing to pay tribute where it is due, but we must consider the conditions of service, for this is most important to all concerned. The most important things now required are conditions of service for the members of the Civil Defence Corps to accept specific obligations in both peace and war. Until we get that I do not believe that there will be an air of reality about this business.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) has said that if we are to spend £200 million on civil defence let us make sure that all concerned in this service know their conditions
  744
  of service, both in peace and war. A householders' handbook is long overdue. What advance is being made in home shelters? But perhaps the worst thing of all is industrial apathy, for it appears that there is little co-operation by industry, especially in the outlying areas. We must get it into the minds of everyone that this is a serious business. Everything must not be left till the last minute. Things must be organised in advance so that they will be effective.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: Once upon a time I had a friend in the Home Office. The picture he painted of that Department was very different from the one painted by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who described it as being the mother of all the Departments. My friend spoke of it as the Cinderella of the Departments. He said that he was without hope for the Home Office, because Prince Charming was always flirting with the big bad baronet, because, at that time, the Home Secretary was the Chairman of the Conservative Party. My friend left the Home Office with a broken heart, and now I have no friends in the Department. But Prince Charming has gone to Africa, and, as in most fairy tales, my story also has a moral.
  The Home Office has within its compass responsibility for, or control of almost all the present order and decency of our public life and also the protection of our future. Yet in addition to his many existing duties the Home Secretary has, for many years, taken upon himself, or been given responsibility for, other additional duties.
  The consequence of this is to be seen in the way in which, although our debate has wandered far and wide and covered many subjects, each speaker has revealed criticism of much the same nature, implying that the Home Office conducts its affairs like a gatherer of inconsequential bits, like a sweeper in a factory gathering up unconsidered trifles. It conducts its work on an almost completely ad hoc basis, and very little research is done into the causes or the needs arising from the problems with which we are faced.
  One can take any of the Home Office matters before the Committee in the

  745
  Votes this evening. We have heard interesting, informative and, in some senses, alarming things about the state of civil defence. It was plain from the interesting speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that the civil defence service in Britain, as far as it goes, is considerably below the standard of efficiency and care which one ought to expect. If one considers more fundamental questions such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), one is driven to the conclusion that, whatever private thinking may be going on in the Home Office about civil defence, no conceptions have yet given birth to any serious consideration of the way in which Britain is to be protected in the event of nuclear attack. This is a serious criticism which the Home Office ought promptly to face.
  There have been criticisms about the situation of the police service and the probation service. The position is the police service is better than it has been for a long time. One hopes that the final report of the inquiry into the police service will bring forth some rich and thoughtful suggestions, but, so far, the subject has been dealt with in an ad hoc fashion. The only solution offered by the Home Office far the failure of police recruitment has been the attempt to increase pay.
  The position of probation officers calls for serious attention. With it is related the whole problem of crime, its detection, prevention and cure in this country, in which respect, I think it is fair to say, Britain lags behind most of the great industrial nations of the world. We have heard in other speeches today of the ways in which, when criminals are incarcerated in other countries—Sweden and the United States have been particularly referred to—an attempt is made seriously to meet their psychological and psychiatric difficulties.
  It is true that in Britain, also, attempts are now being made from time to time, and in different prisons, to meet the psychological difficulties and psychopathic problems of prisoners, but far too little is being done here to inquire seriously and on a large scale into the reasons why
  746
  people commit crimes and into the ways in which they should be dealt with. The result is that, side by side in our prisons, we have treatment techniques which are advanced and worthy of the greatest praise and what I might almost call medieval practices which are retributive and not reformative.
  Only recently, I defended a man who has spent many years in prison. When I asked him about the latest crime he had committed, he told me that he had become institutionalised and wanted to get back to prison. But he said that when he was in prison, although it was known that he was an epileptic, he had never seen a specialist or received psychiatric treatment, but had only received treatment for epilepsy. After he had, for twenty years, been in and out of prison, this fact was finally brought to the notice of the bench, and for the first time he was given an opportunity for psychiatric treatment.
  Mr. Iremonger: Had he asked for it in prison?
  Mr. Williams: No, he had not asked for it. But I do not see the relevance of that. If he was in need of it, and was known—as he was—to be an epileptic, then my point is proved—that the time has long since arrived when a more serious attempt should be made to deal with the problems and difficulties with which prisoners are faced. This should be done not necessarily even for their own sakes, but at least for the sake of the community. The situation in Britain calls for criticism. Certainly, the attempt is being made to improve our prisons, although the position regarding the treatment of prisoners has long since called for reformation.
  For instance the situation in which people are left for long periods three in a cell designed for one person has been for too long a scandal. Even today, it is possible for prisoners to get long-term sentences with no real attempt being made to try to answer the questions of why they commit crimes and if there is a possibility of their being cured. That situation stands out starkly against the situation in France, Sweden and the United States, where attempts are made to meet the psychological and psychiatric problems of these people.

  747
  In the same way, although we have tremendously developed our concern for young people, particularly those who become delinquent, we are faced with the situation in which they, too, are treated in an ad hoc fashion. Very often, they are committed to detention centres which really do not exist, or they are sent to remand homes which are far too overcrowded for anything to be done for them. In many cases, they are left in remand homes waiting for classification for far longer periods than is proper or intended.
  Similarly, the position of after-care is that even to this day prisoners who have become institutionalised are often discharged with insufficient means to keep them out of trouble for any length of time. They are faced with difficult problems when they ask for National Assistance, or for other assistance, because often they have no home and no permanent address and are treated as vagabonds. It is true that there are after-care organisations and a considerable burden is put upon the probation service in after-care, but no real attempt has been or is being made, as far as one can see, to deal with this situation in a way that is a credit to a great country such as ours.
  Because of these things, it would appear to me that the time surely has come when the problem created by this debate, in which people have wandered from one subject to another, is but symptomatic of the problem with which the Home Office is concerned. Its very diversification and the fact that on top of all these burdens the Home Secretary takes even further burdens upon himself faces the House of Commons and the Government with a challenge to do some root and branch consideration of the duties and responsibilities of the Home Office. I do not propose to develop that theme. It is sufficient that the matter has been raised and I hope that when he replies to the debate, the Minister of State will comment upon it.
  Having said that these problems exist, however, and are blots upon the escutcheon of the British way of life, it is probably true that great cost would be entailed in improving the civil defence services at the same time as developing a considerable criminal research project, developing after-care organisations
  748
  of a kind that do not now exist and caring for prisoners and meeting their psychological needs so that they may be redeemed and make a useful contribution to society. I appreciate that all this must cost money.
  One of the things that the Minister of State may well say is that with all the pressures which are laid upon us the cost is too heavy. It would seem to me, however, that the cost of not doing it is too heavy. Although I appreciate that the Votes which we are being asked to pass tonight are for a nominal sum, the very picture that is created is a picture of inadequacy and of lack of sufficient deep concern for the welfare of our people that would leave them defenceless if nuclear war were to come. It generates tremendous passion and excitement when it comes to dealing with those who have offended against our laws and it makes too little provision to deal with their needs and their restoration as civilised members of a civilised community.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I hope that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. T. W. Williams) will forgive me if I do not follow him in great detail and will not think I am picking on him unnecessarily, because I have the happiest memories of our joint researches into French viticulture, if I say that one of the points made by the hon. Member in his speech should not be allowed to pass. It is one which is frequently made and it caused me concern when I first heard it, namely, that prisoners discharged from prison are unable to get National Assistance unless they have a fixed address.
  Having made inquiries, I am assured on the best possible authority that that is simply not true. I hope that this myth will not be propagated so that prisoners are discouraged by it. If my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has time, it might be helpful if he could confirm what I am saying and give details of the arrangements that are made.
  It is particularly tempting to me to follow the many thoughtful and interesting speeches that have been made on penal practice, because there are few

  749
  subjects which interest and concern me more and few are more fascinating or of more profound importance, but I shall instead make only one point, and that briefly. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to deal with it.
  I wish to refer to observations made earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) about experiments on live animals, a matter about which a great many of our constituents are concerned. I refer to the pamphlet which has been circulated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, "Cruelty within the Law", about the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, and the way in which its provisions are administered by my right hon. Friend's Department.
  Many of us on this side have the greatest respect, and those who know him great affection, for the Chairman of the R.S.P.C.A.
  I think that he would have done better service to the Society of he had managed to persuade, as I am sure he tried to do, his colleagues who were responsible for this pamphlet to be a little more careful in what they actually stated and even more careful in the implications that they made, because I think that this pamphlet is grossly misleading in many respects, But that is not really the point. It has been circulated and it has caused a great deal of distress and anxiety to ordinary decent people. It is one of the most agreeable traits of the British character that everyone has a profound feeling for animals and intense reaction to any thought that cruelty may be perpetrated against them. This has disturbed a great many people.
  My own belief and bias of mind, having looked into it, is that the Act is right and that it is fairly, efficiently, and properly administered; but the point is that people do not think so. I think that it would be to the advantage of the Committee and certainly to my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if something could be done to persuade people that their anxieties about these experiments on live animals were not justified.
  It would be very helpful if we could have some sort of public inquiry into
  750
  this matter, conducted by, say, a High Court judge—someone whose mind and integrity would be beyond criticism—who might possibly be supported by two others, one a layman—I think that I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead in saying a woman, not medically qualified—and the other a doctor who could bring his mind to bear on the medical implications.
  I think that it would be a good thing to do this so that we could have this matter thrashed out. I would not care to go as a Member of Parliament, or ask my hon. Friends to go, around these laboratories and institutions, because I cannot feel that I could come to a fair conclusion unless I had more opportunity to call for witnesses and to cross-examine them and make further inquiries than one would have, with the best will in the world, in the ordinary way.
  As it is, I can do no more than say to my constituents that I am assured by my right hon. Friend that their anxieties are not justified and that he is probably speaking the truth in defending his administration of the Act. But there comes a time when that is not very convincing and when I would like something more to add. It might be helpful if my right hon. Friend would open up the operation of his Department to the public view, through the scrutiny of an independent inquiry which would be beyond suspicion of whitewashing and which would enable the public to be satisfied from sources which it would know were not biased.
  I know that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is waiting to wind up the debate for the Opposition very shortly, although he is probably not quite ready yet. I also know that several of my hon. Friends have been trying to catch your eye, Sir William, since the early afternoon, so I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not detain it any longer.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Antony Buck: I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) will forgive me if in the short time available to me I do not follow his arguments about vivisection. Sufficient to say that

  751
  there is public disquiet about the situation, disquiet which, from the inquiries which I have made with some thoroughness, I believe to be largely unjustified. However, the inquiry which my hon. Friend has suggested, the greater opening up, as he put it, of the licensed laboratories to Members of Parliament, and perhaps to members of the R.S.P.C.A., might go a long way, without the need for an expensive public inquiry, towards allaying the suspicions and fears which exist about this matter among certain sections of the public.
  In the few moments available to me, I should like to comment on the most interesting speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). I join with others who have congratulated her on her splendid recovery from her recent illness. We are all delighted about it. She made a considerable point about the Government not carrying out the recommendations or even considering the reports of various commissions and committees which from time to time have considered various Home Office affairs. However, I part with her in that, although we should all welcome the opportunity for a full debate on the Ingleby Report and some other matters, it might have been more appropriate if in fairness she had mentioned the extraordinary expedition of which the Government are capable when something especially important comes up. For example, within a very short time of the Report of the Streatfeild Committee, if not a matter of weeks then of a very few months, the Criminal Justice Bill was presented implementing many of that Committee's recommendations. I am sure that the hon. Lady would be the first to recognise that when recommendations as important as those are made, the Government do and have acted with considerable expedition in an entirely appropriate way.
  I have heard most of the debate and one of the other themes which has slightly surprised me is the lack of appreciation among some hon. Members opposite of the need of a deterrent within our penal system. Of course it is appropriate that we should stress the need for reformation. My own university is Cambridge and I am particularly proud of the work of the Faculty of Criminology
  752
  and Professor Radzinowicz. As the solutions to various problems are studied by the Home Office and as they are more formulated and made steadily more clear, so they will be brought into our system.
  But it is not helpful in instilling the public with confidence in the system if hon. Members opposite are for ever stressing solely the reformative side of the present penal system. It is not right that prisons should be thoroughly comfortable places. It is right that they should have a substantial element of discomfort. Of course we do not want prisons with three men to the cell, and we have a magnificent prison building programme. But we should not constantly stress the reformative element without the deterrent element. Retribution, no, but deterrent, yes. Prisons must not be comfortable.
  It is unfortunate that some people should have the view that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a "softie" about these matters. Having heard him on many occasions and having read many of his speeches, I know that that is not the case. There is nothing soft about a detention centre. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) will know that it would not be an inappropriate parallel to say that a detention centre is the Brigade of Guards discipline multiplied by about four. Everything is done at the double. They give a short, sharp, shock. The Government are entitled to full credit for a great deal of the toughness in their outlook on these penal matters.
  Finally, to keep the balance, there must be a spirit of reform none the less. An interesting experiment, sanctioned by the Minister of State is being conducted in my constituency. A place named "Windy Ridge" is being made into a combination of a probation home and probation hostel. The boys regard this as home, and some are able to go out to work. The most able leadership is provided, and I have no doubt that the scheme will be a success. This is another interesting measure of reform which might well commend itself to wider extension in the country.
  I promised to sit down at ten minutes past nine, and I am obliged to you Sir William for the opportunity to address the Committee for a few moments.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Committee realises that the Joint Under-Secretary of State has a formidable task to deal with the variety of subjects raised in the course of this debate. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) that it might be better in future if we tried on Home Office debates on Supply days to limit the Votes for discussion so that we might have more time to concentrate on a limited number of topics.
  I do not wish to add to the number of points raised in the debate, beyond mentioning two incidental matters. Many people in London and elsewhere have been to the ballot box today to record their votes. For a long time it has seemed to me that when the Representation of the People Act comes up for consideration it might be convenient if, in future, candidates were able on the ballot paper to put the names of their parties, because when a voter has to select nine candidates out of 27 it is quite a feat of memory to select the right names unless the parties have supplied, as they generally do at great inconvenience, voting cards to the electors. If, in future, ballot papers showed not only the name, address, and occupation of the candidate, but his political party, it would be of advantage to the political parties and to the public.
  The other point which has not been mentioned, and which I think ought to be, is the subject of legal aid. I note with some surprise that in the Home Office Vote on page III-6 there is a reduction compared with the amount asked for last year in item H for legal aid in criminal cases. I was surprised and somewhat disappointed to notice that the Estimate for which the Home Office is budgeting this year as the amount it will have to spend on legal aid in criminal cases is about 10 per cent. less than it was last year.
  My experience is that legal aid in criminal cases is very much sought after. It is also my experience that a great deal of hardship is caused to those prisoners who do not have the benefit of legal aid. I therefore hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to assure us that this reduction
  754
  in the amount asked for is no indication whatever that it is any part of Home Office policy to curtail in any way the facilities available for legal aid in criminal cases. There is a good deal that could be said about the operation of the legal aid system in general, but it would be trenching on the time of the Committee and introducing at a late stage an entirely new topic if I embarked on that tonight.
  With great respect to those of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have referred to the matter, I do not propose in the time at my disposal to touch on two subjects which have been ventilated at some length. I refer to civil defence and animal health, both of which are of great importance, but have been adequately dealt with by other hon. Members.
  The Home Secretary, in opening the debate, rather prided himself on the impressive record of legislation that has emanated from the Home Office in recent years, and I think that he was justified in referring to the Betting and Gaming Act, the Licensing Act, and the Street Offences Act, as having been liberalising Measures of reform which had received general support.
  But the Home Office is not entitled to be at all complacent because of that record of legislative activity. This is the occasion to remind it—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) and others—that there was a great backlog of social legislation required, and there are still other important Measures which the Home Office should lose no time in introducing, and about which it has been remiss in not dealing with before. I refer, in particular, to the subject of compensation for victims of crimes of violence, which was referred to by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in a recent speech in his constituency, and I hope that as a result of that speech we are justified in assuming that a Bill on that subject will be introduced at an early date.
  We are also entitled to complain at the failure of the Home Office, after a long delay, to implement the Gowers Report upon conditions in offices. I endorse what my hon. Friends have said, namely, that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) has been

  755
  shamefully treated through the failure of the Home Office either to make any regulations under my hon. Friend's Act, or, alternatively, to introduce comprehensive legislation on the subject.
  Thirdly, I hope that the Minister of State will be able to confirm that it is the intention of the Government, at an early date, to implement the recommendations of the Tucker Committee dealing with committal proceedings. Those recommendations received considerable support in legal and professional quarters, and there is a general feeling that the time has certainly arrived for the suppression of Press reports on committal proceedings, and perhaps for a complete review of general committal procedure.
  Having mentioned those matters, all of which require attention before the Home Secretary is entitled to congratulate himself upon his activities, I turn to the twin matters which have been uppermost in our minds today, namely, the treatment of offenders and the prevention of crime. I do not propose to go over the ground covered by my hon. Friends. We all welcome the statement made by the Home Secretary about the programme of building operations for remand homes, new borstal centres and detention centres, which are in progress, and some of which are referred to in the Estimates.
  We regard this as overdue, and we hope that, conjointly with this programme, the Minister of State will bear in mind the sensible observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), which I am sure impressed the whole Committee. It is no use embarking upon this expensive but welcome and overdue building programme unless, at the same time, there is a real effort to remove some of the many evil and out-of-date practices in existing prisons, and to ensure that prison treatment is of a reformative character and not a retributive, penal character. I hope that the Minister of State will take to heart what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Buck: The hon. Member says that he does not wish punishment to be of a penal character. Does not he consider that this is going too far?
  Mr. Fletcher: I did not say that. I said that I hoped that the emphasis would be laid upon the reformative character of treatment in prisons. A prison sentence is itself a punishment of a penal character, but a prisoner, once in prison, should be treated as my hon. Friend and others have said, as a subject for reformative treatment.
  I remind the Minister of State that a great deal has still to be done as a result of a series of earlier reports that have emanated from the Home Office. For example, there were the recommendations of the Maxwell Committee. A great many of its recommendations have not yet been carried out, though that Committee published its Report as long ago as 1951. It was under the very able chairmanship of Sir Alexander Maxwell, to whom we all owe a tribute for the great work he did at the Home Office in connection with penal reform. As a recent pamphlet by Dr. Pauline Morris, published only a year or two ago, has indicated, seven years have now passed since the publication of the Maxwell Report, and very little has been done in practice to implement its recommendations.
  I particularly draw the attention of hon. Members to the obsolete methods which still surround prison visitors. I have never been able to understand why prison visitors, many of whom work on a voluntary basis and ought to be encouraged, are not allowed to have, or, rather, are discouraged from, any contact with a prisoner's family, and, also why they are discouraged from having any contact with a prisoner after he has been released from prison.
  While he is in prison a man requires the maximum of social help in connection with his family relationships, and if there are prison visitors attending to his welfare there is every reason why they should be encouraged, and not discouraged, in keeping in contact with his family and relatives and also looking after his welfare after he leaves prison.
  I think that the Minister of State will have recognised by now that there is very considerable disquiet in the Committee and, indeed, in the country about the whole of the arrangements for the after-care of prisoners. The dual system, as a result of which some prisoners are

  757
  entitled to statutory after-care while others rely on voluntary after-care, has been condemned more than once. It produces great disadvantages, and we all hope that the committee which the Home Secretary has set up to deal with the present unsatisfactory state of affairs will very soon make some recommendations, to which the Home Office will immediately pay attention.
  Having said that, I now turn to what is perhaps one of the most important matters dealt with in the debate—the probation service. Very few of us have had time yet to study in detail the report on the Departmental Committee on the Probation Service under the chairmanship of Mr. Morison, now Sir Ronald Morison, which was published only a few days ago, but I think that these things should be said. In the whole context of the treatment of offenders, the treatment of potential offenders, the prevention of crime generally and the prevention of juvenile deliquency, nothing is more important at the moment than the strengthening of the probation service.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) pointed out in his most eloquent speech on this subject, multifarious duties devolve on probation officers and the work done by them is invaluable social work. They not only deal with prisoners after sentence, but deal with a whole variety of cases of a matrimonial character, and, on a voluntary basis, with a lot of quasi-criminal matters as well.
  As the Minister of State knows, following the recommendations in Part B of the Streatfeild Committee Report, which the Home Secretary has undertaken to implement, it is intended to throw additional burdens on the probation service. It is now recognised that in any reform of our criminal system it is essential that judges, recorders, chairmen of quarter sessions and those who have to decide what penalties shall be inflicted on a criminal when convicted should have the fullest possible information so that they can determine the proper sentence to impose, particularly now that there is a much greater variety of sentences than was the case a few years ago. If that duty on the judiciary is to be exercised to the best advantage, reliance will have
  758
  to be placed on a great deal more information about prisoners, their records, family circumstances, environment and previous history than has been the case in the past.
  That information will have to be supplied by the probation service. Only in that way shall we obtain a more sympathetic and rational administration of the criminal law. In substance, that is the burden of the recommendation of the Streatfeild Committee, which the Home Office has accepted. In turn, that means that the whole status and conception of the probation service must be raised, recognised and enhanced.
  One of the most disquieting features of the Morison Report is the serious criticisms made of the present relationship between the probation service and the Home Office. On page 71, the Report refers to the
  "strained relationships between the Home Office and probation committees and between the Home Office and the service."
  This is very disquieting, and I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister of State that due notice will be taken of it.
  The Committee gives four reasons for the strained relationships:
  "The first has been the great increase in the volume of work with which output from the probation training scheme has not been able to keep pace … the Home Office has, in the interests of national economic policy, had to resist certain salary claims by probation officers and has incurred the resentment both of officers and of their employing committees. … the Home Office has exercised also in the interests of the Exchequer, financial controls which probation committees have found petty and irksome … the Home Office has not always succeeded in giving the service as a whole a full picture of its considerable activity and of its warm and genuine interest in the welfare of the service."
  These are weighty criticisms.
  When so much invaluable work of a difficult nature in very difficult circumstances, often in totally inadequate accommodation and at all hours of the day and night, is expected of the probation service, the least we can expect is that due attention will be given to these recommendations. It was for this reason that I intervened when the Home Secretary spoke to obtain his clarification of what it was he was saying about the proposed increase in the remuneration of probation officers.

  759
  To quote again from the Report, the Committee said, very emphatically, on page 141:
  "There must … be bold increases in salaries which will put the service on a different plane of attraction, and encourage, as can no other measures, interest in the opportunities which the modern service offers for a professional career."
  In view of that recommendation, the Home Secretary ought to approach this matter, as the Morison Committee recommends, with a view to announcing that he will not only give them the 10 per cent. increase recommended by the Joint Negotiating Committee, but will also, I hope, raise the salary status to that recommended.
  On the subject of prevention of crime, we await the report of the Royal Commission on the Police. We hope that when that report is received we shall have a full debate. There has been a great deal of disquiet about relations between the public and the police. It is most important that there should be the greatest possible confidence on the part of the public and co-operation with the police. In view of the hour, I shall not go into that subject now, but I give the Minister of State notice that when we get the Royal Commission's report we shall need a very full debate on the whole subject of the police, the public and the Home Office's relationship with the Metropolitan Police.
  9.31 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): First, I join with other hon. Members in welcoming the return of the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), in good voice and in good heart, and displaying that keenness in Home Office matters she always displays and the very valuable experience she has had in the field of child care, juvenile delinquency questions and so on.
  The value of this debate, I suggest, lies in the many constructive contributions and suggestions that have been made from both sides of the Committee rather than in any immediate response which I might make to them. I think it right to say that the debate has shown broad approval of my right hon. Friend's policies. The criticisms which have been made have been made not so much of
  760
  the policies themselves as of various aspects—relatively minor aspects—in which they have not been executed as hon. Members would have wished.
  I have never met anybody who was connected with the Home Office who was not intensely proud of its tradition of enlightened service to the British public. I was greatly heartened by the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whose distinguished tenure as Home Secretary we all remember. By implication, he paid a warm tribute to the Home Office which I should like to acknowledge. The general programme of reforming legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend in recent years is powerful evidence of the capacity of the Home Office to work with a Home Secretary of progressive outlook.
  This, as has been said, is the first debate we have had for a long time in which civil defence could be discussed. We have had some very interesting speeches and some well-informed ones on that matter. They have also been strangely conflicting. Some have said that we should spend many more millions on civil defence and reach a stage of near-readiness for emergency, while others, including the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that we should drop the whole thing, that it is a waste of time and money. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) went so far as to back him up by saying that it was all hypocrisy. In saying that they seemed to ignore the fact that Russia, the United States and most European countries have a civil defence policy very much like ours, in some ways more developed and in some ways less so. We keep close contact with our N.A.T.O. allies in civil defence matters, and we learn a good deal from each other.
  We regard civil defence as a prudent and humanitarian form of insurance against a disaster which we hope will never happen. But if it did happen, we should be thankful that we had taken steps to help the survivors and to alleviate the suffering. This year, we fixed the insurance premium at about £19 million, rising to £20 million, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) pointed out, we are continuing it at that level

  761
  at least for a good many years ahead. We do not think that that is over-insuring. If anyone thinks that we are under-insuring, I suggest that he should first help us to make certain that the premium is well spent.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire indicated that, in his view, there would be no survivors. That, I think, fairly summarises his attitude to the matter. That is not a view shared by us or by other Governments concerned. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have pointed out on many public occasions, there would, on any reasonable assumption, be millions of survivors of the attack. It is to ensure that the maximum number of people would survive and to help to re-establish the essentials of national life after a disaster of such magnitude that civil defence in its widest sense exists.
  As the Committee knows, during 1960 we carried out a comprehensive review of civil defence plans. As we explained in the 1961–62 Defence White Paper, we decided that some additional expenditure was needed to secure a better balanced programme over the next few years. Among the items to which more money is being devoted, both under the Home Office Vote and under the Votes of other Departments, are the provision of premises and communications for the emergency chain of control, the protection of water supplies, and the provision for the storage and emergency distribution of oil and emergency medical supplies. We are continuing with our plans for safeguarding supplies of food and are making emergency provisions for the functioning of ports, shipping and railways. We are continuing to stockpile radiac equipment for the essential services and we are stock-piling more fire-fighting equipment. We are providing more operational and training equipment for the Civil Defence Corps and the emergency fire service.
  The hon. Member for South Ayrshire asked whether we have an office for emergency planning. Of course we have. Some countries, when they need to establish a new office, do so with a good deal of publicity and form a separate department. But our habit is sometimes to let the Home Office get on with the job. That is what we are doing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) my web-footed neighbour—I am sure that
  762
  he will not mind my calling him that—referred to the condition in which his constituency and mine might be. He referred in particular to the number of wireless sets available for training and the facilities which exist for exercises to take place in his constituency, where there are sixty-two active members of the signals subsection training weekly in detachments at Ely, March, Wisbech and Whittlesea. There are seven sets between them. That is an allocation which, I understand, has enabled those sixty-two people to be trained adequately. Still more could be trained if necessary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely and others referred to the warning and monitoring organisation which, as they said, is the first essential for home defence—a reliable system of warning. It would be a short warning, about four minutes, but it would at least give people time to take cover, and this alone could save many lives.
  I was glad to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Withington when he said that our warning system was in an advanced state of preparedness. I assure the Committee that it could be brought into operation at very short notice and it would be effective. We are improving it all the time.
  Mrs. Eirene White: If we had four minutes warning here, what could we do?
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady has not been present during the debate. She has no conception of the number of points that I have to answer. However, as she has interrupted me I will answer that point. The sensible thing to do here, as in so many other places, would be to get into a basement, if possible, or, if not, to get into a room with as few outside walls as possible, preferably brick built, and on the ground floor rather than on the first floor.
  All home defence measures in the event of attack would depend for their effectiveness, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely pointed out, on a system of command and control. We have had one in existence for some years and the many exercises which have been held show that there is excellent co-operation between our regional, sub-regional and area organisation and the Armed Forces. Many control premises

  763
  have been built for that purpose. Others have been earmarked and we have a building programme for the remainder which is gaining momentum. The whole chain of command needs special communications and our network of emergency cable and radio links is being developed very fast.
  We have detailed plans for emergencies in the broadest sense and for marshalling and co-ordinating essential supplies and services after a period of attack. The aftermath would be a struggle for survival in which the entire remaining resources of the country would have to be used. We have the most comprehensive arrangements for ensuring that all necessary services are provided for in these emergency plans.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) asked about recruiting. I am glad to say that the last recruiting campaign was the most successful we have had and the total strength of the civil defence services, including the Royal Observer Corps, is now about 650,000, including 375,000 members of the Civil Defence Corps. There are two good things about these figures. First, they probably include a higher percentage of effectives—that is, trained people who are taking a genuine and active interest in things—than for many years past. Secondly, recruiting has continued at a good rate since the last recruiting campaign ended. I am sure that the Committee would wish to join me in expressing our thanks to all those who volunteer for this most valuable service to the country.
  In paragraph 49 of the last Defence White Paper we announced our intention to discuss with local authorities certain changes in the organisation of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service. Our main purpose is to improve their effectiveness to form a trained nucleus for quick expansion in an emergency. We are discussing these proposals with the local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Withington wanted to know about the co-operation of the Territorial Army. He rather indicated that there was very little. Without troubling the Committee with details, I will merely say now that there is a great deal and has been for years. I will write to my hon. Friend about the details.
  764
  As to shelter, it is generally accepted here and in other countries that the need is to concentrate on protection against fall-out, which is quite easy to obtain, rather than to consume resources on protection against blast and fire. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East, a basement or any other kind of underground shelter gives a high degree of protection and much can be done by taking advantage of existing buildings. Managements of industrial premises were invited some time ago to survey their premises with a view to providing fall-out shelter and were given technical advice to help them in doing so.
  We do not intend to divert the energies of our building trade from our large and fine programme of building new schools, new hospitals, and other things on public account, nor to divert energy from the housing programme. I must therefore make it clear that we consider that it would be over-insuring to have purpose-built deep shelters on a nation-wide scale. It would be an immense diversion of resources, quite apart from the expense—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
  Mr. Renton: No, I must press on. I am trying to answer as fully as I can.
  In our Statement on Defence this year, we explained that we had reviewed dispersal policy in the light of recent developments in the strategic situation, and announced that we had decided to prepare a dispersal scheme. This would be a voluntary scheme under which priority classes, mainly women and children, would move from large centres of population to reception centres. The local authorities have been sent information about the outline of the scheme, and the next step is to work out the details, on which we shall, of course, consult them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely and other hon. Members referred to the important question of giving advice to the public. A good deal of information has already been made available to those who want it, but we agree that this is not enough, even when we take account of the splendid work which the W.V.S. has done in the one-in-five scheme, and what the local authorities are doing. We have

  765
  plans for the rapid issue, in an emergency, of instructions to householders on the physical preparations they should make, and we are considering how to increase the information given meanwhile to the public.
  It is sometimes said—and said sometimes, if I may say so without being offensive, by people who ought to know better—that the Government are not giving enough of a lead in civil defence, but I hope that I have shown clearly that we are giving a lead, not merely by words but by deeds. We are bringing our policy and plans up to date. We are spending large sums of money, building more headquarters, control rooms and local training centres. We are providing more and more equipment and improving our reserves of food and materials, besides encouraging recruitment through our autumn campaigns and, speaking for my right hon. Friend and myself, encouraging volunteers, officials and civil defence committees whenever we have the chance to do so. If those things do not amount to giving a lead, I should be glad to be told what does.
  I must quickly say a word about immigration, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) when Under-Secretary at the Home Office, in July, 1956, told the House that the number of foreign passengers then presenting themselves at our ports was about a million a year. In the report which was published yesterday, showing the annual return of aliens, we find that nearly 1,800,000 foreigners entered this country last year—a very large number. The fact that the controls have worked so smoothly on the whole must surely give us confidence in the ability of the immigration service to cope successfully with the additional tasks that lie ahead of it. Needless to say, I refer to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
  I must now turn to some of the matters to which the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East referred. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with them, but I know that the hon. Lady will expect me to refer to some of her points, which have also been referred to by other hon. Members. First of all, there is the Homicide Act. Its working has, of course, been closely
  766
  watched ever since it came into force, and the Report on murder by the Home Office Research Unit last autumn paid close attention to the changes made by that Act.
  Although there is a widespread belief that the Measure was to be reviewed after five years, no specific undertaking has been given to institute such a review. There are wide differences of opinion among hon. Members on this matter, but this is not the moment, when crimes of violence continue to increase, for the Government to take the initiative to amend the law, and I am afraid that I cannot add anything today to what my right hon. Friend said on 29th March, when he indicated that the working of the Act would remain under review, but held out no prospect of legislation on the subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk), the hon. Lady and others asked about compensation for victims of crimes of violence. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the desire of many hon. Members as well as people and organisations outside Parliament that steps should be taken to provide some measure of compensation for these victims. The White Paper which was presented a year ago made clear that there were several questions of principle and many practical difficulties which had to be resolved before a decision could be taken, and my right hon. Friend thought it right to open the subject for wider discussion and to seek the views of bodies with special interests in the subject or with expertise to contribute. He has received helpful reports and comments from some of them and hopes to receive more from others before long. That is as far as I can go on this matter now.
  The hon. Lady also asked about the Ingleby Report. She will remember that some of its most important recommendations were embodied in the Criminal Justice Act. Regarding the remaining recommendations, the Government have already indicated that we accept most of them. I think that all the outstanding recommendations would involve legislation and, therefore, we cannot now discuss them in detail. Of course, they would have to be embodied in a Children Bill in a future Session.

  767
  The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) referred to after-care, which is a most vital problem. A most important development was the extension of compulsory after-care made in the Criminal Justice Act. However efficient and devoted the workers may be, there is no doubt that their effectiveness in the past has been hampered because, for most prisoners, the acceptance of after-care was a voluntary matter and many of the prisoners who most needed after-care were the most likely to decline it. Compulsion, however, must be regarded, to some extent, as a long-term experiment which must be tried as we work for an improvement. The organisation of the whole field of after-care is being studied by an Advisory Committee and we can look forward to early progress in this matter.
  May I, lest I should not have time later, interpolate a word about vivisection before continuing with penal matters because my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) I am sure impressed the Committee with the sincerity of their desire that we should take a further look at this matter. We understand the public feelings involved. About a year ago the Home Secretary received a deputation from the R.S.P.C.A. and gave an assurance that every care was taken to see that all the requirements of the Act are fully observed. He replied to them after most careful thought with regard to the proposals they made about the number and qualifications of the inspectors under the Act and the composition of the Advisory Committee.
  Hon. Members have made a number of specific suggestions and I am sure that they would not expect me to give an immediate answer to all of them. But I can say that I propose to invite the attention to this of the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, who is Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and who is a Lord of Appeal. I should like to remind the hon. Member for Ashford about this since he said that a High Court judge should look into this matter. We already have one of the most distinguished, humane and liberal-minded
  768
  judges on the bench, who is a Law Lord, as Chairman, and we feel that it would be courteous to him to invite his attention to what has been said in this debate and to consult his Advisory Committee on the suggestions that have been made. Let us first have their views and then we will consider the matter further. Having made sure that I replied on that important matter, I now revert to the vital subject of penology.
  Approved schools and remand homes have figured greatly in the debate. The hon. Lady reminded me of something which I had said, not very wisely, she thinks, over eighteen months ago. I am always glad to be corrected by the hon. Lady. As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, the responsibility for providing remand homes rests with the local authorities. We cannot get away from that. We recognise that the authorities' problems have been aggravated by the shortage of approved school places. I am sure that the hon. Lady takes comfort in the fact that we do, at least, acknowledge that. There is no doubt of it.
  However, even when the expansion of our building programme for approved schools has been completed and produced sufficient places, as we believe it will, there may well remain a shortage of places in remand homes. More juveniles have been remanded by the courts because of the continuing increase in delinquency and, probably, because of a growing understanding by the courts of the help which the assessment of a child in a remand home can give in deciding how best to deal with that child. Between the beginning of 1956, when the increase of delinquency began to be felt, and the first half of 1961, remands increased by no less than 58 per cent. for boys and 49 per cent. for girls.
  In order to help local authorities to get to the bottom of the problem and decide what is required to meet the immediate and urgent need and to plan for the future, the Home Office has been in consultation with groups of local authorities in different parts of the country. During the past few months, local authorities have provided about 100 boys' places, about another 50 places for boys and 20 for girls are in early prospect. These consultations are continuing and are

  769
  being extended to those areas where further provision is considered necessary.
  We are increasing the number of places at approved schools all the time. Last year, there were 150 more places provided for boys, and there have been 90 more provided in the first quarter of this year. As my right hon. Friend said, the building programme will expand in the following years. Not only are we providing new accommodation but we are, at the same time, trying to improve the old accommodation, some of which has been quite fairly criticised today. We are conscious that, in the meantime, the schools are working under great difficulties because of the constant pressure of numbers and the fact that, in order to help to meet the pressure, many are working above their normal capacity. We should pay a tribute to the work which the managers and staff are doing in the face of many difficulties.
  Quite rightly, it has been said that the provision of staff is vital in this connection. The Home Secretary's Central Training Council in Child Care, with its long experience in organising the training of staff for this service, is now organising, in co-operation with the universities and local authorities, courses specifically for house staff of approved schools, and it is considering the further development of training for staff already in the schools.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East referred in critical vein to the new Ashford remand centre. She rightly said that it is having its teething troubles, like any new establishment, but she expressed anxiety. We have taken full note of what she said and we shall certainly do what we can—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on the two Motions relating to Procedure exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

  PROCEDURE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. John Arbuthnot, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. George Brown, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Grimond, Sir Lionel Heald, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Jain Macleod, Sir Samuel Storey, Mr. George Wigg, and Mr. W. R. Williams, be Members of the Select Committe.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move to leave out "Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth".
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir (Robert Grimston): I suggest that we discuss, at the same time, the other Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, after "Mr. Iain Macleod", to insert "Mr. Sidney Silverman".
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is agreeable, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  I do not wish to take up a great deal of time on this matter. I believe that this is a reasonable Amendment. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), whose name we seek to delete, but we think that, in view of the fact that the Select Committee is to consider the question of what I may describe as "whipless Members"—two on the opposite benches and five on this side of the House—it is only fair and reasonable that one "whipless Member" should be on that Committee.
  As the proposed membership stands, there is likely to be a majority against us of about eight to one, and we think that that is quite reasonable. I suggest to the Leader of the House that, in view of the fact that these "whipless Members" would have no representation at all under the Motion, the House should allow my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is acquainted with their grievances, to be a member.
  10.3 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): We are considering the question of names for the Select Committee on Procedure which was ordered by the House on 17th April last. It was also ordered, amongst other matters, that it should consist of twelve Members, and there are twelve

  771
  names on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) wishes to delete one name and to insert the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Two points arise here. One is minor and the other major, but I am bound to say that each in itself would be sufficient to argue against and, indeed, to defeat his case.
  The minor point is that it has been agreed by the House that this Select Committee should consist of twelve Members, and this is parallel with the Committee of Privileges, to which, in many ways, this Select Committee will be similar, both in composition and the way in which matters are referred to it.
  It is clearly established that in all our Committees it is necessary to reproduce, though not necessarily precisely, the composition of the House. To do so precisely would often be mathematically impossible, but it is established that the Government should have a majority on the Committees. The minimum majority is seven to five on the figure of twelve, to which the House has already agreed.
  Therefore, the first result—this is the minor point, but in itself, I would have thought, decisive—would be that if we accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member the Government majority would disappear and the figures would be 6:6. On strict party representations, which is the second point about whether, in effect, one can or should put an individual hon. Member on the Committee, there would be seven Conservative and Unionist Members, the strict entitlement being 6·9, and five Labour Members, the strict entitlement being 4·8. Therefore, mathematically there would not only be no grounds for considering representation by any of the seven independent Members of the House, but no grounds for considering representation by the Liberal Party, either.
  As with the Committee of Privileges, however, and in accordance with established custom in the House on these matters, one seat is reserved for a Liberal Member and the Leader of the Liberal Party has put his name forward for that position. In effect, therefore, the position is that the official Labour Party is under-represented mathematically on
  772
  the Committee and the Liberal Party is over-represented. That is inevitable.
  What is suggested now is that one of the seven independent Members should be added. That is not a proposition which the House should entertain. Of the seven Members, only one—my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson)—was elected as an independent Member to the House and the others are in what may be temporary disagreement with their parties. In selecting the composition of these Committees, one tries to have regard to the position of the House and the parties which compose it. We have carried this out by the usual form of consultation.
  I make one more point which is extremely important. If this was an ad hoc Committee to consider only the question and all the positions relating to minorities, it might be that one would have to look a little more carefully at the position to which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has drawn attention. That, however, is not the position. The idea is that we should have this Select Committee as a Standing Committee on Procedure and the following Motion which appears in my name in relation to Standing Order No. 58 (2) on minorities is only one of a number of matters of great importance which would be referred to the Committee. Therefore, we are not planning an investigation into just one aspect of our affairs in this House, but are seeking to have guidance from a number for senior Members of the House, of all parties, on a considerable number of matters of public business.
  I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will withdraw his Amendment. If he studies the names which have been put forward of the twelve Members, I think he will agree that they comprise a wide representation amongst the parties in the House. Of course, the Committee will be anxious to have help, advice and recommendations which any Member of the House might put to them—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has more experience and is a greater authority on points of order than anybody on the Committee?
  Mr. Macleod: Nobody would challenge his experience if that experience is governed by the number of lines in HANSARD concerning points of order. Even though the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne does not serve as a Member, however, I have a hunch that that will not inhibit him from making his views known to the Committee. Perhaps that is the best way of solving the matter.
  I therefore hope that we can move towards this Standing Committee on Procedure, which will be of great benefit to the House, and that in view of what I have said the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: It is not altogether pleasant to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I do so on this occasion. If the five independent Members on our side of the House were to be counted as a party, I think that they would be entitled to be represented by one-sixteenth of a man. If they were to be treated as separate individuals, I think that they would be represented by roughly one-eightieth of a man.
  Speaking entirely for myself, I am in favour of Solomon on these matters. He succeeded in preserving the baby intact, and I am all for doing so. I should hate to see any of my hon. Friends cut to pieces to preserve a mathematical proportion of them on the Select Committee in question.
  Moreover, I have some old-fashioned prejudices about questions of judges and people who come before them. The first matter that this Committee will have to consider is the rights of minorities. My hon. Friend, in speaking about this, stressed that and it was on account of that that he desired my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to be put on the Committee.
  This Committee has power to send for persons and papers. It is a usual power, not an invariable one, and it seems to me that the right place, if, in fact, this is a question of deciding about minorities, for a member of a minority is as a witness before the Committee, which, after all, represents the whole House, rather than as a member of the Committee. If he were to become a
  774
  member of the Committee he might run the risk of becoming a judge in his own cause, since it is substantially a question of a minority that has to be considered.
  Therefore, without developing the matter any further, I agree on this occasion with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and I take leave to remind myself that, while a wholly independent attitude sometimes has its advantages, occasionally it may have its disadvantages.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish only to say that we have had a coalition of casuistry. There was more casuistry from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in three minutes than I have heard for a considerable time. I want only to differ from him on one point. He submitted that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) could be divided into the proportion of one to sixteen. I hold the view that my hon. Friend is very often equal to sixteen Members of the House in other ways. Although he is small, that does not rule against him.
  However, in view of the overwhelming coalition against me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mr. John Arbuthnot, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. George Brown, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Grimond, Sir Lionel Heald, Viscount Hinchingbrooke, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Jain Macleod, Sir Samuel Storey, Mr. George Wigg, and Mr. W. R. Williams, be Members of the Select Committee.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move,
  That the effect of Standing Order No. 58 (2) on minorities, being a matter relating to the procedure in the public business of the House, he referred to the Select Committee on Procedure.
  All I need say on this Motion is that this is the first of a number of matters which we will be referring to the Select Committee on Procedure, but the point arose, in some measure at least, from the operation of Standing Order No. 58, and I feel that we should take this matter first.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. MitchisonMay I take this opportunity, without occupying too much of the time of the House, to ask the right hon. Gentleman what kind of procedure he has in mind for referring matters to the Committee? I do not mean the procedure in the House, but that if some of us feel that this, that, or the other matter is proper for the Committee, how does he suggest that we raise it? Should it be raised in the first instance by a letter to him, or by a formal Motion on the Order Paper, or through the usual channels? I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends have several points, most of them non-contentious, which they may wish to raise and be considered as proper for the Committee.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: This matter affects minorities on both sides of the House and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some consideration to the injustice which we believe to have been perpetrated on the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Banff (Sir W. Duthie). Both those hon. Members represented their constituencies on important and vital issues on which they dared to disagree with the Government. It is of the essence of the rights of hon. Members that they should be able, if necessary, to express independent criticism of Government or Opposition Front Bench policy without having what we regard as punitive and vindictive action taken against them.
  Some hon. Members on this side of the House are sometimes described as independent Labour Members. We are here as members of the Labour Party in our constituencies and no punitive action should be taken against us because we sometimes disagree with the occupants of the Front Bench. In the history of the House, great contributions have been made by hon. Members who have acted according to what they thought was right, irrespective of what was stated by their Front Bench. After all, we place them on the Front Bench and although we agree that Whips are essential to the conduct of the House, we do not think that Whips should be the "bosses" of the House.
  776
  We have been referred to as independents and are frequently mentioned by the B.B.C. and other organs of radio and television as independent Labour Members. I object to that because I am as much a Labour Member as any of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I represent my constituency and if necessary I will fight for the Labour Party in my constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice that hon. Members opposite are far more enthusiastic when I say that than when it is said from their own side. I have always noted that when an hon. Member on this side of the House criticises his own Front Bench he is regarded by hon. Members opposite as somebody courageously stating an independent point of view and, similarly, when an hon. Member opposite makes the same sort of protest against his own Front Bench he is a hero to this side. Sometimes individual hon. Members should express points of view which might challenge the orthodoxies of the House.
  There is the case of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), whom we are glad to see in the House from time to time, who was regarded with as much dislike by the Chamberlain Government as we are on this side of the House. Further, I recently made researches into the political biography of the Prime Minister. There was a time when the Prime Minister did that most awful thing—he walked into the Labour Lobby on the occasion of a three-line Whip. What the Whips said about the Prime Minister on that occasion I gather is unprintable in any political study.
  I suggest that, although we may differ sometimes from those who hold orthodox views, the people who stand for something when they think it is right and are prepared to fight for it in their constituencies, are essential to democracy. I hope that after this homily the Leader of the House will take it into consideration in the deliberations of this Committee, and that in due course we who are now the outcasts of Westminster will be able to have some idea of what goes on in this place, just as other Members of the House do.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps I might reply briefly to the points that have been made. I drew some analogy earlier with the Committee of Privileges in the way that we might refer matters to this Select Committee on Procedure, and what I envisaged—and I am glad that the hon. and learned Member raised this point—is that whether it comes through the official channel, or as a representation to me as Leader of the House, or whether it comes, as it might well do, thrown up in the ordinary hurly-burly of debate, it is possible that something may emerge in that way, a formal Motion should be put on the Order Paper in similar words to the one that we are now discussing on the rights of minorities. I think that in that way we shall be able to refer the matters which the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, and perhaps any others that the House may wish to suggest.
  Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, is he suggesting that these Motions should be put down only by agreement, or that they should be put down by any Member who wishes to do so?
  Mr. Macleod: I think that we would have to follow a similar procedure to that of the Committee of Privileges and put them down in the name of the Leader of the House. That is what I envisage. I do not think that it will cause us any difficulty.
  To turn to the immediate point of minorities, again I hope that when we decide to refer a matter to this Select Committee on Procedure we will take the Motion itself more or less as read, and have discussions, if any are necessary, when the Report is returned to us from the Select Committee. All I say on the observations of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is that it is not, with respect, right to say that punitive action was taken in relation to the two hon. Members. No action at all was taken, and perhaps this is the matter that was raised in complaint. But what we are to consider and finally report to the House is whether
  778
  Standing Order No. 58, which has operated for some time, operates to the disadvantage of minorities, and individual Members, and the House will be apprised in due course if it agrees to this procedure of the views of the Select Committee.
  Without indulging in his polemics, I assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that I share his view that whether a Member is a member of one of the big parties, or a member of a small party, or whether he has no party allegiance, it is part of our duty to consider his rights in relation to all the activities of the House. This is really the thought that lies behind the Motion which I now recommend to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the effect of Standing Order No. 58 (2) on minorities, being a matter relating to the procedure in the public business of the House, be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure.

  PIPE-LINES [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate and facilitate the construction and secure the safe operation of pipe-lines and make provision for matters arising thereout; and to provide that certain pipe-lines shall be plant or machinery for the purpose of the enactments relating to rating in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the expenses of the Minister of Power which, by virtue of subsection (3) of section three of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Act, 1945, are defrayed out of such moneys;

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

  (2) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under the said Act of the present Session by a Minister of the Crown other than the Postmaster General.

  Resolution agreed to.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to require the giving of information by landlords to tenants, it is expedient to
  780
  authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland which is attributable to any provision of that Act extending the powers of local authorities under sections ten and eleven of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, to publish information and to prosecute offences.—[Mr. Rippon.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  PREMIUM BONDS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: On 21st March last, in a debate on the Post Office, I first raised the subject matter of this Adjournment debate. A constituent of mine had a number of Premium Bonds, one of which drew a prize of £25. Unfortunately, my constituent died about a month before. His widow, who was not in very good circumstances, and to whom the sum of £25 would have been a boon, was not entitled to receive it The prize was forfeited because her husband had died.
  The application for Premium Bonds sets out certain conditions, one of which is couched in language which the layman might be able to construe if he thought it out very carefully. I will read it. It is in paragraph 6, and it says:
  "A Bond will be eligible for inclusion in the first draw held after the expiration of three months beginning on the first day of the mouth following the month in which it is purchased, provided that it has not been repaid before the expiration of those three months, and (subject to the provisions of paragraph 14 below) that the registered holder has not died before the expiration of the first two of those three months. After a Bond has qualified for its first draw, it will be included in each succeeding monthly draw, unless it has been repaid before the first day of the month in which the draw is held or (subject to the provisions of paragraph 14 below) the registered holder has died before the first day of the month preceding the month in which the draw is held."
  I suppose that that means, first, that to be eligible for inclusion in the draw on, say, 1st May a person must not have died before 1st April and, secondly, that to get the prize that the bond draws on 1st May he must not have died before 1st April. It may be said that a person who purchases a Premium Bond ought to read the conditions. It is not surprising that many do not, but even if they did read them a great many would have difficulty in appreciating exactly what the condition means. At any rate, I know that it came as a surprise to many people to learn that if the holder of a Premium Bond died at
  782
  a certain time the prize drawn was forfeited.
  When I raised the point the Assistant Postmaster-General was very sympathetic. She said:
  "Having said that, I must add that I have a tremendous sympathy for the person in the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned, and the fact that he has aired it here tonight, and has given some publicity to it may, perhaps, enable us to get across to the general public what the considerations are, and possibly enable hon. Members that have some influence with the Treasury in seeing whether different regulations could be devised. I must say that when I have to sign a letter saying that the deceased person's next-of-kin—it is usually a widow—cannot benefit from the winning bond, I wish that something could be done. It is a matter for Treasury Ministers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1962; Vol. 656, c. 1520.]
  Thus encouraged I put down a Question. It was not reached, and I was denied the opportunity of probing the matter further by any supplementary question. I had to be content with a Written Answer from the Financial Secretary. My Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was:
  "By what authority provisions are set out in the application form for Premium Savings Bonds limiting the right to be included in the draw for prizes in the event of the death of the holder; and whether he will take steps to abolish such limitation."
  The Financial Secretary replied:
  "By the authority of the Treasury, in exercise of its powers under section 1 of the National Loans Act, 1939. I am considering, with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, whether anything more shall be done to meet the type of case the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, having regard to the administrative costs and legal difficulties involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 23.]
  I know how slowly officialdom moves and how necessary it is to press for something to be done if the process is to be accelerated. I therefore raise this matter in the hope that something will be done as quickly as possible. I re-mind the House of the words used by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In dealing with the introduction of Premium Savings Bonds in his Budget speech in 1956, he said:
  "Finally I have something completely new for the saver in Great Britain; that is, a Premium Bond. Let me say at once that this is not a pool or a lottery, where you spend

  783
  your money. The investor in the bond which I propose is saving his money. He will get it back when he wants it. But as long as he holds it saved, his reward, instead of interest, is the chance of winning a tax-free prize. … This is an encouragement to the practice of saving and thrift by those members of the community who are not attracted by the reward of interest, but do respond to the incentive of fortune."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 879–80.]
  It will be noted that nothing was said there about the holder who dies being deprived of that chance.
  I appreciate that the Treasury has the power to make such conditions as it thinks fit under Section 1 of the National Loans Act, 1939, but in fact Regulations called the Premium Savings Bonds Regulations, 1956, were made and laid before the House in S.I. 1657, on 31st October, 1956. They deal with many things: the persons entitled to purchase and hold bonds; repayments; and many miscellaneous matters. Regulations 9 and 10 deal with payments in case of a holder's death. Regulation 8 (1) deals with the production of probate or letters of administration and the authority of the Postmaster-General
  "to pay the sum repayable, and any other sum payable, in respect of the bond"
  Regulation 9 uses the same phrase, to pay
  "the sum repayable, and any other sum payable"
  in respect of the bond. These words
  "any other sum payable in respect of the bond"
  are not defined. They may well include prize money.
  There have been a number of amending regulations, but nowhere in these regulations is there a single word suggesting that if a holder dies at a certain time the prize shall be forfeited. I do not say that there is no power to make that limitation, but I say that if regulations are made with regard to many matters—I remind the House that the Treasury has power to make conditions without those regulations—one would have thought that an important limitation of this kind would have been included so that Parliament could have discussed it when the opportunity arose for debating these regulations.
  It might be thought that there are very few cases, but as a result of the publicity which followed when I raised
  784
  this matter in the first instance a number of people have written to me. I will refer to only two cases. In each of those cases the bond of the deceased person drew a prize of £500. One of these people raised the matter with the authorities and received a reply from the public relations officer of the Post Office.
  He wrote:
  "The main reason why the rights as regards prize draws do not survive the registered holder of a bond is to avoid the difficulties which may arise in dealing with his estate. The Postmaster-General has discretion to distribute small sums invested in National Savings where there is no will or grant, and this is often very convenient for the beneficiaries. In many such cases there are several beneficiaries; one can readily imagine the difficulties which would arise if, after some Premium Savings Bonds had been distributed among them, one beneficiary were to win a prize. It would be invidious and complicated to make special provisions according to the size of the bond holding, the number of beneficiaries and as to whether there was or was not a will. The bond scheme was devised to be as simple and economical as possible, and we could not take on the complications and expense which would be implicit in such arrangements."
  Presumably this is what is meant by the reference in the reply of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to "legal and administrative difficulties." I venture to suggest that there is no real difficulty. Either there is a will or letters of administration can be taken out. There is nothing to prevent the Post Office from withholding payment until it is satisfied. It can make payment to the executor or the administrator. I ask what the Post Office does about savings bank accounts or Savings Certificates.
  It is of interest to know that the letter goes on:
  "You wished to know also what happens to prize money in such circumstances. The answer is that the prize list is adjusted so that the full amount of the prize fund is paid out to eligible bondholders. In the case of a £500 prize, the first £250 prize winner is paid a further £250; the first £100 winner gets another £150; the first £50 winner gets another £50; the first £25 winner gets another £25; and the first reserve is awarded £25. This is done because the prizes are awarded in the order in which the bond units are drawn, those drawn first taking the higher prizes. The reserve units are drawn as part of the ordinary draw, and they come up for prizes (if any) in the order in which they are drawn. We do not, however, publish the reserve numbers so as to avoid raising false hopes."
  I do not know whether that information has been communicated to the

  785
  public. It is all very well, but a person is asked to invest in Premium Bonds, getting instead of interest what the Prime Minister called "the incentive of the future." If it was a bond earning interest, presumably on the death of the holder, the bond, or its value, and the interest, would be part of the estate of the deceased, to be dealt with by his executive administrator. Why should it be different with a Premium Bond? It is obviously unfair that if John Smith dies on 31st March his widow cannot receive a prize of £1,000 that his bond draws on 1st May, but that if he dies on 2nd April she can receive it. Is it suggested that the legal complications or the administrative difficulties are greater in the one case than in the other?
  The cruel thing is that when the bond draws a prize notification is made by the Post Office to the widow. When she returns the prize claim form stating that her husband is dead the widow learns that she is not entitled to any prize. The matter is made still more unfair by the fact that Premium Bonds are not transferable. Among the letters I received was one from a lady in Bromley who, presumably, is a constituent of the Prime Minister. I wish to refer to part of the reply that she received from the Director of Savings to whom she wrote to ask whether she was able to transfer her bonds to her son if anything happened to her. The Director wrote:
  "I am sorry to say that there are no facilities for you to nominate your son Eric to receive your bonds, if anything happens to you. Premium Savings Bonds are not transferable and are repaid to the next-of-kin when the holder dies."
  I suggest that the present arrangement is manifestly unjust. It could be remedied in a very simple fashion. In his reply to me the Financial Secretary referred to the powers under Section 1 of the National Loans Act, 1929. There is power under that Act to remove this limitation. If a person is the holder of a Premium Bond eligible for the draw, and it wins a prize, let that prize be paid to him or his estate if he dies. If the bond draws interest that would be the position. There is no reason why this should not be dealt with in the same way. I emphasise that it is absurd to suggest that administrative costs or legal difficulties could prevent this from being done.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: If nothing were said on the Premium Bonds there is little doubt that the right to take part in the lottery and get a prize if a person won would pass to the widow or other heir, just as the right to take part in a beauty contest—if I may remind the hon. Gentleman of this—has held to be a contractual right in the case of Hicks v. Chaplin.
  What puzzles me is that when these bonds were introduced and the House had the opportunity to pronounce on the matter, this change in the ordinary law, if it was then contemplated, was never put before the House. So far as I can gather from what my hon. and learned Friend has said, the House has never had the opportunity to approve of this. I do not deny the power of the Treasury, but I say that this is a diminution of ordinary rights. In a case of this sort and in a matter of considerable importance to the public, it is regrettable that the House has never had the opportunity of expressing its opinion on the matter.
  10.44 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I am sure that both the hon. and learned Gentlemen who have spoken will appreciate that I must direct my observations to the position as it is now. Not having had notice of what may or may not have been said in 1956 and on subsequent occasions, I have not looked into that. Both hon. and learned Gentlemen will agree that while it may be that a Premium Bond holder does not generally look at the terms of the prospectus, in fact the position is made quite clear in the last two or three lines of paragraph 6 of the prospectus.
  I am sure also that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) will be the first to agree with me that it is, in the general interest of Premium Bond holders, essential that the scheme should be kept as simple and as cheap to administer as possible. It was decided at the outset that Premium Bonds should, like other National Saving securities, be registered so that the small saver could still establish his right to his money even if by some mischance he should lose the actual document.

  787
  In order to avoid the cost of having an organisation to deal with changes in the registered holder, it was provided that, like savings certificates, Premium Bonds should not be transferable from one holder to another. It was also decided that it would not he practical to make an exception to this general rule in the case of the death of a holder, as is the case with National Savings Certificates. This is because, apart from the additional administrative cost of registering transfer, difficulties peculiar to Premium Bonds could arise in cases where the Postmaster-General had the duty of allocating the bonds between several beneficiaries.
  There is a provision that the Postmaster-General can pay out of holdings of up to £100 without the production of probate or of letters of administration. This is the provision to which the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington referred. There is no doubt that this provision is in practice of great value to the relatives of many small holders who otherwise would have to go through legal processes to obtain the holding on death. But if the Postmaster-General were to be involved in the allocation of a bond holding between different beneficiaries, there would inevitably be cases of complaint about the method of allocation if a bond of one beneficiary subsequently won a prize and the bond of the other did not. So, as I have already said, no provision for transferability on death was made in the prospectus.
  Mr. Mitchison: I remind the hon. Gentleman that one may nominate a successor for one's National Savings Certificates in the event of one's death.
  Mr. Barber: I was explaining that. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads what I said, he will see that I made it clear that in this regard Premium Bonds were treated differently from National Savings Certificates. The condition about the eligibility of bonds for the draw after the death of the holder, with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned tonight, is a corollary of the rule than bonds are not transferable even on death. If there were not some such provision for the withdrawal of bonds from the draw after the death of the holder,
  788
  it is obvious that the rule about non-transferability could easily be evaded. A beneficiary would merely fail to report the death of the holder to the premium bond office and wait for the bonds to win a prize. This would amount to de facto transferability. It would clearly be wrong to permit this, because apart from equity between those holders who complied with the regulations and those who did not, it would enable some people to evade the maximum limit on total holdings.
  When the scheme was first introduced, the rule about eligibility on the death of the holder took the most simple and logical form of saying simply that a bond is not eligible for a prize immediately the holder dies. This gave rise to some unfortunate cases, similar to those mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman this evening, in which the bereaved relatives learned that one of the Premium Bonds had won a prize, expected it to come to the estate and then found that the prize could not be paid because of this rule. This inevitably and naturally caused considerable disappointment.
  A number of my hon. Friends have written to me about cases of this kind. The most recent case was one brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). These are cases of disappointment at a most unfortunate time, but they are not really cases of unfairness or injustice, because after all the holder bought the bond subject to the conditions in the prospectus, including this particular condition.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear that there is no gain whatever to the Exchequer as a result of this rule because, as he pointed out, if a bond which has been drawn is found to be ineligible the prize which would have gone to that bond goes to the bond at the head of the reserve list which is drawn each month by "Ernie" precisely for contingencies such as this.
  When my right hon. Friend the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Amory, reviewed the Premium Bond scheme in 1960, he examined this particular condition very carefully, because he was well aware of the sort of unfortunate case that has been referred to. He felt able to allow the

  789
  concession making the bond eligible for the first draw after the death of the holder. This dealt with the worst cases of disappointment, where the notification of the prize arrived a very short time after the death.
  This was as far as Lord Amory felt that he could go at that time because of the administrative problems, and I have something to say on that—
  Mr. Weitzman: Why are there greater legal and administrative difficulties if the man dies two weeks before, when the widow can draw the prize, than if he dies a month more?
  Mr. Barber: I must get on, because I have something of importance to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman which, I hope, he will consider is of greater importance than my answering that point.
  Lord Amory said that he hoped that it might be possible, in the light of further experience, to go further. Because of this possibility the revised prospectus introduced in August, 1960, included a provision for the Treasury to vary the terms of this condition without having to go through the full procedure of a new prospectus and a new issue.
  We have now had some eighteen months' experience of the working of the 1960 provision, and the Treasury has considered with the Post Office whether any further concession can be made. Both hon. Members who have spoken will, I am sure, be glad to know that we have decided to extend the period of eligibility for a prize after the death of the holder from the present period of one month to twelve months, so that the hon. and learned Member will see that officials, even in the Treasury, can move pretty swiftly. This change should eliminate the overwhelming majority of the present cases of prizes being notified and then having to be withdrawn because it is found that the bond is not eligible because of the death of the holder.
  I might mention that from samples which the Post Office have made of recent cases, it appears that this extension should remove nearly 90 per cent. of them. The year should allow ample time for almost all estates to be wound up, and in this respect the hon. and
  790
  learned Gentleman will recall that it corresponds to the executor's year in common law. The change will, therefore, meet the other complaint that the bonds at present do not earn interest, or have a chance in the draw during the period when the capital cannot be realised. This change will involve the Post Office in additional administrative work and cause certain difficulties, but from the experience it has had of working the one-month rule it does not think that they will be insuperable.
  Hon. Members may ask why we are not making changes to eliminate all these cases and not merely the 90 per cent. The very few cases that will remain are cases where, for instance, the beneficiaries are unaware of the rules about eligibility after death of the holder or, possibly more frequently, are unaware of the existence of a holding until the prize notification arrives. It would be possible to cover these cases only by permitting transferability of the bonds on the death of the holder, and this we do not feel able to accept, for the reasons I have already given. I might mention, in passing, that the administrative cost of the Premium Bond scheme is more than three times as great as that of National Savings certificates.
  I will not say more on this question of transferability since it would be out of order in an Adjournment debate: it would require a new prospectus and so a new issue, and if the new terms were to apply to existing holders there would have to be legislation similar to that in the 1960 Finance Act.
  Mr. Fletcher: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the concession will apply to all existing Premium Bond holders?
  Mr. Barber: It will, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me the opportunity of making that clear.
  The change in the period of eligibility after the death of the holder will be given effect by means of an announcement giving the prescribed three months' notice to be inserted in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes before the end of this month. This will mean that the first draw in which the new rule will apply will be that on 1st September next. In order to avoid inequity between the beneficiaries of those holders who have died in the last nine

  791
  months or so, many of whom will have obtained repayment on the understanding that bonds are not eligible for the draw for more than one month after the death of the holder, the new conditions will apply to the bonds of holders who die an or after 1st July, 1962.
  I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North for having raised this subject tonight, so enabling me to explain the reasons for what has seemed to many to be an unfortunate condition. I am sure that he will agree that the changes which I have proposed go a considerable way to meet the sort of difficulty to which he has referred. We certainly do not want to perpetuate conditions which might prejudice the success of the Premium Bond scheme. That it has been successful nobody would deny, for in the 5½ years since it
  792
  was introduced, some £450 million worth of Premium Bonds have been bought and some £350 million worth of them are still held.
  The way in which people have held on to their bonds after they have bought them has been most encouraging. There are now about 14½ million holders with an average holding of about £25. The administration of the scheme, with more than 46 million bond documents, sets considerable organisational and administrative problems for the Post Office, and I hope, in the light of the change which I have proposed tonight, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will join with me in paying tribute to all of those who work at the Premium Bond Office at Lytham St. Anne's.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Resale Price Maintenance
  Eggs (Imports from Poland)
  Eggs (Imports from Poland)
  Wattle Bark, Quebracho Extract and Chestnut Extract
  Wattle Bark, Quebracho Extract and Chestnut Extract
  Refrigerators
  Refrigerators
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers' Association (Pay Claim)
  Prison Officers' Association (Pay Claim)
  Offenders (Prison Commissioners' Reports)
  Offenders (Prison Commissioners' Reports)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Sport and Recreation (Increased Expenditure)
  Sport and Recreation (Increased Expenditure)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
  Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  African Mineworkers' Union (Commission of Inquiry)
  African Mineworkers' Union (Commission of Inquiry)
NIGERIA
  Low-Priced Books
  Low-Priced Books
EDUCATION
  Building Projects, Edmonton and Enfield
  Building Projects, Edmonton and Enfield
  Teacher Training (Grants to Students)
  Teacher Training (Grants to Students)
  University Entrance Requirement (Report)
  University Entrance Requirement (Report)
  School Building Projects, Sunderland
  School Building Projects, Sunderland
  School Building Projects
  School Building Projects
  Minor Works
  Minor Works
  Albemarle Report
  Albemarle Report
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Surplus Milk
  Surplus Milk
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Protection of Birds Act, 1954 (Section 5)
  Protection of Birds Act, 1954 (Section 5)
  Flood Relief Work, North Lewisham
  Flood Relief Work, North Lewisham
SCOTLAND
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers, Middlesbrough
  School Leavers, Middlesbrough
  ART GALLERIES AND MUSEUMS (THEFTS)
  ART GALLERIES AND MUSEUMS (THEFTS)
  ART GALLERIES AND MUSEUMS (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)
  ART GALLERIES AND MUSEUMS (SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  New Towns Act (Section 11)
  New Towns Act (Section 11)
COAL
  Spoil-Heaps
  Spoil-Heaps
  Absenteeism
  Absenteeism
  Weekly Earnings
  Weekly Earnings
  Output
  Output
BRITISH ARMY
  Unexploded Shells, Llanmadoc Beach
  Unexploded Shells, Llanmadoc Beach

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

TRANSFER OF GUY BURGESS'S INCOME
3.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 the report in the Sunday Express of April 29, that the Treasury are allowing Mr. Guy Burgess to move his private income from London to Moscow by classing him as an emigrant, is correct.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): Yes, my Lords. I understand that the person in question is treated for exchange control purposes as permanently resident abroad. The payments which may be made from the United Kingdom to such a non-resident include the transfer of his current income.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but am I to understand that in future Her Majesty's Government are to class suspected traitors as emigrants, because, if so, it is surely an extraordinary state of affairs?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the action and behaviour of this man may arouse distaste. Anyone is entitled to a private opinion about him. But the fact is that he has not been convicted of any offence and the behaviour of the Government, even in cases of difficulty, ought to follow the principle that, however black the circumstances, a man is not treated as guilty until he has been found guilty. This man has been judged a non-resident
336
and is therefore entitled to the conditions applying to non-residents.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, am I right in understanding that the decision was taken to arrest the two men if they returned to this country?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I suggest that that is an entirely different question from the one upon the Order Paper.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that during the war an annuity payment was made to Marshal Pétain, and was not this generally regarded as a very civilised thing to be done by this country?
LORD MILLS: I should need notice of that question, my Lords.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Has the noble Lord also heard that Mr. Burgess is reported as having boasted that he has friends in high places?
LORD MILLS: My Lords I have heard that report. I have no means of checking it, but I should very much doubt the veracity of the statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Lord that none of the members of the Cabinet knows whether or not an order for arrest was prepared in case this man landed here?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not think the noble Viscount has any right to make that supposition. My noble friend said, perfectly rightly, that this was not the question he had been asked.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBORUGH: That is true.
LORD LINDGREN: But may we take it, my Lords, that the decision of the Government is really a bribe to stay away?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am afraid, my Lords, I do not know to whom that question was addressed. It certainly is entirely untrue and is not authorised by anything that was said by my noble friend.

FOWL PEST: VACCINATION AND COMPENSATION
3.10 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: 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 what was the amount of compensation paid to farmers in respect of fowl pest during the past year; what is the estimated cost of protective vaccination; and how efficacious is such vaccination.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the amount of compensation paid to farmers in respect of fowl pest in the last financial year was £4,598,292. Effective vaccines, correctly used, with repeat vaccinations carried out at the correct intervals, might be expected to protect at least 85 per cent. of birds so vaccinated. I am not at present in a position to give an estimate of the cost of producing and administering vaccine in this country.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer, so far as it goes. But would he agree with me that, taking the figures which are quoted in the Report of the Committee on Fowl Pest Policy, it looks probable that we could get vaccine for something under £2 per thousand birds vaccinated; and that, on that generous estimate, allowing for costs, it is unlikely that the cost of the vaccination of the entire poultry flock of this country would reach £2 million. If he would accept those rather simple calculations, would he not agree that at least very serious consideration should be given to the policy of discontinuing the slaughter of poultry affected by fowl pest and substituting therefor vaccination at the earliest possible opportunity?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, serious consideration is being given to the comprehensive and lengthy Report on this subject submitted by Sir Arnold Plant. I cannot really add anything that would be helpful to your Lordships about the costs of vaccine. It is difficult
338
to work out what the figure of £2 per thousand birds would come to. But I have heard that if we could get an effective vaccine and if we could be sure it would be used, and of a number of other things, it might cost between £1 and £2 million per year. But the effectiveness of vaccination would depend upon the efficiency of the vaccine, on the skill of the administrator, on the weight of infection and upon whether vaccine was being generally used. This is a very complicated matter which we are examining with urgency at the moment.

IMITATION AND "FILLED" MILK
3.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: 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 their attention has been called to the Conference of European Milk Producers at Salzburg on April 9–11, at which it was revealed that the United Kingdom and Eire were the only two countries in Western Europe which have not banned the manufacture and sale of "imitation" or "filled milk" for human consumption, other than for dietetic or medicinal use; and if so, whether they propose to reconsider the Statutory Instrument 1960 No. 2331, which sets out the Regulations governing the supply of skimmed milk with non-milk fat.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am aware that there was a discussion of this subject at the conference of European Milk Producers but I have not yet seen a record of it or the evidence that was produced there. The Skimmed Milk with Non-Milk Fat Regulations have been in force for only a little over six months and Her Majesty's Government see no reason at present to reconsider them. I should like to remind your Lordships that the Regulations do not permit this product to be described as "filled milk".
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. Would that

339
also preclude the use of the term, used in part of the Conference, of "imitation milk"? Would that be permitted, or is it ruled out under the Order?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if skimmed milk with non-milk fat is sold, it must not be sold under any title which could be held to mislead. We felt that the title "filled milk" could be held to mislead; it might be thought to be better than ordinary milk because it had something added. So we invented this long name of "skimmed milk with non-milk fat", sometimes abbreviated to SMAF. If anybody wanted to sell something called "imitation milk", I suppose he would be entitled to do so, but I do not know whether he could sell it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps we ought to examine the Food and Drugs Act again. I am obliged to the noble Earl. I have some notes of what happened at the Conference, and if the Minister is not at present able to get a copy I will see that he has one.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on the dock situation at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

SOUTH AFRICA BILL
3.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the Third Reading offers an apportunity to speak on the general aspects of the Bill. At the Second Reading of the Bill I was
340
fortunate enough to be in the House to hear the Foreign Secretary explain it with, as always, temperate human understanding and in a clear legalistic manner. That was followed by a debate in which there were a great number of most interesting speeches. I myself, unfortunately, was obliged to leave and therefore had to be content with reading the whole of that debate in Hansard, which I carefully did. That was a debate on this Bill which was read with the greatest care by many in South Africa. What was said here could have had a weighty effect on our relations. At that time there was, and there is now, a feeling of regret—I think, shared by many—that some things were said in that debate which would more happily have been left unsaid. There was a most moderate speech by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and other speeches which followed gave a great deal of information.
Other speeches, to which I draw attention, caused unihappiness in South Africa. I refer particularly to that by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chil-worth; and I have already told him that I intended to refer to it to-day. I often find myself in complete and energetic agreement with him on much on which he cares to give his experience to the House. In this particular case I find myself in emphatic disagreement with the kind of speech which he saw fit to make. He did in fairness tell us that this was based upon one visit, and with his great assiduous application he doubtless took every opportunity to inform himself within that limited time. Certainly, his speech told us that he had made inquiries in many quarters.
If I might digress for just a minute, my Lords, I venture to detain you because, feeling emphatically as I do with regard to the Union of South Africa, I could not—my conscience would not let me—be in the House and see the Third Reading of this Bill passed, without exercising the privilege one has of giving voice to what one feels so strongly. I am among those who feel deep unhappiness with the circumstance that South Africa recently found it necessary to leave the Commonwealth. There are many who feel that she was forced to leave. Anyhow, we remember those words of Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, on the Monday after the event had

341
occurred on the Friday. In a public speech in the City of London he said:
"If anybody interfered with the internal affairs of Australia I, too, would take Australia out of the Commonwealth."
It is because of the possible effect of the remarks of my noble friend that I want to raise this matter to-day.
Let us bear in mind that a good deal of what prompted my noble friend to make his speech was based upon strong feeling with regard to racial questions, which opinion he is entitled to hold. But supposing the same attitude is taken about Australia, if she intends to exclude other than white races, surely consistency would suggest that an equal attitude was justifiable for Australia. But I am convinced that any such course would not find much response in this country. It is because of that feeling that I find myself so unhappy about my noble friend's speech. And I repeat again: it was widely reported in South Africa. Doubtless he hoped it would be; it paid a great compliment to him: but it did not do any good.
Now, my Lords, it is very easy to make a general criticism about a speech. In the main, I repeat, I think he was actuated by the feeling that the black races of South Africa are unfairly treated, and, more particularly, as he said, that the policy of the Union Government of South Africa is wrong. My Lords, I do not enter upon the ethical question at all. I merely say, from the point of view of the South African Government, that, of course, its policy is confoundedly stupid. It cannot work; it cannot last; it must fall down. But that is not the only Government of the world that is stupid; it is not the only country where policies are being followed which many of us think are undemocratic. If you go into parts of Africa to-day other than south of the Zambesi, you will find many places where the same is true. Would to God that we could change all these things in five minutes! But, my Lords, how is it possible to suggest that you can change things quickly, and bring all these black peoples forward rapidly to the stage where they are entitled to the attitude of no discrimination of colour, race or creed?
My Lords, let us think. How long would it take? Consider the inhabitants of these islands. My history is poor, but
342
I believe there were a thousand years between the Roman and the Norman invasion of these islands. People were content. They did not expect things to happen in less than twenty years. In my fifty years of travel I have seen a good deal of the black man in those parts of the world to which he has transferred—some States of North America, the Caribbean Isles, Brazil; but I do not know his origin. I have been only once to West Africa, although I have seen him in Central Africa and, more particularly, south of the Zambesi. I am sure my noble friend forgot that, as most of us in the House know and remember, in a large part of the Union of South Africa the white man was there before the black man. Why must it be suggested that the white people, who were there first, must sacrifice everything?
At this moment I pass to the question of housing. We all have sympathy with people living in bad housing conditions. Heaven knows they are bad enough in our country! One should go into the manufacturing cities of the North and see the slums which are being pulled down. In relation to them we have nothing to be so proud of ourselves. But when one flies over South Africa, up to, say, Durban, or up the Garden Route and looks down at the tens of thousands of people dotted over the land, is it to be suggested, as my noble friend suggests, that those people ought to be regarded as equal in having a vote? For goodness' sake—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? I make no complaint whatsoever of his right to criticise what I said; but I think he should make certain that he is being accurate. I never suggested anything whatsoever about voting. The word "vote" never passed my lips from the beginning of my speech to the end.
LORD BARNEY: I will be more specific in a minute. I was dealing just with housing. The point I was trying to make—and I think the noble Lord will agree with me here—is this. I thought the population was 12 million but the noble Lord says it is 16 million, and I accept his figure. There are three million whites. Three over sixteen is,

343
in my calculation, different from three over twelve. However, anybody who takes the trouble to go into these new housing estates, in the Springs region on the Rand or the Jacobs outside Durban, or outside Cape Town, will see the tens of thousands of reasonable, small houses with their very nice gardens, public buildings and shops with automobiles around them. If we in this country had the same ratio of the population—five to one, according to my noble friend's figure—for which to meet the expense of re-housing more quickly, I suggest there would be many murmurings of dissatisfaction. But I respect my noble friend's intervention.
May I take one particular sentence from his speech [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 239 (No. 66), col. 613]:
" … you will never … have a change of Government there"—
that is, in the Union.
"There is not a vestige of a chance of getting a Liberal Government in South Africa … "
I remember in the very early days, when I was just old enough to take an interest in politics, the Election of 1902. That was a landslide for Mr. Balfour's Government. I remember hearing men who had been in politics all their lives say, "The Liberal Party will never come into office again. The Conservatives are in power for all time". I will not try to quote the figures. Within four years—and we were reminded about this when the Prime Minister unveiled a statue in another place yesterday—the country was ringing with the charge, "B.M.G.—Balfour must go". And that was the Liberal landslide—within four years! It is for that reason that I think those statements by my noble friend were loose in predicting that there was never any chance of seeing a return of the Union into the Commonwealth, which Lord Robertson of Oakridge, with much more knowledge, said he hoped he would see. Pray God it may occur! That is why I find myself in such disagreement with my noble friend.
It is fortunate that Lord Robertson of Oakridge was able to speak as he did, with his knowledge, and it is well worth the while of all of us to read that speech again. I read it several times. Lord Milverton spoke from a wealth of information, and Lord Fraser of Lonsdale
344
spoke with a wealth of knowledge. I say that because, thank Heaven!, there was in that debate plenty of the other climate to be recorded about South Africa. I wonder why it is that so much steam is turned on to the Union. Perhaps I should recommend to my noble friend and to others that they should go to India and see the conditions under which the Indians live, and, more particularly, the conditions under which they work in the coal mines. I hope that many of those from the Opposition Benches will take the opportunity, if they go to India, to look at the conditions under which people work in the coal mines there. Then, I think, there will be plenty of criticism about Mr. Nehru's country. But I say this particularly because speeches of that kind are inclined to stimulate something which I hope we all deplore.
There has been a good deal of discussion recently in another place about the United Nations vote urging investigations into the conditions of things north of the Zambesi. I cannot lose this opportunity to remind the House, as the Foreign Secretary has stated in this House within the last few weeks, that of the 58 who voted on the Resolution to interfere with the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia, 47 were in arrears with their subscriptions. They did not think it worth while even to pay their dues to the "club", yet they are ready to go and talk and stir up all the trouble and mischief which such statements create. Would to God that they had the same sort of energy to interfere in some other people's affairs! When Hungary was oppressed, as it was, should the United Nations have done more than express their dissatisfaction with conditions?
My Lords, I speak because, as an industrialist having an interest in the Union of South Africa, I have travelled about there a good deal, and, like my noble friend, I have spoken to a good many people in high positions and to financial authorities in the Union. I am among those who believe that the Union is making fast headway. I would say one thing more. If our gold and foreign reserves could have increased, as luckily and fortunately they have—and I hope it will rightly prove the wise plans of Her Majesty's Government—it would raise an interest in

345
South Africa, in the existing Government of the Union as a model which others might well follow.
I believe it is unfair to present the picture of it as a tyrannous country into which Africans outside the part south of the Zambesi will not go. What about the thousands of natives who voluntarily go every year into the Union? If it were so disadvantageous, they would not go there. There is; nothing to force the natives to go from the reserves into the manufacturing areas. Speaking as an industrialist, and believing, as I do, that there is a brilliant future for the Union of South Africa, and that it is desirable that our relations with them should be most harmonious, I say we should do all we can to cultivate those relations. I think we should remember that the Bantu peoples of South Africa are essential to the industrial future of South Africa. It is obvious; they must go there. So much of what has been represented gives a false impression. Believing, as I do, that there is room for close collaboration between this country and the Union of South Africa to the benefit of both our peoples, I want to record my unhappiness that contrary things should have been said. But, naturally, I give my support to the Third Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BOXING BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to make it quite clear that I am not asking your Lordships to commit yourselves immediately to the prohibition of professional boxing without a careful examination of every aspect of the business. Therefore, in the event of my securing a Second Reading, I propose to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not know whether it will
346
help the noble Lady—I am willing to follow whatever is to her convenience—but I have just heard that this is the moment at which I could conveniently make the statement on the docks situation. As she has not deeply embarked upon her speech, I wonder whether she might feel that this would be the best plan. Otherwise it might disturb the flow of debate. But if she would prefer to continue——
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should much prefer that the noble Viscount makes the statement now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am much obliged to the noble Lady; I myself think that this is the more convenient course.

THE DOCKS LABOUR DISPUTE
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may, I will repeat a statement which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour in another place, in answer to a Question about the dispute in the Dock industry. My right honourable friend said:
"I am sorry to say that the negotiations at the meeting of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry held on Tuesday did not result in a settlement that evening of the dispute arising from the trade union side's claim for increased wages and a shorter working week. The following morning"—
that is yesterday—
"my officers met representatives of both sides, but it was clear from their respective attitudes that there was at that stage, no prospect of reaching an agreement. I am, of course, keeping in the closest touch with the situation, and the services of my Department are available at any time to the parties. Further, I shall not hesitate to take the initiative in intervening again if I feel that such action would be helpful, and in any case I intend to have informal conversations with the leader of each side later to-day."
My Lords, that is the statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Leader of the House for letting us have that statement. I read into it, perhaps, a little more hope than some of the newspapers were expressing this morning—a hope that some settlement may be made. I can see the exact position, that further discussions are to take place, and all I can say is that I hope very much they will be successful.
LORD REA: My Lords, I agree with what has been said by the noble Viscount, but there is just one point that I should like to make. I rather regret that at the end of the statement it refers to
"informal conversations with the leader of each side later to-day."
The word "side," I think, is unfortunate in this context. (I only mention it in passing), because, after all, the consumer himself is one of the sides, and we like to look to employer and employees not as opposed but as trying to work together.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said. I will take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has said. I do not think I should like to comment upon it at the present time.
VASCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, might I just add that, in my associations with industry, we have never forgotten that principle?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the noble Viscount be able to give any hope, since the feeling in the country, concerned as it is, is more sympathetic to the question of wage rates than hours, that there may be some separation in the discussions, and that they will be concerned with wages mainly, rather than with hours?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I ought to comment at this stage, with the parties in their present state to one another.

BOXING BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Debate resumed.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as some noble Lords have just returned from another place, may I repeat
348
what I have just said? In moving the Second reading of this Bill, I want to assure your Lordships that I have no intention of committing you to the prohibition of professional boxing. In the event of my securing your support for a Second Reading, I propose to ask your Lordships to allow a Select Committee to examine every aspect of the business. Therefore, after the Second Reading, if that is agreed, I will move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
My Lords, over a number of years in another place, in speeches outside this House, and in a book that I wrote on this subject, I have sought to focus attention on the social problems which must arise from public exhibitions which glamorise violence—I put it as broadly as that. I have also emphasised the physical damage which is sustained by young boxers ignorant of the hazards of a business conducted by men primarily interested in the financial aspects and considerations. Although I am well aware that many people have misgivings about this business—and I emphasise that it is a business—it is only when world attention is focused on a tragedy such as occurred recently in a title fight in New York that people are moved to denounce professional boxing. The public outcry in the United States was very great, and in consequence a New York State Committee of seven members was appointed last month to investigate boxing. The Committee is made up of members of the State Assembly and Senate and is to report in 1963 to the Legislature, who will then decide whether boxing should be banned in New York State or whether the State boxing rules should be tightened. I come to your Lordships' House this afternoon to ask that a similiar investigation should be made in this country.
I feel convinced that the attitude of the public is hardening against this so-called sport. For many years the audience was a limited one, and no social problem arose; but now the influence of newspapers, the radio and television makes almost every inhabitant of this country a member of the boxing audience. Undoubtedly the advance of scientific knowledge, which has revealed the effect on the brain of repeated blows to the head, has impressed thinking people. Undoubtedly the advance of

349
medical science has stimulated more thought on these matters, not only among experts but also by the ordinary public. Furthermore, the sight of a human being seeking to punch another unconscious becomes repugnant to people who during the last half-century have raised their standard of living and achieved a vastly improved code of behaviour.
I would remind your Lordships that cock-fighting and bear-baiting were prohibited not only because of the cruelty involved but also because of the degrading and brutalising effect upon the spectators. Furthermore, the motive of the fight commentator who retails in great detail the wounds inflicted and the amount of blood drawn is to give colour, zest and a sadistic thrill to the whole performance. Can all this be reconciled with the British people's approach to sport? Surely a civilised community should discourage any activity which tends to debase and brutalise. Every week there are displays brought by the television right into the living rooms of the people, where youngsters see violence glamorised and apparently given official sanction. Our prisons, our reformatories, our remand homes, are filled to overflowing, many prisoners living three in a cell. How can we justify sanctioning fights which will arouse the basest instincts?
In the past, boxing has been called the noble art. But in the light of the advice by experts, can anyone talk of the "noble art" without having his tongue in his cheek? The advice of experts is to "let him have it hard on the point of the jaw" in order to render the opponent insensible. This advice is medically accurate, because unconsciousness, and sometimes death, supervenes more quickly after this particular blow than after any other. Then the advice is to hit the groggy man quickly on the body. This is based on the fact that the first blow has injured his brain and befuddled him. In consequence of the body blow his hands, which should be protecting his head, quickly go down to defend his body. Then is the time, apparently, to give the already slightly damaged brain another blow in order to concuss it and induce complete unconsciousness. This is the sequence of events in the fights which
350
you see on your television screens—one was shown on your screens on Monday—and this is the advice of the experts. How can this be called the noble art?
When this so-called sport is analysed, even its devotees must feel a little dubious about these rules, which, we are told, ensure the high standards of sport which are observed in the boxing world. I contend that professional boxing is a business, in which contracts are exchanged and huge sums of money made by promoters and managers out of the spectacle of two men trying to injure each other. I would ask your Lordships to recall the case only this week when a jury was told by a former boxing champion, Bobby Neill, that while in the year 1956–57 his earnings were £4,000, after paying his manager and other fees he had only £470.
Again the business nature of professional boxing was emphasised by a young man called Billy Walker, who is about to enter the professional field after 33 amateur bouts. He is called the "Blond Bomber from West Ham". To these boys it is all part of the business. If you are young and inexperienced in the world, it helps your ego immensely to be called the "Blond Bomber from West Ham". On March 26 of this year the Herald reported an interview with Billy Walker just before he entered the professional world. He said:
"I'm no longer a sportsman. How can you call professional boxing a sport, with all the villains and rogues who are part and parcel of the game? It's a business. A hard business all the time, a cruel business some of the time. I've no illusions about the noble art of self-defence or any of that kid stuff. That's all right for the amateurs. But from now I'm paid to hurt. The more I hurt, the more I'm paid."
And Billy goes into this new life. We shall watch his progress and see just how long Billy is in this professional world.
The defenders of boxing include one or two people who maintain good bank balances and boast of the material success that boxing has brought them. But this small minority are chiefly those who have taken good advice and left the business before they suffered permanent injury. Gene Tunney is often quoted. I have read Gene Tunney's memoirs, and he says:
"After being unconscious for two days, I decided to get out while I still retained my sanity."
Gene Tunney was a wise man. We are

351
also told that the fine qualities of pluck, endurance and restraint are implanted in the boxing ring. If that is so, why do we not see boxing promoters putting their young sons in the ring for, say, 30 or 40 fights, just to toughen them up and strengthen their moral fibre, so that they can face life as better and finer men? Those of us who have seen and heard a boxing match, even on the screen, must ask ourselves: do the screaming crowd round a boxing ring display these fine qualities?
It is very encouraging to find sports commentators criticising the business. May I quote a few, so that your Lordships will not think that these are my views solely and that people who work in the business and who are close to it hold entirely different views? Paul Galico was a famous sports writer who in fourteen years covered 6,000 fights. He writes:
"I have covered boxing, promoted boxing, watched it, thought about it and after long reflection I cannot find a single thing that is good about it, either from the point of view of participant or spectator …. Boxing or ring fighting has never added an iota to the stature of anyone as a human being worth his salt."
Most doctors who have examined boxers agree that a few skilled champions may escape serious damage, but the typical veteran, after some fifty contests spread over several years, begins to soften up. His defence lapses, his blows become less telling because they are no longer properly timed, and soon the promoters begin to look elsewhere for their box office attraction. We are told that some doctors say they can detect the medical and physical condition of these men before they go into the ring. There is no instrument which has yet been invented which can detect the small hemorrhages of the brain which a boxer sustains and which, if repeated over the years, produce the condition known as "punch drunkenness."
Of course, it is easy for promoters to dismiss the whole question of punch drunkenness, because in the nineteenth century, when there was even greater ignorance of these things, punch drunkenness indicated that the man found it difficult even to walk along a straight line. There are still, of course, many of those men suffering from that condition. But in these boys, these young
352
men, punch drunkenness is an insidious matter. Slowly their personality changes; slowly they become depressed or excited. They lack concentration; they lack the power of co-ordination and consequently the experts who watch them in the ring can see when their blows are faulty and that already their brains are affected. Then is the time for them to be turned adrift. These young men find it difficult ever to hold down a responsible job. The brain cell, the nerve cell, never heals. To tell one of them that a long rest will change his condition is false: his condition is permanent.
I have always sought the advice of doctors who are fully competent to express an opinion, and may I say here how honoured I am to think that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is following me to-day. Mr. J. H. Doggart, F.R.C.S., Surgeon to Moorfields Eye Hospital—which is a world-famous eye hospital—who supports everything I say, and who without qualification absolutely denounces professional boxing, because he operates on the boxers, says:
"Fists are not the only instruments of destruction. Boxers' heads colliding in the heat of combat can inflict fearful injury. So can the hard floor coming into contact with a stricken man's temple …. We have already seen that multiple blows on the head lead to hæmorrhage in the brain followed by irregular patches of cerebral atrophy."
If I may lighten this debate a little, Mr. Doggart then described one boxer who came to see him. He said that one boxer he saw at Moorfields was called by the amazing name of Bill Softly. He had suffered an injury to the eye. He pointed out to Bill that seeing double must be rather awkward for him, whereupon Bill replied, "Yes. I see two chaps in the ring; I hit the one that isn't there, and the one that is there hits me".
I say with all due modesty that there are many doctors who will support me. May I report one who is world-famous? Dr. Karl Evang is the Director-General of the Public Health Services of Norway, and his services are used by the World Health Organisation of the United Nations as Director and Adviser of the Health Services in other countries. He says:
"In boxing a certain number of people are killed outright every year, a much larger number get 'punch drunk' or have to be registered as ring wrecks for years, or for a

353
lifetime. How many boxers reduce their intelligence permanently and irrevocably nobody knows, but it is generally accepted that the risk exists."
On the medical side, our British Medical Association said as far back as December 25, 1954, in the British Medical Journal:
"While many of the athletic activities of young men are associated with risk of injury and rarely of death, their value in developing physical fitness and character more than justifies the risk involved. Boxing is unique among the sports of civilised communities in that the object of the boxer is not only to hurt his opponent but if possible to render him unconscious."
I am well aware that there are those who, despite the most damning medical evidence, are reluctant to condemn boxing. May I say that here is a clear case of emotion defying reason? So powerful is the effect of opinion in the circle of some men that even the certain knowledge that blows to the head are injurious would not persuade some of them to dissociate themselves from a code of behaviour which might imply that they were lacking in courage. I fully understand that. After all, we as Parliamentarians know full well that in our work over the years we are tempted to allow emotion rather than reason to dictate our actions. It would be remarkable if all male doctors could completely reeducate themselves emotionally, and allow only their reason to dictate their attitude.
Supporters of boxing argue that Rugby football is equally dangerous. Of course, this argument cannot survive examination. The primary object in football is to score points or goals, not to knock your opponent insensible. In football, an injured man is immediately removed from the football held, with the sympathetic approval of the crowd. I would say to your Lordships that professional boxing is the only sport in which a participant seeks to knock his opponent out in the shortest possible space of time. It is the only sport in which to confess injury and to retire is to risk a hostile demonstration from the spectators. It is the only sport in which wounds inflicted and blood drawn give colour and zest to the whole display.
Finally, one very serious aspect of the business is that even the fighter himself may not admit to any loss of skill for fear of being banned from further fights.
354
On all counts, I believe your Lordships' verdict should be that this unsavoury traffic in young bodies should come to an end in Britain, and I ask you to give a Second Reading to this Bill to enable a Select Committee to make a full investigation of the business. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Summer skill.)
4.0 p.m.
LORD BRAIN: My Lords, this is a question of great public interest and considerable complexity, with many aspects. As the noble Lady has shown so well, there are emotional and ethical questions involved, as well as purely medical ones. I want to confine myself mainly to the medical issues and to describe them as fairly and factually as I can. This, it seems to me, is one of those difficult questions when one has to balance the harm which may be done by boxing against the alternative evil of interfering with people's freedom to do, within limits, what they want, even though they may in the process do themselves, and even sometimes other people, harm. So that the weight of the medical service is, in this context, extremely important.
It has been known, of course, for a very long time that injury to the brain may follow a blow on the head, and that is all too true of boxing. But if we are to come to a right decision about this Bill we must surely first see what are the facts about this particular form of head injury and then consider what action they justify. As we know only too well, from time to time tragedies occur and a man is killed as a result of injuries received in the boxing ring; but that, in this country at any rate, I am glad to say, is extremely rare. But not all such injuries, of course, prove fatal, and I have made some inquiries to try to ascertain how common are the more serious head injuries as a result of boxing.
I asked one neuro-surgical colleague how many cases of serious head injuries in boxers he had seen recently, and he said that it numbered two in the last five years. Another colleague, who is the head of a hospital unit which admits about 100 oases of serious head injuries a year, told me that he had had only one as a result of boxing

355
injuries in the last five years. So, to preserve a sense of proportion, these major head injuries as the result of boxing are not very common, which is, in itself, perhaps rather surprising.
Then the noble Lady has alluded to the condition known as "punch-drunkenness", which is very well recognised, both in this country and in the United States. It is a state of progressive mental and physical deterioration which may occur in professional boxers, and we now know that it may not appear until they have retired from the ring, sometimes as long as ten years after, and that it pursues an inevitably progressive course; but we do not really know—and that is perhaps particularly the reason—how common this condition is. In forty years' professional life I can recall having myself seen three cases. I asked a neurological colleague with an even longer experience and special interest in head injuries, and he said that he thought he had seen five. On the other hand, those with a special interest in the subject see more. Dr. Macdonald Critchley, who has written a good deal about it, tells me he has now seen about 100 cases of organic nervous disease in boxers, many of which, but not necessarily all, were due to boxing.
We still know comparatively little about the pathological changes in the brain which give rise to this condition. We do not know in detail the factors which produce it; how it is related to the character of the man's fighting experience. We know it is not directly correlated to the number of knock-outs he has had. We do not know how it is related to the length of his career or to the age of his retirement, or even whether there is such a thing as predisposition which makes one man more liable to it than another. Though it is commoner in professional boxers it is not unknown in amateurs. So far as I know, the brain has no way of distinguishing a blow from a professional from a blow from an amateur. So there are many gaps in our knowledge, and we do not even know the numbers involved, either absolutely or relative to those exposed to risks.
My own feeling, therefore, is that though I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what the noble Lady said, I could not myself feel that on the
356
medical evidence alone there is a case at the moment for making professional boxing illegal. I think I have shown, and, indeed, I believe the noble Lady has herself admitted, that there is a need for very much more knowledge than we at present possess, which, incidentally, whatever may happen in the field of professional boxing, would be extremely valuable in the amateur field as well. And just because we need to know more, I agree with her that there is a need for an investigation, but I think it should be, at this stage, a scientific and medical investigation, and I doubt whether a Select Committee could, in the present circumstances, have before it the information which would enable it to reach a decision.
The President of the Royal College of Physicians has told me that the College has the matter under consideration and is prepared to set up a committee to go into it from every medical point of view. It may not be in one way a large problem, but its scientific and human interests are considerable and concern not only boxers but, to a considerable extent, medical officers of schools. The College, I need hardly say, has no axe to grind, its interests are purely medical, and I hope very much that the investigation will have the support and cooperation of the boxing community, to whom I believe it could render a very valuable service. Ultimately what happens to boxing depends, I believe, on an informed public opinion, and at the present stage we all need more information.
4.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: My Lords, it is a most interesting thing to be able to debate in your Lordships' House a subject which, on the face of it, is not political because you know automatically that you are not going to embarrass either the Government, your own Party or yourself, by the mistakes that you might make on a subject which is perhaps a little too weighty for you to take on. In this debate there are eleven other speakers on the list. I am not the slightest bit confused, but I wish to state very earnestly to the introducer of this Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, that I have no intention of making any personal attack upon her. I am

357
merely going to speak on behalf of the professional boxer and professional boxing, and to urge your Lordships not to allow this Bill to have a Second Reading, and not to go to the completely unnecessary length, as the noble Lord, Lord Brain, has just pointed out, of appointing a Select Committee. To start with, if a Select Committee was appointed, it would probably have to be formed, as the noble Lord, Lord Brain, suggested, from those doctors and others who know most about boxing. I can promise your Lordships that they are all administrative stewards of the Boxing Board of Control already.
Apart from that there is this question of freedom from a political angle. It is interesting to me to note the integrity of the noble Baroness, which I have always known is great, and who has always shown that she is profoundly adverse to boxing. I say "boxing", because, although this Bill refers to professional boxing the noble Baroness took the opportunity in her speech of making statements that brought in boxing as a whole, both amateur and professional—even boxing in America. We also had a mention of a doctor professor speaking his word on professional boxing or on boxing (I am not sure which) from Norway.
The interesting thing to me is that in another place the noble Baroness had a friend, who sat on the same side of the House as she did before she came to your Lordships' House, who is President of the Professional Boxers' Association, and who most certainly collects some 2,000 votes from the Liverpool area and from the Manchester area of those who are very close to being either licensed professional boxers or connected with the sport; and beyond that, of course, from a very vast number of the general public whose only connection with professional boxing is that they like to watch it as spectators. There is a point there. But it certainly shows that the noble Baroness has courage in asking for this Bill when she knows that Mrs. Bessie Braddock would be violently opposed to it.
I said that I wanted to be as impersonal as possible and merely to bring some facts before your Lordships. I have had to change my mind, however;
358
and, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, I shall have to make one or two generalisations in the form of an attack upon her, because she has laid herself wide open by making some completely inaccurate statements. Let me take one, quite quietly. The noble Baroness mentioned television. After yesterday's debate we may feel hot around the neck about television, but I, speaking on behalf of professional boxing, have no such feelings. I will tell your Lordships exactly how many professional boxing contests were shown on the screen last year to all and sundry who wished to see them connected with the question of this Bill. There were 17—and only 17—British professional boxing contests. We allowed two programmes of professional boxing per month, and only two, to the two companies of television that fill our screens. Does that fit in with your Lordships' conception of what the noble Baroness has said? With all due respect, I would say that, either wittingly or unwittingly—I do not wish in any way to be personal, but it has come like this—she has made a confusion of the issue between amateur boxing and professional boxing. This Bill deals with professional boxing and no question of amateur boxing comes into it. Amateur boxing is, of course, being continually shown.
If we are on that subject, is professional boxing sadistic, and does it lower the character of those who watch it? Why is it fourth on the list of sports shown on the television? Because it is extremely popular. As your Lordships know, there are machines in the television studios which show the number of people interested in any one subject; the number interested in watching professional boxing is known, and the noble Baroness can get these figures, if she wants them, just as well as she can get the figures of those who watch amateur boxing contests, or horse racing, or any other sport. Let her take my word for it, that it is fourth on the list in popularity.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question? I thought he was going to develop this point when he stressed British boxing and the amount of professional boxing generally that is shown on the screen.

359
Is the noble Viscount aware that practically every Saturday there is produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation what is called "The Fight of the Week", showing American professional boxing?
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: I am not aware of any such thing. The figure I have given is that 17 professional boxing contests were allowed to be shown last year, which was a peak year. Seventeen is the only number, and I know perfectly well that we allow only two professional television-shown contests per month.
I think it is only fair, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that some facts about this important business should be known to your Lordships. I think the best way is to explain, to start with, that I was professionally trained when I was nine years old. I have boxed, both at my preparatory school, as an amateur, and at Eton, as some of your Lordships may remember. There are four noble Lords here who certainly should remember—they were spectators, not my opponents, and therefore they may be more likely to remember. They may or may not have been viewers. Afterwards, I boxed in the Army and so on. But, more important still, I have been a steward of the British Boxing Board of Control, which controls pro fessional boxing, for 29 or 30 years, and I have also been Vice-President for a good many years. I have also been a licensed professional referee. I have boxed with more professionals than with amateurs. I think they are the best, most delightful lot of men, when they are young and even if they are old. I am not going to suggest for one moment that I have not met a "punch drunk" or slightly "punch drunk" boxer; I have.
The point is that the noble Baroness is talking about this sport as it was in the past. We are talking about it as it is now, in the present, and as it will be in the future. There has been a great change because of the efforts of the Boxing Board of Control, of which I have been a proud member, since 1949. There were great changes before that date. When I first joined, Lord Lonsdale was president. He sat in your Lordships' House now and again. All your Lordships will remember him. He
360
was known as the "yellow man", not because he was frightened of anyone, not because he was in any way an unpleasant person, such as it has been suggested there are in this boxing business, but because he was typical of a certain type of British sportsman. For years on the Board was the late Lord Drogheda, whom your Lordships frequently saw sitting on the Woolsack. We have five Queen's Counsel, three doctors—seven altogether, but I am speaking of the three actually on the Board—who know what there is for anybody else to know; from whom Lord Brain could get his information, and from whom Baroness Summerskill could get her information, and has done.
In regard to this Bill, I must say, with all respect, that the noble Baroness has made some statements which, through ignorance, are entirely wrong and can be proved wrong over and over again. I will not go back into that matter. Let us take the phrase "the noble art". The noble Baroness says that boxing should never have been called a noble art, and she gave reasons which seemed to be perfectly sound as to why it should not be called the noble art. I am going to give a few reasons why I consider it should be so called, and my reasons may influence your Lordships if there is any doubt in your minds as to whether it is still a noble art.
In 1747 Broughton taught the "mystery of boxing" as a "truly British art" at his academy in the Hay-market. Boxing is an artificial sport, unlike running, jumping or swimming—it is of extremely little value against a man armed with a weapon or a Judo expert or strong and scientific wrestler. Fair play is a moral that has to be taught, and boxing is designed to teach it. Good sportsmanship and fair play go together. When mean advantages are taken they are easily seen, not only by the referee but also by the spectators, and are promptly penalised. I would say that boxing is a noble art—"a truly English art", Broughton said. He went on to say:
"May the day never come when an Englishman shall feel ashamed of it, or blackguards bring it to a disgrace."
I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness would come into the category of a blackguard trying to bring it into

361
disgrace. I know that is not the case. She has suggested that there are blackguards who could bring it into disgrace, and of course I heartily agree with that—there could be. I would go further and say that, of course, it is a violent exercise. We all know that. It has a sense of personal contest more manifest than in any other sport. Good manners certainly went out some time ago; but I can promise that they exist in professional boxing.
Some years ago—I have here an article written in 1958—there was a television debate on the sport between various well-known persons. I personally think that the case put up by the antagonists to professional boxing was a weak one. There are several quite sound arguments that can be brought to bear upon any rough sport, but let these not be exaggerated by using such expressions as those which, I am sorry to say, I am under the impression the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was hinting at—such as "licensed murder "and "sadistic display". She used the word "sadistic". However, the article goes on to say:
"There is in all of us some of the primitive; in many cases we would cease to exist if there was not. Primitive instincts … can be rightly divided into good and bad, and I would say that boxing is a sport; which stands with, and for, the good things physically and mentally and has nothing to do with the word derived from the Marquis de Sade's character".
I could go on quoting, but it seems a little curious that I have to read this, as it is part of an article that I wrote myself. I hope that none of your Lordships will think that I have to read my own article because I have suffered from impared eyesight, hearing and so on from my own boxing career. That is not the fact. I think that probably your Lordships can come to your own conclusion without my going further into this matter.
I have here, on Boxing Board of Control paper, a full list of injuries, fatalities, the "punch drunk" syndrome-medical and surgical expressions which have so many letters that they are almost like that unmentionable spot in Wales which has a small railway station whose name no one but a Welshman can pronounce. I could go through these, and if any of the other speakers wish to have my assistance in this matter, they can. These are reports from
362
doctors, not only those who are on the Board of Control but those who have written and answered articles in the Lancet and in the British Medical Journal. In every single case it is proved that the damage to a boxer's brain that worries the noble Baroness is over-exaggerated.
I can speak personally about this. I have been knocked unconscious in boxing and the effects have lasted for only a few hours. But I have been rendered unconscious six or seven times through hunting falls, where the effect has lasted for weeks, and sometimes months. It is a most curious thing that the boxer, who is quite prepared and accustomed to receive blows on his face and head, shows absolutely no sign of any damage other than physical bruising. That has been admitted by the noble Baroness, and also by Lord Brain, because it is a known fact. The noble Baroness herself said that there is no machine which can show this damage. No, unfortunately there is not. However, there are machines that show that there is no damage—a machine which I will call, for short, an "electro 'gram". But there are Stewards of the Boxing Board of Control, there are our representative stewards, there are time-keepers, and there are inspectors who see every single professional contest held in this country and in Northern Ireland. They can act from their knowledge of boxing in a way that is better than any machine yet invented by man.
It is because of a very strong Boxing Board of Control that deals with professional boxing—a far stronger one than that which controls amateur boxing—that I have every confidence in this sport and its organisation. If a great sport is taken up professionally by boxers, promoters and managers are naturally required, and they can get their licences only if they get a completely clean bill of character, and so on, from the Board of Control. Therefore, there is really nothing to worry about.
No young boxer can even box professionally without, before a licence is given him, having been checked over completely by one or two doctors. He is then, if sufficiently good, allowed to box a minimum number of perhaps four rounds. On the days on which he is

363
due to box he is seen, at the weigh-in, by a doctor. The doctor again sees him before he enters the ring, and yet again when he comes out of the ring. There is no sportsman—either professional or amateur—in any sport, however dangerous or non-dangerous it may be, who receives that attention. Someone might then say, "That is obviously because you recognise it as a dangerous sport". Of course it is a dangerous sport. But no boxer who takes out a professional licence has to do so. He can stop at any time he likes. Any viewer of professional boxing, if he feels it is sadistic (with which I entirely disagree, on the argument that extraordinary sportsmanship, courage and bravery is shown; there is no feeling whatsoever of creed, or faith or colour in this sport), can turn off his television set.
I would say that this Bill is an unnecessary Bill. It comes from a sympathetic person, but I do not think it has the sympathy of the public. I do not think the public is sadistic; I do not think the public likes to see blood. Blood will flow only during a round. No boxer is allowed to come back into the ring with blood flowing. I think, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, who is perfectly entitled to her own feelings on this subject, that she has given the wrong colour to many aspects of this sport.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I put him one simple question? Would his Board of Control be prepared to cooperate with a committee of the Royal College of Physicians, if it is set up, in making a full investigation of the aftereffects of professional boxing?
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: Of course, they would co-operate with anyone, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Brain, said, more should be known about this subject. That is why I have been a little "long-winded" in this debate—because some of your Lordships just do not know all the technical facts of professional boxing. Some of your Lordships may not even have known about the number of times a man is seen by a doctor before and after he enters the ring. Only two or three days ago a fellow Peer, to whom I was speaking about this business, was talking about cuts, and so on, and mentioned the fact
364
that boxing was done with the wrong gloves—"4-ounce gloves". A 4-ounce glove has not been used for ages. One could go on and on arguing about this subject. One talks about the cuts that are inflicted. Often the sadistic element of the impact of the cut comes about because newspapers and commentators use the phrase "cut eye". It is never the eye that is cut; it is the eye-lid. I have been cut to pieces all over the place, but the eye is never cut. The eye can eventually become bruised, but certainly is not cut.
Another point I wish to make is this—and I think this will intrigue Lady Summerskill, and your Lordships too. There has recently been a great change in regard to television and newspaper cameras, to which the noble Baroness referred. I am going to put it in quite a different way. It was put to your Lordships that in the matter of professional boxing the newspapers and cameras have been on the scene for only a short time. That is, of course, quite untrue. Contests have been recorded for over a hundred years. But, from the point of view of interest, I should like to mention that there have been enormous developments in the way of telescopic lenses and extraordinarily fast shutter speeds. Therefore, if, shall we say, a blow on a boxer's face is recorded instantaneously, in a thousandth of a second, with his face going all over the place, that might have the effect of making some people think it is a brutal sport. Look at those photographs which you see in the Daily Mail or the Daily Sketch—good photographs, upon which the photographer is very pleased with himself. Some people might say, "How awful!". But I say they are not so awful. Then look at the photographs which have been taken of the 21,22 or 23 years old pilots in the R.N.A.S. and the R.A.F., when they are doing a steep climb or a deep dive, or are pulling out, when the "G", the gravity pull—I am not even speaking about people going up in rockets—has pulled their faces out into the most appalling shapes. Their bodies are twisted almost out of their pressurised suits. None of this happens to the boxer.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, before the noble

365
Lord, Lord Windlesham, rises I wonder whether I could step into the ring for one moment, as, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, has had to leave. May I ask the noble Viscount whether he could say a little more with regard to the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Brain, made about the inquiry Which I understand the Royal Society is going to introduce? When it falls to my duty to act as referee between your Lordships at the end of the rounds, I think the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, will have great influence upon your Lordships. We should be most grateful to hear a little more of what the noble Viscount feels in that direction.
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: My Lords, I would rather not say anything further at the moment in reply to the noble Earl, because I feel that I have spoken considerably longer and with more feeling than I had intended.
4.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not sure which of the noble Viscount's speeches I really liked the best—I think perhaps the first! I should like to congratulate him as an old friend, because I think he really did very well with extremely indifferent material. I think that the noble Baroness who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill covered the case so well that I may be very brief indeed. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness for three reasons. She has shown courage in this matter because she has laid herself open, first, to a certain amount of ridicule from various quarters. She is bound to receive that. We on these Benches are used to that sort of thing; and in another place also, where we are not very numerous, we are used to ridicule. We do not mind very much, but we note that recently, for one reason or another, the ridicule has been apt to turn to acrimony—which seems to us to be quite a good sign.
The noble Baroness has also laid herself open to a good deal of abuse, which will certainly be forthcoming the further she goes. Finally, if her Bill ever looks like becoming law she may even be threatened. This would not surprise me at all since—and she has already quoted from the statement to the Press of Billy
366
Walker—this is a very rough business indeed, and the further you go into it and the bigger the prizes involved, the rougher it becomes.
The noble Viscount who has just addressed us has spoken with very considerable knowledge of professional boxing in this country. He has been for many years a member of the Boxing Board of Control, and I agree with him that, had it not been for the hard work of the Boxing Board of Control, on which I have several friends, the situation would be very much worse than it is. I congratulate the Boxing Board of Control who have worked selflessly in order to keep professional boxing as it is.
Having said that, I must agree with the basic contention of the noble Baroness, that professional boxing is, in the last analysis, a bad thing from any point of view, which she has already so fully, so well and so clearly described. I was surprised when reading—though, unfortunately, I was not present at the First Reading of this Bill—that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, gave some figures of the number of people who during the last year were killed in various forms of sport. It seemed quite irrelevant to me, and as I read the figures it seemed even more irrelevant. If my memory serves me correctly, he said, for instance, that no fewer than 14 persons were killed during the year as a result of playing cricket. That does not surprise me at all; in fact, it surprises me that more were not killed, for a cricket ball is an exceedingly hard projectile and, should a young person happen to be unlucky enough to put his head in front of it, he is very apt to get his skull cracked open. But the bowler did not intend to kill him and did not intend to hurt him; he intended to hit the stumps. That was the intention. Therefore, it is quite outside the question of boxing, in which it is the boxer's clear intention to damage his opponent as quickly as possible.
If I may follow this up, because it was the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who raised this point, fourteen people were killed by playing cricket, but only three in boxing.
LORD NEWTON: One.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Very well, one. Your Lordships will remember some years ago the Test Matches in

367
Australia. England possessed at that time the fastest and most accurate bowlers in the world, Larwood and Voce, both of Nottinghamshire. They bowled so-called "leg theory", which was not at the wicket but was at the batsman. The batsman, in order to protect himself, could play only one particular kind of stroke and there, waiting just behind him, were anxious hands ready to grab the ball. This was looked upon as unfair, because it was called "bowling at the man." There was a tremendous row at the time. I remember how amused foreigners in other countries were because Australia and England appeared to be on the point of Splitting up altogether for good and all on this issue. It really became quite serious. I remember it well and I remember the people concerned too, many of whom I knew personally. The M.C.C. stopped it, because of the attempt to hurt the man—in other words, intimidation. Recently the same thing has happened again in cricket, with the throwing controversy. A cricket ball thrown by a very accurate, strong man is exceedingly dangerous and that, too, has been stopped.
I have taken up a few minutes of your Lordships' time, for which I hope you will forgive me, but to talk about fourteen people being killed at cricket in the year in this connection is in my view—I am sorry—quite irrelevant.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for letting me intervene, because I shall not be taking part in this debate. I should like to say to him, if he looks at it from the point of view of the nation, that surely fourteen deaths, however they may be caused, are a graver matter than one death.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I still think it is quite irrelevant. The fourteen deaths were caused by accident; whereas so far as the one death is concerned, although it is not specifically the object of a boxer to kill the other man, he is at least trying to damage him. If he is punched unconscious, death may follow. Therefore, I really cannot see that there is any connection between the two.
Many years ago a friend of mine, who was a very strong man, was educated
368
at the same establishment as were the noble Viscount and myself. In the university heavyweight match he struck his opponent and rendered him unconscious for a very long time. He hurt him very badly indeed. He became scared and was advised by his father to give up boxing because he might do somebody a serious, permanent injury. He gave it up and he is now the illustrious head of the Criminal Investigation Department, so he had the sense to go into a job where he is able to deal with his opponents in a somewhat more comprehensive but less abrupt manner.
Perhaps, before I conclude, I may just touch on the other points from the speech of the noble Baroness. It has been said that professional boxers have gone on to do quite well in other walks of life. This is hardly ever the case. The noble Baroness mentioned Tunney. As he said himself, he "gave up in time". When I am in Paris, I go to a small bar in the Avenue de la Madeleine, where I meet my old friend Georges Carpentier. He gave up in time, too. He runs a bar there very well, and he is extremely popular. He did not stay in too long. We now have the extraordinary statement, which the noble Baroness read but which I have not seen, from Billy Walker, which really gives away the whole story. Possibly he did not write it—that is just possible, and the noble Viscount may feel that—-but at least he put his name to it.
Then, there is a young man called Caldwell, from Belfast. He went to Brazil not long ago to fight one of the lighter weights—bantam-weight or featherweight—I am not sure which. There was a tremendous hullabaloo surrounding the whole thing when the night of the fight came. National anthems were played, bands played, people shrieked and went wild with hysterics. I think that he had difficulty in getting to the ringside. I believe that that fight was a travesty. How anybody could describe it as sport, I really do not know. The noble Viscount may say, "I cannot help what happens in Brazil". Certainly he cannot; but it is still the same thing; it is still professional boxing. The scenes at the end of that fight were quite indescribable. Politics were brought into

369
it, and the crowds became hysterical—and not the least hysterical section of the crowd were the women.
One more instance, my Lords. Years ago we had in my regiment a very good young man, a good boxer. He did nothing but Army boxing, and he never came to any harm in that because, my Lords, in the Army, in universities and in schools three rounds are the limit. They are only two minutes, two minutes and three minutes—seven minutes in all. The referee and judges, if they see that a man has had a good bang on the nose, stop the fight straightaway; and, as I say, the fights cannot go for more than three rounds. Professional boxing is over fifteen rounds, and it is the prolonged strain that does the damage. I have no medical knowledge whatever, such as the noble Baroness has. But to revert to what I was saying: we had this good young man, a strong boxer. He was heavyweight champion of the Household Brigade, and I rather think, afterwards, of the Army.
There was also at that time a horrible little man who used to hang around the London barracks; a promoter who bought prospects out of various regiments. He bought Jack Doyle from the Irish Guards. He bought this man for £30 (you could buy a man out of the Army for £30 in those days), and offered him a glittering future of power and glory; and so he went. He won his first two fights fairly easily, against nobody of prominence. The next two or three were a bit harder with a bigger billing. Whether or not they were "thrown" fights, as they are known, I have no means of telling. It might have been a "thrown" fight which had evaded the vigilance of the Boxing Board of Control. I am talking of more than 30 years ago—35 years ago—when things were not so tight as they are now. At all events, this young man eventually had to fight a real professional who knew what he was doing. He was very nearly killed. He lost his next few fights, and the promoter realised that he was not a very good prospect. Years later, I was walking down the Tottenham Court Road and I saw him on the pavement, selling matches. I spoke to him. He did not recognise me, although I had known him quite well. That man was as near
370
down-and-out as makes no difference. His age at that time would have been, I should say, about 25.
We are told that it is not in every fight that each of the contestants is going for a knock-out. That may be true. Some fights have "gone the distance" because it was in the interests of the promoters to keep the crowd there as long as possible. I remember that when Carpentier very stupidly beat Beckett in sixteen seconds the crowd were very annoyed. They had paid good money for their seats, and they got very little in return. I should say the Joe Louis-Farr fight was one of the fights which went fifteen rounds; and how it did, except by arrangement, nobody was ever able to understand.
Finally, my Lords, whoever succeeded in any walk of life after being a professional boxer for any length of time? What can they really do? Very few, I should say, have made any mark at all. But I believe that where we are in a difficulty here is that the noble Lady is trying to confine her Bill to boxing for profit and everything that goes with it, whereas the noble Viscount is, I think, defending boxing as a pastime, sport or what you will. I believe, if I may say so, that that is what he is saying: that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in boxing as such.
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: My Lords, will your Lordships excuse me? I have just been given the opportunity by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to rise to my feet again very briefly. There are one or two things which he said which I think it might be very helpful——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I would remind the noble Viscount that he is allowed to speak only to correct something which he has already said, and should not introduce any further matter.
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: I apologise, my Lords. It was in reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said about a boxer never doing anything afterwards. I would remind your Lordships—although it is a very long time ago—that a champion heavyweight professional boxer called Gully became Speaker of the House of Commons; and his descendants now sit in your Lordships' House.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that is the most impressive statement I have ever heard, but I can only say that one swallow does not make a summer. I believe that the contention of the medical profession as a whole, as I think will come out of this Select Committee if it is ever set up—and I hope it will be—will be overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill.
4.57 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I fully appreciate the views of the noble Lady who has introduced this Bill, but I cannot help feeling that she really objects to all forms of boxing in the ring, and I am afraid that I am one of those who believe boxing to be a great and manly sport. Boxing is a highly specialised and skilled art—and let there be no mistake about that at all. Boxing no doubt began in the caveman's age, and perhaps he was learning how to defend his lady against outside aggression. I have fought many times in the ring; and, as a young naval officer in the Grand Fleet, I had to fight twice a day for a fortnight because there were so many competitors. I certainly suffered no ill-effects, and I think I managed to stand up a little longer than the other fellow in the final championship bout. I do not suppose I should have had the courage to enter the ring of my own free will. It was the commander of my ship who ordered me to train and fight for the good of the ship and the Service, and fight I did—and I enjoyed it. I mention this because the noble Lady has suggested that in professional boxing the fight promoters get hold of young lads and induce them to fight in the ring. My Lords, why should they not fight in the ring and make a little money if they want to? In most cases, I would say, it makes them better men, gives them greater stamina and improves their physique. There are few sports which are worth much unless there is some risk attached to them.
I would certainly disagree with the idea that the televising of boxing may have a bad effect upon the public generally. It is my experience that people not interested in boxing turn over from one channel to another, but those who are interested have an oportunity of watching
372
it under very good conditions indeed. I would say that the technique of boxing can be watched and much better understood from the television screen than from a ringside seat, and the idea that the public are likely to be brutalised by such a broadcast is really too silly to contemplate. I would say to Her Majesty's Government, if they are induced to set up a Select Committee: how grandmotherly can a Government be? More people are injured—I think this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—by cricket. My Lords, if we are not very careful we shall have the noble Lady introducing a Bill to play cricket with a soft ball. I hope we shall not give this Bill a Second Reading.
5.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, followed, as it was, by the profoundly impressive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, leaves one very little to say. But in reply, partly, to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I would say a few things about the effect of boxing upon the television public. The point that I want to make is that addiction to watching scenes of personal violence is very easily acquired. It has always been a puzzle to me, and to many other people, that so humane, so highly civilised, a people as the Romans were able to endure the spectacles of the arena. In my reading recently, I came upon what may be an answer to that problem.
In the early part of the Fifth Century there was a young man who had become a Christian. He was a very earnest and sincere Christian, and, as a Christian, he refused to attend the arena. He would not soil his eyes at these terrible spectacles. On one occasion, however, he was compelled to go, and he resolved to keep his eyes shut all through the gladiatorial contests. He kept his eyes shut for a long time, but at one very exciting moment, when the crowds were shouting all around him, he yielded to the temptation to open his eyes, and he saw a gladiatorial combat. After that he kept his eyes open. The next day he had an opportunity to go to the arena again, and this time he was not compelled. After a great struggle with his conscience, he bought a ticket

373
and went, and he watched again. After that there was never a gladiatorial exhibition in Rome but young Alypius was there cheering and gazing. How easily this taste, then, is acquired! The story is told in St. Augustine's Confessions.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it must have been a good deal earlier than the Fifth Century.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am sorry, I made a mistake; I should have said the Fourth Century, and it was careless of me. But the addiction is easily acquired, and when I see members of the general public watching boxing on the television screens I wish I could share the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that they were really appreciating the finer points of the science. I wish I could believe that they were saying: "This man's footwork is poor; he should use his left more".
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, if I might be permitted to interrupt, may I say that my view is that the public who are not interested in the footwork, and so on, of boxing immediately turn it off. In fact, I am sure they do.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, in that case I am rather surprised that boxing on television-—What one might call global boxing—has such a high T.A.M. rating.
There is another point we may learn from the past, and it also concerns personal combats, and that is in regard to the tournaments of the Middle Ages. I want to make this point: that those tournaments, which began by being very dangerous indeed and which were gradually made fairly safe by the introduction of precautionary measures, such as suits of armour, and so on, were condemned by the General Council of the Lateran, not because they were dangerous—there was no grandmotherly motive behind that condemnation—but because a man involving himself in so dangerous a sport might conceivably be guilty of murder. That was the ground of the condemnation. I think it proper to say that theologians to-day are considering very carefully the question of professional boxing, and with all the more urgency in view of the Benny Paret case. A very responsible ecclesiastical paper
374
in Italy, one which represents a most important body of theological opinion and one which has not got a popular character, has written these words. I apologise for the violence of the language; I am quoting from a clergyman. It said:
"Those who saw Paret's face, disfigured and horribly swollen, certainly cannot talk of the noble art of boxing. If this form of legalised assassination was not abolished the guilt would fall on that section of the public which continued to favour this useless and ferocious massacre."
My Lords, those words are not mine. I think they are too violent, and I do not wholly endorse them. But they represent an important point of view.
There is a third point which we get from the past, and that is the question of changing standards. In Regency times public opinion, on the whole, tolerated brutal prize-fights. It is true that those prize-fights were sometimes interrupted by warrants from magistrates issued under the Common Law, but, on the whole, the public tolerated the fights. And so they continued, but with less and less frequency, until the 1850s. After that the public would tolerate prizefighting, in the old sense, no longer; and members of the Fancy very sensibly laid their heads together, under the auspices of the Marquess of Queensberry, and drew up new rules for boxing designed to make boxing tolerable to mid-Victorian public opinion. They undoubtedly succeeded.
But that was 95 years ago, and I think the standards of public taste have altered in that time. Standards change. They do not always improve by any means, but they do change, and what was good enough for the mid-Victorians is not necessarily good enough for us. And we show it, because when we are really anxious to preserve life, When we are really concerned to avoid serious injuries, we lay down quite special rules—as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said in regard to Army boxing, which is a proof that we are not satisfied with the ordinary Queensberry Rule contest. I trust that Her Majesty's Government are not going to take any negative attitude towards this vital question.
The television programme called "Panorama" is viewed by a great many thoughtful people and those who turned it on on Monday night saw two things.

375
The second thing was the noble Lady securing an undoubted dialectical victory over her opponent. That was not surprising. When it comes to argument, the noble Lady is in the heavyweight class. The first thing they saw was more important. I think the B.B.C. were quite right to show it, but it was a pretty responsible thing to do. They showed a man publicly battered to death. It made a great impression on me and I think on anyone who saw it. I have never been impressed by people who say, "It could never happen here". I have seen a very great number of surprising things happening here. I believe it is our duty to make sure that this never does happen here.
5.12 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I will be very brief. Shades of those prize-fighters of old—Corbett and Sullivan, Jeffries and Fitzsimmons. Their bones must be stirring restlessly and uneasily this afternoon in their respective graves. I wonder whether, in that bare-fist era any Member of Parliament was ever known to rise in his place and denounce the 3,500-year-old sport and demand a cessation of it on the grounds of brutality and risk of injury. They were giants in those days.
I am not saying that the noble Lady has not made more of a case for her views than I should ever have anticipated, but she should know that we live in a world where the profit motive affects every activity in life; and unless she is going to ban the sport of boxing altogether, the teaching of the art of self-defence—an unthinkable proposition—it is useless for her, in my judgment, to think that she can ever ban professional boxing. But why does the noble Lady confine her activities to boxing? Why does she not turn her attention to motor racing, for instance, where there are more serious and fatal accidents in the course of one year than boxing can produce in half a century, and where the profit motive is anything but absent? You cannot discriminate in this feckless—I almost said reckless—fashion.
There is a profit motive everywhere—in football, in racing, Where casualties occur at times. The noble Lady will remember the statistics given to her a few weeks ago (I am afraid
376
that I was passing in and out of the Chamber when Lord Windlesham referred to them a few minutes ago, and therefore did not quite catch what was said) which showed when interpreted that, for every death or serious injury there is from boxing, there are at least 36 resulting from other forms of sport—rugby, soccer and cricket, to boot. And what of the ceaseless toll on the roads to-day? The noble Lady might just as well start advocating the abolition of the motor car, which is a far more lethal weapon, as it is used by countless people, than the boxing ring could ever be. I hope that your Lordships' House will have no lot or part in this Bill and will robustly refuse to give it a Second Reading.
5.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will excuse this little intervention from someone who has never in his life put on a boxing glove in what the noble Lady called the ignoble art, though since the advent of television I have become an enthusiatic spectator and now shout "What a haymaker!" with the best of them. I have liked what I have seen and I could not understand the point of view of the noble Lady. Far from finding anything vicious or degrading in the business, I have been impressed by the lack of resentment, the friendliness—even the affection—shown by the boxers—amateurs, mostly—between rounds and at the end of the fight. To me, they seem to present British sportsmanship at its best.
I was saying these things to a friend of mine, a former newspaper editor and sports editor, and I fear that I expressed myself rather strongly about the noble Lady and her opinion. "You know", he said, "she is quite right". I was taken back. If there is anything tougher than a sports editor, I should not like to meet it. "If", he went on, "you had seen the number of young men that I have seen—healthy, decent, intelligent young men, amateurs, most of them, who have had their minds permanently slowed up by boxing, you, too, would be against it." As I say, I was much shaken, and I thereupon decided to do a little research. In our library files, I found this statement by that famous and

377
well-respected boxer, Mr. Len Harvey. He said:
"I have seen many ex-boxers on their heels mentally. Their reactions are so much slower, their speech is slurred. They lose their drive."
Next I came across this article by the Sports Editor of the former Sunday Dispatch, Mr. Pat Reekie. May I quote? I am afraid that this quotation is a little longer.
"I am a renegade. Up to a short while ago I honestly believed that every boy should learn to box. Now I don't want my son ever to learn boxing. Let him become a man in other ways—break a few ribs like his father playing rugger, for instance. But boxing, no. I am afraid lest boxing makes a numskull of him. If a few professionals, knowing the risks but willing to take them in a bid for glittering prizes, want to box, let them, but in my view boxing should be cut out of the curriculum at all educational establishments. It is a waste of time educating a mind and then presenting it—the educated part of it particularly—to injury in the boxing ring."
In a further article, Mr. Reekie pointed out something I did not know or even suspect: that more amateurs than professionals died through boxing.
My Lords, these were the views of two well-known sports writers. I have talked to others, and they, like the doctors, agree, albeit reluctantly, that the risks are there. What are we going to do about them? As with smoking, I do not believe in legislation. You cannot stop reasonably grown-up people from doing what they want to do if, in the doing of it, they are harming only themselves or others of their like. But again, as with smoking—and curiously enough, the two things are rather similar, though smoking is by far the graver problem—it is not the grown-up people who matter. They can make up their minds for themselves—and in any case most grown-up people do not start to box when they have already grown up. What matters is the young people. To them, I believe, and to their parents and teachers, it should be made plain that boxing may mean brain injury—most probably it will not, but it may. At present I do not think this is generally realised, and that is why I believe we are in the debt of the noble Lady for giving us the facts. Of course, they will be widely reported. Your Lordships' debates on subjects of general interest like this one almost always are.
This debate is a beginning, but I do not think it is enough. I am not, of course, suggesting any official campaign
378
—far from it. What I had intended to suggest, and what I am glad to say is going to happen, is that the doctors should get together and produce one of their authoritative reports to which so much attention is rightly paid nowadays. The doctors can tell us just what the dangers are; and, more important, they can tell us how to guard against them, be it by boxing less frequently, wearing protective headgear, or doing whatever else is necessary. Then we shall know, young and old alike, just what the risks are and what should be done. I hope most deeply that we shall never see the end of boxing in this country. It is a truly British sport, and to my mind it epitomises the British fighting spirit, of which we have no reason to be ashamed. But it has its risks. Let those who so wish take them, but let them at least know what the risks are and protect themselves, in so far as it is possible, against them.
5.22 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think there is a case for some inquiry into this matter. I listened to everything said by the noble Lady who moved the Second Reading, and I sincerely hope that she is not responsible for some of the literature that has been sent to me recently. I should like to make a public confession, which I hope everybody who wants to send me things will remember, because one form of literature that I dislike intensely is the confessions of reformed rakes. I have not been able to get through William Hickey, in spite of the interesting information on eighteenth century India which I believe it contains. I wish people would not inflict me with that form of literature.
One thing the noble Lady said interested me very much, especially coming from someone of her professional attainments, and that is the frightful effect of a blow on the point of the jaw. Was it not a comparatively short time ago that nearly every surgeon maintained in his service a professsional boxer ready at a suitable moment to give a patient a blow on the jaw? Those patients might be men ox delicate and fragile women. Therefore, the discovery of the lethal effects of a blow on the point is in the nature of a new medical discovery.
I shall keep your Lordships a very short time, but there is one thing I should like to tell you. About 50 years

379
ago, or perhaps a little more, I got one of the most valuable lessons that I ever received in my life in watching a boxing contest. At that time there was a singularly handsome, well-made boxer, called Bombardier Billy Wells. I got a ticket with some friends for a fight that he was going to fight in some six weeks' time with Georges Carpentier. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is still here, because I want him to hear what I am going to say on this point. From the moment that fight was announced, the evening papers, of which there were many in those days, and quite uninhibited (we have heard this afternoon how the Globe would come out with headlines every evening about "Balfour must go"), started every night on Bombardier Billy Wells, until one thought that he had not a rag of character in the world; that he could not box; that he was a cur at heart, and every sort and kind of thing. They said he had not a chance. I went and saw that fight. Georges Carpentier was a much shorter man, a stockily made man, every bit as quick as Bombardier Wells and he stuck to the mark. In the sixth round Bombardier Wells was knocked out. That set the evening papers agog again, and every kind of epithet was turned on to this unfortunate Gunner.
Some two months later, a fight was announced with an Australian heavyweight—very much more his shape; a tall fellow, whose name I cannot remember. I got a seat very near the ringside and watched that fight. The fight went on with varying success for about five rounds, and in the sixth round there was a rally, and suddenly they broke apart. There was Bombardier Wells in his corner, and the Australian was in the centre of the ring. Then there was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen in my life. It was like a school demonstration of a left lead to the point, only much, much quicker. Wells came out of his corner and took his opponent on the point of the jaw. He was right on top of him. He shortened his arm to give him a second punch. I saw a questioning look come into his face. He backed away and let his hands fall to his side. His opponent fell completely knocked out, and the fight was won. The point I am making is that Wells had time to give
380
him two more punches and make absolutely certain of the fight. He knew as well as everyone there knew that if his opponent had got up he could win, and we knew what the result would be. But in that one decision, taken instantaneously in the middle of the heat of the battle, he shamed every English evening paper, and he gave everybody at the ringside a lesson in how to conduct one's life, which I was very glad to get.
I am glad to take this opportunity of showing my gratitude by telling your Lordships that story. Against that we have this business of the other day. I have only heard about it, and have not seen it on television. When we find something like that happening in a business like this it demands inquiry, and I think we need to get at the truth. For that reason, I hope that the Government will arrange for an inquiry. If not, I shall support the noble Lady in the Second Reading and her subsequent Motion upon this Bill, because I think it requires to be inquired into. That does not mean that I am an enemy of professional boxing. I want to get at the truth.
5.30 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, irrespective of the views which one might hold about the Bill which we are being asked to give a Second Reading this afternoon, one must admire the dogged-ness of the noble Baroness in her pursuance of this course. I well remember when she was a Member of another place how many of her supporters were, in fact, quite hostile, whereas many of my own side were the other way about, so that I do not think there is any Party issue in this matter. She moved the Bill with sincerity, and although there are aspects of it with which I cannot find myself in agreement, I think she has made some sound points.
My own experience of boxing has been confined to the Services where, for the first nine months of my Army career, we had compulsory boxing. I should never have boxed had it been other than compulsory, but I cannot say that I either enjoyed it or hated it. The CO. in charge of boxing was the then Army lightweight champion, and anybody who tried to dodge the issue had to box the champion himself; so it was not a very wise course to pursue. But the strictest

381
control was operated, and the very second that any man was seen to be in distress the fight was stopped.
I am well aware of the fact that this Bill is confined to professional boxing, and I watched—I put myself out to watch—"Panorama" last Monday evening, when the closing stages of the Paret fight in New York was shown on film. Frankly it was one of the most distasteful things I have ever seen. It was positively revolting, and I am bound to say that in the interview which followed, I think, without mentioning any names, the noble Baroness won very much on points in her argument, even though I myself and many others did not agree with every word she said.
I consider boxing generally is a sport to be commended. It is a particularly useful sport for young people, and when two boys get into a scrap it seems to me an excellent idea to put them into the boxing ring. Certainly at the school which I attended for some five years that was done, and any occasions of bullying were treated likewise. On a number of occasions the bully was put into the ring with the school boxing instructor, and to my recollection he did not bully again.
I am rather worried about this Bill and about the wording of it. It seems to me to be lacking in substance. Supposing one wanted to promote a boxing match for charity, would that come under the terms of the Bill? I think the noble Lord, Lord Brain, in his excellent speech has really offered the best solution: that the medical profession should get together and really go into the medical side of this business. We all listened with great interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Scarsdale, who has great experience in the realm of professional boxing.
But I do not think that boxing at this stage should necessarily be singled out for an inquiry of the kind suggested. Personally I am worried about the conduct of very much professional sport—of boxing, football and even cricket; and about the enormous transfer fees, the buying and selling of players. If an inquiry is to be held, whether it is by a Select Committee, a Royal Commission, or what you will, it should cover the whole field of professional sport. It must be remembered
382
that the rules of control for professional boxing in this country are much more stringent than in the United States, and, indeed, I think I am right in saying, on the Continent of Europe.
So while I commend the noble Baroness on a very sincere speech, I think, too, that the noble Viscount, Lord Scarsdale, put his case quite fairly. Speaking personally, I would far rather wait for the medical profession to get together and go into this matter. I hope that my noble friend who always goes so carefully into every matter in his Department, as I well know from experience, will bring pressure to bear on the various parties concerned with professional boxing to look into the points that have been raised to-day by all sides. I hope that the Motion for the Select Committee will not be pressed yet. I do think, however, that the matter should not be allowed completely to die down.
5.38 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, your Lordships may be wondering whether I am supporting or opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, or, indeed, the principles (underlying the noble Lady's Bill; for in my younger days I took up boxing, believing in it for self-defence for oneself as well as for assistance to others. I would add here that, had it not been for my exertions in the gymnasium, I might have had a straighter nose because I should not have had it broken. I wonder now, though, to what extent boxing would be effective against judo, a razor slash or a knife in the back. And I would add here, my Lords, that I believe in amateur boxing—in fact, my son has taken up boxing and judo—for I believe also that it can be most useful in dealing at school with the proverbial bully. However, we are dealing to-day with boxing for profit.
I must say that I was impressed on a Saturday morning a few weeks ago When, quite unexpectedly to me, I heard the noble Baroness over the B.B.C. sound radio. I was impressed by her remarks and by the way she put them over. They were convincing in that, as a doctor, the noble Lady described the effect to the brain of repeated punches. The noble Lady, in her interesting book, to which she referred during the course of her excellent speech, if I may say so,

383
said that it is estimated that the punch of a 10-stone amateur boxer is equal to an impact of 600 lb. pressure. I should, therefore, like to quote, if I may, a few lines from this book with regard to the effect of a blow to the head.
On page 10 the noble Baroness writes:
"The brain weighs about 3 lb. It is of the soft consistency of cold porridge. It is not tied down and rests in a fluid in the bony skull. A blow causes it to wobble from side to side; even a moderate blow will cause it to bang against the side of the skull and a more severe blow may cause such a forceful movement against the bony part of the skull as to bring on bleeding or bruises."
Here I must confess I find myself in a little difficulty. Because, on the one hand, the noble Baroness says in her book (and she also mentioned it in her speech) that she believes it to be generally agreed that an instrument has yet to be invented which can detect the small hæmorrhages which a boxer sustains in the course of a fight and which, repeated over the years, produce the condition of punch-drunkenness. On the other hand, the National Sporting Club state that since the formation of the Board of Control, I believe in the early 1930s, these effects have been very much diminished on account of compulsory periodical medical examination. In fact, I understand that if a boxer loses on points three contests in succession he must appear before the area council and undergo a medical examination. If he is knocked out, he may not box again until he has had a rigorous medical examination.
The important factor here, I feel, is whether such a rigorous medical examination can detect any slight injury to the brain cells. I should hope that it can. For I feel that God has provided us with this brain, a highly delicate and complex instrument, one which, even in this scientific age, not even the most adroit instrument or tool maker or electronics engineer could hope to build. I mention electronics engineer for Dr. Maxwell Maltz, an American, seems to me right when, in an article called "Psychocybernetics" written in 1960, he says:
"The Almighty in providing us with a brain provided us too with a supremely developed servo-mechanism."
384
I think we should therefore ask ourselves: is it right for us to condone (if that is the appropriate word) the deterioration of such a wonderful mechanism or instrument, or whatever you like to call it, with which God has provided us?
The Pope (I am not a Roman Catholic; I am a member of the Church of England) recently declared that professional boxing as it existed to-day was "objectively immoral". Therefore I am sorry that to-day we cannot have the advantage of having the views of the Church of England on this matter. In a letter to the Daily Telegraph which appeared on April 23 last, an ex-boxer, ex-police superintendent and later ex-army officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Farthing wrote:
"The majority of persons who attend professional boxing matches are not interested in a skilful boxer who by adroit movements avoids punishment and wins his fights on points decisions. All they clamour for is a man with a killer punch and they wait with avid and sadistic anticipation for the moment when it is successfully brought into action and the opponent is battered into submission or sinks unconscious to the floor of the ring."
I am afraid that I believe that to be to a large extent true. I feel that professional boxing for profit, for personal profit, certainly does not bring out the best instincts in men.
I should now like to come back to the National Sporting Club, who allow no betting in or near the Club premises; nor do they allow any vocal encouragement to the contestants. I feel that those are two of the objectionable and distasteful aspects—the betting side and the encouragement of contestants—in the professional promotion of boxing matches. I understand that over the last ten years there has been in this country a big decline in the number of promotions of professional fights. In spite of this decline, the National Sporting Club has continued to prosper, and in fact during the last six years the Club promoted more charity tournaments than any other promoter in the country: for instance, tournaments for the benefit of boys' clubs, Sea Cadet Corps, orphanages; and co-operating, too, with the Variety Club of Great Britain in its great work for underprivileged children. These are certainly worthwhile causes. But the National

385
Sporting Club did not, and do not now, seek to profit from professional boxing.
In view of this, I support the principle underlying the noble Baroness's Bill, which seeks to ban professional boxing giving an ultimate profit to the promoter. I am wondering, therefore, whether the noble Baroness, if she proposes to continue with this Bill, if it is given a Second Reading, would either agree to the insertion of such words as "for personal profit" in lieu of "for profit" as stated in the Bill. Alternatively, she might feel that it would be preferable to reintroduce her Bill, either after an inquiry which would be set up by the Government (that is not certain at this stage) or after the inquiry which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and after there has been a Report (if I understood him rightly) on the effects to the brain of boxing as a whole. I feel that is all I have to contribute to-day.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I make one slight correction? The quotation which he gave was not a quotation from a Papal utterance. The Pope did not say it. It was a speaker on the Vatican Radio, not the Pope himself.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sorry to have misinformed the House. I understood from a paper I read that it was said by the Pope himself in a broadcast.
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, says that the National Sporting Club, of which no doubt he is a member, does not promote for money, or profit, it is completely untrue. I do not know where he gets his information. A good deal of the information which he has given is completely erroneous. It is not true; it is not the fact. They do not promote their professional boxing for charity. They pay their boxers out of the subscriptions which they receive from the club members.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT SCAFSDALE: When the noble Lord said that the National Sporting Club do not allow any betting, there was almost a hint that betting was allowed at all professional boxing promotions. We do not allow any betting, and no betting takes place. But you
386
cannot stop an Englishman or any individual from having a private wager if he wishes to do so.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should not like to be out of order, but I have been personally attacked and therefore I should like to refute what the noble Viscount has just said. I have here a letter from the National Sporting Club, dated May 9, 1962, in which the secretary says:
"I believe that Lady Summerskill's Motion in effect is to call for the banning of professional boxing for profit. Naturally, promoters could not afford to run at a loss, but in our case we do not seek to profit from it."
There is the letter.
VISCOUNT SCARSDALE: With all due respect, it does explain itself.
5.51 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I do not always support my noble friend Baroness Summerskill, and I have never hesitated to say when I disagreed with her. Therefore, when I agree with her I think it incumbent upon me to say so forcefully; and I do agree with her most sincerely in the principle underlying this Bill, though not over the detail, as I shall show in a moment. I do not feel passionately about or against boxing, but I do feel passionately about damage to human beings and to the human brain. The ethical question which underlines this is: have we the right to do what we like with our own bodies? Up to a point we have; but the law rightly steps in and says that we shall not do certain things; for example, we shall not take drugs and we shall not behave in other ways which affect our personalities and our brains so that we endanger our own health and the happiness of ourselves and other people. It is that sort of argument which I think has to be applied to this particular problem.
Amateur boxing carries risks with it, as do all other sports. But I am quite satisfied that amateur boxing also has many benefits, and particularly to boys in clubs where many of us have worked. I expect that it enables boys who are by nature aggressive, to work off their aggression in a socially useful way, under good conditions, and to develop a good character. They not only develop a measure of discipline during training but also take defeat in a sportsmanlike

387
way. At such amateur boxing contests as I have attended I have been impressed not only with the discipline and the medical care of the combatants, but also with the behaviour of the audiences, who it seemed to me were entirely interested in the finer points of the sport. They were mostly ex-participants, ex-amateur boxers who really cared about the sport of boxing and the skill displayed. I do not think that that is either a bad or a wicked thing, and I think there is a great deal of good in amateur boxing, although it carries risks.
I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, did not say more about the medical side of boxing, because he could have spoken with great authority. But he did make the suggestion that it would be a good thing if we were to await the report, or a report, of a committee of the Royal College of Physicians, which he suggested might be set up. We have recently had a good Report from a Committee of the Royal College of Physicians on the subject of smoking. But that Report was not of an investigation; it was entirely a collection of existing evidence. That is all that the Royal College of Physicians has so far done. It is not an inquiry of this sort. It has collected the existing evidence. It has not any machinery for carrying out investigations. I may say that I am a Fellow of the Royal College, and I hope I am correctly representing the situation, though this matter has not so far been discussed. It has no machinery for calling witnesses or for making special inquiries. Indeed, the only machine that I know of that could really solve the problem of the incidence of "punch drunkenness" is that of the Government Social Survey. Strangely enough, I can see no other way of getting this particular piece of evidence if it were required.
But the medical evidence is there already in great quantities, and it is almost unanimous. First of all, about the incidence of injury in boxing, the biggest survey that has been made was that made by Dr. Johannson in Oslo, who examined 6,000-odd sporting injuries over a period, and boxing came tenth. So the total of all injuries sustained in boxing is much fewer than the total of injuries sustained in ski-ing, which caused 1,784 injuries; football caused 1,320 injuries. So as regards actual
388
acute injury there is no doubt that boxing comes quite a long way down the list, if we take total numbers, though I at once accept Lord Windlesham's point that the intent in those two things is quite different.
The great authority on the medical aspect of boxing in this country—so far as I know, he has never pronounced on any subject other than the medical aspect of boxing—is Dr. Macdonald Crichley, to whom Lord Brain referred. I served under him in the Navy. He was consulting neurologist to the Navy and I was one of his medical officers. He examined 27 patients in the Navy who were sufferers from "punch drunkenness." As Lord Brain said, he has in fact seen about 100 people who are victims of the condition of being "punch drunk". So far as I know, he knows more about medical injuries as the result of boxing than does any other person in the world.
We have been asked some questions and some discussion has taken place about what happens when one is knocked out. It is perfectly true that nobody knows precisely what does happen. It is a strange condition; it is a double condition. There is, first of all, a complete loss of muscle tone so that the person flops down and, secondly, loss of consciousness; and it is possible for these two things to occur separately. No collection of medical evidence would solve this problem. It would required special scientific investigation, and how to carry that out I do not know. Indeed, there is a certain amount of division of opinion as to what actually occurs. Some people have thought that the primary injury was to the internal ear. Others have thought that it was due to the knocking of the base of the brain against the exit from the skull; and it is in the base of the brain, the brain stem, that the vital centres are located.
However, the common view, and the one now generally accepted, is that which the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill expressed—namely, that it is exactly the same as concussion from any other cause. What happens in concussion is that the brain -behaves exactly as though it were a bag of water. If one fires a bullet into a bag of water it goes in by a small entrance hole, and an enormous hole is blown at the far side. This is one of

389
the reasons why troops have from time to time thought that their enemy was using dum-dum bullets. They encountered this small entrance hole and the large exit hole. The reason is perfectly simple. When the bullet strikes, a terrifically powerful wave is set up in the water, and it is this which produces the large hole and exit. Just imagine a similar blow applied to the brain and the wave that goes through the brain when concussion occurs.
The brain is an extremely delicate structure, which is why, as the noble Lord just said, it is safeguarded by the brain-case. The brain also has the feature that it allows for a very large margin of safety. We can get through life with the loss of one or two limbs: we can get through life with only one kidney, or even with one lung; and it is surprising how much brain-tissue can be removed by operation and for the person still to be all right. It is this fact which makes it absolutely impossible to detect the minor damages to the brain which undoubtedly occur every time anybody is concussed. They cannot be detected by examining doctors, no matter how skilled. The best that one can do is to take an electro-encephalograph reading (which was the word the noble Viscount, Lord Scarsdale, was searching for) to see if there is any change in it. As a matter of fact, if you take an electro-encephalograph reading immediately after a man has been knocked out, there almost always are changes, but it goes back to normal very often within a week—possibly only as long as the duration of the headache which the noble Lord described, when he himself was knocked out and concussed as the result of a blow on the head.
Every young doctor is taught, as I was as a student, to treat concussion extremely seriously, and we assess the effect of concussion very simply, not merely by loss of consciousness, but also by loss of memory. If there is any appreciable loss of memory, either preceding or following the assault, or cause of the unconsciousness, it is at once to be regarded as very serious indeed, particularly in anybody who has to use his brain. The first requirement is that anybody who has been concussed and has loss of memory should not do serious
390
brainwork for about a month, or he will have headaches, besides diminished efficiency, for about two years. That is the best you can do with concussion. It is less obvious with people who do not normally do a lot of brain work.
In boxing there are many other kinds of injury which may occur. There are injuries to the eye. One is not really interested in cuts and bruising, and so on. The important thing is detachment of retina, which sometimes occurs and which is absolutely impossible to deal with; very seldom, unfortunately, are surgical operations for replacement of retina satisfactory. As to causes of death in boxing, death can be caused by a blow over the heart; there have been deaths from blows over the solar plexus. But the commonest finding after boxing is bleeding into, or around, the brain. There are a number of these cases recorded, but I should not myself feel that, if that were the whole story, it was in itself a reason for banning boxing; because one finds similar things happening, for example, to motorists who have sustained injuries, or from other causes.
But it is this punch-drunk state which presents the serious problem. This is a state of very gradual mental and physical deterioration. It has all sorts of scientific names, but some of the popular names are just as apt—"slug-nutty", and "slap-happy" are good descriptions. The condition is very much as described by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he spoke about the soldier who had deteriorated so extremely young and so tragically. A great many facts are known about punch-drunkenness. It is much more common in professional boxers than in amateurs; indeed, it is very rare for punch-drunkenness to be found in amateurs. Amateur boxing carries with it physical risks, as does almost every other sport, and I personally should not feel justified in interfering in amateur boxing on the ground of those risks. But on the question of punch-drunkenness, I feel that there is a very serious case indeed. It is much commoner in second-rate professionals than in first-rate professionals.
The typical story is very like the one told by Lord Windlesham. The boxer starts off, he soon reaches his zenith and then starts to go downhill. If he

391
becomes a professional sparring-partner, if he goes into the lower realms of professional boxing, particularly if he is one of those people who are notoriously able to "take it"—sluggers rather than scientific boxers; often small men, not particularly concerned about the size of their opponents—the chance of his getting punch-drunk is very great indeed. The total of contests is as important as the number of knock-outs. In fact, many of these people are knocked out on their feet, and remain in a state of automatism, sometimes fighting on quite automatically, without having any consciousness or recollection of what has been happening.
It is among the humbler sort of people that this condition occurs, and it is associated with both physical and mental evils of a most serious kind, and sometimes with the delinquency resulting from the general deterioration of standards and morals, and often causing great family unhappiness and social failure. As my noble friend said, the damage is absolutely irreversible, because damage to tissue inside the brain or spinal cord does not recover, unless it be due simply to pressure; whereas the nerves outside the spinal cord do grow again, if correctly sutured, in a matter of nine months. Tissues inside the brain do not recover; damage there is absolutely permanent. Therefore, once it is detected no improvement can be expected, but, rather, steady slow deterioration.
My Lords, that is the case against professional boxing. How are we to deal with it? I hope your Lordships will resist the suggestion that an inquiry by the Royal College of Physicians would be enough. For several reasons, I do not think it would. First of all, it will only collect the existing evidence, which will be very much on the lines of Dr. Macdonald Critchley's classical paper which collected the existing evidence in 1957. It cannot get much beyond that; there is not much more to get. I cannot see that the Royal College of Physicians can collect actual figures about the incidence of punch drunkenness, though it would be very fine if they could, and I hope they do.
The issue which my noble friend has placed before this House is much more
392
than a purely medical issue, and I would suggest that the medical evidence is there, and will be exactly as I have described it. Therefore, it is a question of making certain social and sporting decisions. I should like to see boxing of all kinds, but with a provision that there should be no blows to the head or neck—just as there are no blows below the belt. I say "head or neck" because there are places in the neck, such as the carotid sinus, which are just as vulnerable. If you strike a person on the right side of the neck you can knock him out just as much as you can with a blow on the chin. There are well-known fouls behind the head—"rabbit punches", and so on. If these can be excluded, surely we could exclude blows to the head or neck. But that is something on which it is right we should hear expert evidence from the sporting fraternity. I would suggest that that is the right way of looking at a problem like this. That is not a medical problem, but something of a sporting problem. And what better way of dealing with this, my Lords, than by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House?
I have here a Report, which I have had for many years and regard as a model Select Committee Report of this House. It is the Report dealing with the Regulation and Registration of Osteopaths, with which some of your Lordships may be familiar. This was before the war, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, was Chairman of the Select Committee. They took evidence from a great many members of the medical profession, a great many members of the osteopathic profession and a great many other people, too. They produced the classic document on this extremely difficult subject and it is the only text-book in the world, of which I know, which gives the full story of both sides of osteopathy. I hope that we shall be able to do something like this. Therefore, I most sincerely hope that your Lordships will not be satisfied with the proposal of my noble friend Lord Brain, that the Royal College of Physicians may set up a Committee. Delighted though we are to hear it, I hope that you will in fact give this Bill a Second Reading and then agree to the setting up of a Select Committee,

393
which will take evidence, examine witnesses on oath, and then give us for the first time, an authoritative picture of the dangers of professional boxing, and what we might best do about it.
6.11 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, when the noble Lady introduces a measure into your Lordships' House, it is always full of the deepest thought, and she does so always with the greatest concern about the subject on which she is speaking. This debate, when she introduced her Bill, has been no exception. I am quite sure that you would wish me to congratulate her on the modest, appealing and considerate terms in which she expressed all that she said, knowing only too well how long she has been involved—almost, one might say, a lamb lost in the wilderness—in this most controversial topic.
This debate on the noble Lady's Bill has been overshadowed by three factors. First, there was the tragedy in New York over the Benny Paret death. I think the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, summed that up when he asked: "Can it happen here?" Without a doubt as a result of this tragic death, which has been so vividly brought into everybody's homes due to the modern advancement of television and cameras, as we have heard, there is great concern in the nation about this sport of boxing. The noble Lady, in her Bill to your Lordships' House, has introduced the factor that we should vote, when the time comes, against the principle of professional boxing. She would then wish to have that Bill subjected to a Select Committee. I was struck particularly by the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, offered. He felt (and I think that it was the feeling of others of your Lordships; it is certainly my feeling) that we do not want to accept a principle in this House until we have the full medical facts.
The third factor which has come into this debate is the announcement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brain, that the Royal College of Physicians is to set up an inquiry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred in his most thoughtful and informative speech. We have not had enough time to consider what this inquiry should mean. The noble Viscount, Lord Scarsdale, himself
394
did not really know, alas! that this inquiry was in mind. But I give your Lordships my assurance that, when we have found out what this inquiry will involve, what it will endeavour to do research into, I will do my best to see that the resources of my right honourable friend in the Home Office, where we are able, will be used, if possible, to help this inquiry. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, that of course a great deal of the information is already available. Nevertheless, as we have seen in this debate, much of the information is contradictory—we have had experts on both sides—whether it be boxing, whether it be medical. We know only too well that the medical bodies themselves have various ideas on the effect of boxing and mental injury, as a whole.
I would say to your Lordships that we should give this body a chance to inquire again into all the medical and physiological factors with regard to boxing injuries. When that report comes out your Lordships, and perhaps the noble Lady, can raise the matter again. I am quite certain that, with the great national interest which would be aroused, the matter would be raised again in this House, and no doubt also in another place. Then, I believe, would be the time to consider what sort of measure was needed, whether of legislation or not.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned the procedure that was used with the osteopaths. With great humility, I would say that I think that we are dealing here with a different sort of problem. Professional boxing, pugilism—call it what one will—has existed ever since civilisation has been on the earth. It is recorded in Crete 1,500 years before Christ. Homer and Virgil wrote about prize-fighting in the mythological games, when the Gods and their Heroes set to together. It is a factor, too, that boxing was not introduced into the Olympic Games themselves until the XXIII Olympiad, which was 880 years before Christ.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that boxing is older than osteopathy?
EARL BATHURST: I do not think that that comes into my argument at all. I am saying that I think the particular

395
subject of boxing has been carried on for a very much longer time, 1,500 years, than the particular science which was the subject of the Report mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I rather think that the noble Earl if wrong. So far as I know, osteopathic practices go back a good deal of time before Christ. I am not sure of the exact year, but the works of the Greek physicians contain a great deal of osteopathic theory and practice. So I do not think we can say that kind of thing.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not know what sort of practice that would be. However, I concede that the noble Lord has a point. But I will say that boxing is recorded 1,500 years before.
So we go right through boxing, from the pugilists using bare fists to the great champions to whom the noble Viscount referred; to Jack Broughton who, it may interest your Lordships to know, remained the first national champion from the year 1735 until 1750. Indeed, that in itself must be an argument as to the amount of punishment a man can take with bare fists. So far as is known, he went on to a perfectly reasonable and ripe old age. In fact, he established his own boxing school, which was one of the first, at Tottenham, in London. He invented boxing gloves, the first "Maulies", as he called them, in the year 1747. From that time onwards, the rules of boxing were organised out of the chaos that undoubtedly existed: until, to-day, we have the Queensberry Rules, which were invented by John Chambers, of the Amateur Athletic Club, in 1867. From that time, 1867, till this day, those Rules have remained substantially the same.
There is concern about the dangers of boxing contests. It has been expressed by the noble Lady herself for many years. Much of the writing goes back to the 1930's, and the noble Lord opposite, Lord Windlesham, drew on his personal experience, much of it going back, I think I am right in saying, to those days. It must be agreed, too, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said, that we have learnt something new in the
396
methods of assessing head injuries. Her Majesty's Government can make no claim to the possession of any independent information or knowledge which I can lay before your Lordships, and the aim of my speech is to attempt to summarise the arguments which have been put forward in the controversy, both in this debate and at other times, and to try to draw a conclusion for your Lordships' guidance as to whether the case for banning professional boxing is made out—and I want to emphasise that the noble Lady's Bill is concerned entirely with professional boxing, and I appreciate all that she said in that regard.
It cannot be disputed that there are certain risks. They have been explained by speakers in your Lordships' House this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Newton showed, by his figures, which have already been referred to, that death is far from being a serious risk in boxing. According to information in a letter from the chairman of the medical committee of the British Boxing Board of Control which was published in the Lancet in June, 1959, there have been only four fatalities ont of upwards of 42,000 professional contests held in this country between 1946 and 1959. Assuming that these figures are correct (and I have no reason to doubt them), they suggest that in this country the risk of death to which a boxer is exposed is really very small. This point has been made in the past, and in reply to it the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, argued that the number of fatalities is not a valid criterion on which the issue can be judged—and I see his point of view. Injuries which occur in other sports, he has pointed out, are entirely the result of accidents, whereas in boxing they are the consequences of intentional acts. That is what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have told us, and it is true. There may well be some substance in this argument, although I think it must be accepted that boxers in general do not intend to cause lasting injury to their opponents. In the final analysis, I suggest that we must have due regard to the figures which my noble friend Lord Newton quoted and which I have just mentioned to your Lordships, showing that, so far as the risk of death is concerned, boxing does not show up in too unfavourable a light.

397
The figures of world fatalities arising from boxing contests, which are sometimes quoted, appear to be more discouraging, and we have had some of them quoted this afternoon. An article which, again, appeared in the Lancet in June, 1959, quoted the death-roll as 64, including 22 amateur boxers, over a period of four years. These statistics suggest that outside the United Kingdom boxing may well be a more hazardous form of activity. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and the noble Baroness referred to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave a graphic account of a bout in South America. I appreciate all that has been said about boxing abroad, but in this particular debate, and in considering the noble Lady's Bill, we are not concerned with what happens in other countries, and I do not think we should allow ourselves to be influenced by those particular figures.
If, then, a case is to be made out on medical grounds for the prohibition of boxing, it must rest, in the main, on the non-fatal injuries, and we have heard much about those to-night. It cannot be denied that the risk of brain injury does exist, but we must note that medical opinion differs, and we have heard already this evening how even the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, were somewhat at odds in their purely medical approach.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I do not think we were; I think we were entirely in agreement. I merely gave a great deal more evident than my noble friend did, because he was talking about the committee; but the actual statistics we gave were, I believe, identical.
EARL BATHURST: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—and I well appreciate my position, as a layman arguing with one who is such an acknowledged expert in all these spheres—my impression was that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, considered that there was not sufficient medical evidence. It was for that reason that the College had decided—and I am most grateful to them that they should have done so—to undertake to see whether they could get more evidence. Now the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, says that the evidence is all
398
there and that it has already been published.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could I remind the noble Earl that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, said he had seen only a few cases, but he said that the doctor who was regarded as the authority on the matter, Dr. Macdonald Critchley, had seen a hundred cases?
EARL BATHURST: As I understood it from what the noble Lord, Lord Brain, said, he claimed that the experts in this field thought that out of the number of head injuries that they had attended in the course of their years of experience, very few of them were in fact sustained by professional boxers. That is what I gathered from the noble Lord, and it was in view of that rather remarkable claim that I said what I did. I think it is rather remarkable, my Lords. One would expect a lot of professional boxers to have had head injuries. As a layman, that is what I should expect; but it seems that that is not so, and therefore the Royal College of Physicians have offered to set out to find more information. I think the noble Lord and myself, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and the noble Lady, are already in somewhat of an argument, and I feel that we must find out more about the medical evidence, particularly with regard to the less serious casualties.
I should also like to mention that out of the number of fights in which an average boxer might expect to take part during the course of his career, something in the region of 90 per cent. are won on pointe, and only about 10 per cent. are won by a knockout.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that that is due merely to the lack of skill on the part of one or other of the contestants?
EARL BATHURST: I agree that that could be argued, but I do not honestly think it is so; because when a man is good enough to get into the professional ring, he has got a pretty long way along the road to being a skilful boxer. I agree it could be argued, but that sort of information could come from an inquiry on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brain.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to intarriupt again, but the noble Lord, Lord Brain, was suggesting an inquiry by the Royal College of Physicians. Such an inquiry has no power to call for evidence; it is merely a body of doctors sitting and collecting what evidence exists. They have no machinery for carrying out investigations of the type to which the noble Earl refers. One wishes they had, but they have not. It is a pity, in a way, that we have suddenly had this proposed inquiry—and it is only a proposed inquiry—sprung on us at this moment. I must say that, where we are dealing with semi-medical and non-medical matters, I feel the opinion of the Royal College of Physicians is of no significance at all.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that I interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Windle-sham, or, rather, intervened between him and my noble friend Lord Scarsdale, who asked whether he had any further comment to make about this inquiry. I hope that the medical opinion which is so strongly represented on the British Board of Boxing Control will see their way to helping in every possible way the inquiry that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, has told us about. From the feeling of your Lordships' House, I am sure that they will see their way to giving assistance.
I think we all agree that there are varying degrees of injury the brain can suffer from a blow. There are also varying factors which will affect the seriousness of a blow to a boxer's brain—his physical fitness, for instance, is one of Ohem, but there are certainly many others. While many opinions have been expressed as to the incidence of brain injury among boxers, the fact remains that there is no definite statistical evidence. I must put that forward to your Lordships, because that really is true. Again, I hope that this inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, will be able to find more statistical evidence for us.
The noble Baroness asks us to decide in principle that professional boxing should be prohibited. A decision of this kind cannot be based on a supposition or on evidence of a piecemeal nature which may not accurately reflect the
400
overall picture. I feel, my Lords, that some of the evidence quoted in your Lordships' House has been of a piecemeal nature. There again, I hope that in the next few years an inquiry can bring forward a greater body of evidence, so that a decision can be made one way or the other of the seriousness to the sporting population of the country as a whole of the noble Lady's Bill. I can readily understand the motives which prompt some medical experts to oppose boxing. On the other hand, I understand and know full well, as we have heard this afternoon, that all medical opinion does not support the serious measure which the noble Lady's Bill would involve.
The noble Viscount has explained the duties of the Board of Boxing Control. I should like to put before your Lordships only one further duty which the noble Viscount did not mention, and that is that, under the rules, it is the duty of the referee to stop a fight if the boxer in question should become defenceless. I do not know whether that rule exists in the United States, but it certainly exists here and is most rigorously enforced. I should also like to tell your Lordships that there is a minimum of seven days between each contest in which a boxer may take part. I put those points forward in passing only to explain how much the British Board of Boxing Control exists to safeguard the interests of the boxer.
The noble Baroness mentioned in the course of her speech the boxing crowd. I suppose, as we sit in the relative calm of your Lordships' House, even the calm of last night or of certain moments in the debate this afternoon, or of debates which are to come, or as we sit in our homes watching television, it would seem that a big night boxing crowd is not exactly an edifying spectacle. But, my Lords, when you are actually at the fight, when you are cheering for your particular man, the lad who comes from your home town, you appreciate that the fans who are there, or many of them, really are experts on boxing. They know the men who are fighting, and they are behind their man all the way.
My noble friend Lord Arran put forward his views as those of a complete non-expert, but of one who has learned to enjoy watching boxing. If he actually

401
went to the fight, I am certain he would be shouting for the man of his choice. I dare say it is not very edifying, and it is not very satisfactory if you happen to be cheering for the man who has been knocked down—I will agree there. But neither is a football crowd at the Cup Final very edifying. It would be most remarkable if everyone stayed in his seat and said not a word. I think there is very much in common between the two sports. Great excitement is undoubtedly engendered, and we must remember that most of us, normally speaking, live fairly dull lives, and especially dull in an age of mass production. So I ask the noble Lady and others of your Lordships not just to dimiss a boxing crowd, and especially a big night crowd when the atmosphere is really electric with excitement, just as a sadistic mob of people, and even compare them to those who watched the Roman games, because it just is not true. I do not believe that watching boxing on television in the home can possibly corrupt our morals in such a way as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh suggested.
Finally, my Lords, there is the question of the effect of televised boxing on children. Is there any child in the country or in the world who has not at some time or another had to go through a fight? It would be a very odd child who has not had a scrap, and I can only suggest that instead of concentrating on the brutality, or the image of brutality (if that is there), in the television boxing picture, why not concentrate on the finer parts of boxing—the skill, the undoubted courage, the quickness of movement, physical fitness, and so on—which without doubt is what the crowd pays for and enjoys seeing at a boxing match, and to which my noble friend Lord Arran referred?
My Lords, this is a free country. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, said that in his most learned speech. It is a free country, and we are rightly chary of interfering unduly with the freedom of adults to choose their own way of life. The onus rests upon the noble Lady, and those who think with her, to produce evidence to justify their view that here is an activity which the State has a duty to prevent. If a case exists at all for banning boxing, it seems to rest mainly
402
on any adverse physical, and possibly mental, effect which it may have on the participants. As I have already indicated, it does not appear to Her Majesty's Government that there is sufficient evidence of the incidence of a lasting disability among boxers to justify the prohibition of this sport—that is, of course, professional boxing—which the noble Lady's Bill would effect. Assuming that those who take up professional boxing know the risks involved, and that boxing matches take place under strict rules, properly administered by the controlling bodies, there would appear to be no justification for any interference with their freedom to participate in their chosen sport and to become professional boxers if they wish.
I do not recommend your Lordships to follow the noble Lady's advice to give her Bill a Second Reading, excellently and moderately put forward though it was. I hope your Lordships will take my advice and follow what my noble friend Lord Auckland said: wait for the expert opinion which we may expect from the Report of the Committee referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and reconsider the matter afresh. I will certainly bring what has been said in your Lordships' House to the attention of my right honourable friend and help the noble Lord's College, if it is within our scope.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask this question of the Government? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has pointed out with great force—and my experience agrees with what he said—that there is a great difference between evidence on oath and opinions given before a committee which has no power to take evidence on oath. We want to get some certainty on this matter. Would the Government be willing to arm any such committee with the necessary power?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, perhaps I could deal with my noble friend's point together with the other matter with which I want to deal. I have not the smallest intention of intervening on the merits of the discussion, but when the noble Lady moved the Second Reading of this Bill she said that in the event of the House's voting for the Second Reading she proposed not to follow the ordinary course in

403
relation to a Public Bill—and may I remind your Lordships, though it is hardly necessary, that this is a Public Bill, though it is what we call a Private Member's Bill?—but to move for the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
I originally intended to say what I wanted to say after the debate on the Second Reading was concluded. But it has occurred to me, and I think it is right, that the vote of some of your Lordships on Second Reading would be influenced by the propriety or otherwise of the proposed procedure and it would be fair to the noble Lady and also to the House if at this stage I said what I could about the procedure which is proposed. This is an unusual procedure. I think that I am right in saying that, apart from Joint Committees, which raise somewhat different issues, this has not been done since the war.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, it was done in the case of the Public Registers (Scotland) Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord's knowledge of these matters, especially in relation to Scotland, is very great and I am certainly not in a position to contradict him about this piece of information, but it is certainly an unusual procedure and at this stage I think we ought to consider whether it is a suitable one.
When I heard that this was going to happen, I looked up my Erskine May and found on page 501 that
"This procedure"—
including that of the Joint Committee which, as I say, raises rather different issues, which I do not propose to discuss—
"is adopted in cases where the Bill requires a more minute investigation than it can receive on the floor of the House and where before coming to a decision upon it, it is considered advisable to hear the evidence of witnesses."
This is a very small Bill. I have looked into a large number of precedents which have been provided for me by the staff of the House. A good many Bills to which this procedure has been applied in the past have been very long Bills requiring a careful and detailed consideration, and I am really concerned about whether the House could conscientiously say that this is a matter
404
"where the Bill requires a more minute investigation than it can receive on the floor of the House."
There is nothing in this procedure which, at any rate in my view, entitles the House to depart from its general principle in this matter; and, as I understand it, the general principle of Parliament is that neither House gives a Second Reading to a Public Bill—and this is a Public Bill—unless it is prepared to endorse the general principle behind the Bill; that is, of course, in advance of an inquiry, although it might feel that an inquiry should follow the endorsement.
I was a little disturbed by some of the things which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, because he seemed to think—and if he does, I certainly could not agree with him—that if your Lordships want an inquiry about professional boxing, a Select Committee would be a very suitable tribunal to inquire into it, because, for instance, it has the right to send for witnesses or documents; and that the right thing to do was to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. I am bound to tell the House that I do not share that view. The House should pass the Second Reading of this Bill only if it is prepared to say, in advance of an inquiry, that it endorses the principle, however it will be examined by whatever Committee following. May I proceed a little further? I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in a moment.
This is what I feel that I should say to the House. Of course, if the House does approve—and some noble Lords have expressed the opinion that they do endorse the principle of the Bill—then the House should pass the Second Reading irrespective of what Committee it goes to. But if the House feels that the case has not been made out and it would like some sort of inquiry, it ought not to give the Bill a Second Reading. There are many ways of getting an inquiry. Noble Lords could put down a straightforward Motion to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into professional boxing, or they could put down a Motion demanding some other type of inquiry.
But they should not give a Second Reading to a Public Bill unless they are prepared to see it go forward from this House to-night that this House endorses

405
the principle that those who promote boxing for profit—and may I say, in passing, that it is not professional boxing which is aimed at, but professional promotion; the professional promotion of an amateur contest would be as much within the Bill as any other promotion?—should be prevented from doing so. Unless they are prepared to endorse that and see it appear in the public Press to-morrow, it would be wrong to pass this Bill simply for the purpose of obtaining an inquiry. I do not want to intervene on the merits of the discussion, because, after debate, the House has to make up its mind about it; but I thought that it would be wrong if I did not make this point. I promised to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I apologise to him for not giving way before.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount very much for so generously giving way. I think that possibly the last time this procedure was used substantially was in the case of the Osteopaths Bill. On that occasion, your Lordships passed a Bill in favour of osteopathy—and so accepted the principle of osteopathy, which, if I may say so, was a very interesting thing to do—in order to get an inquiry. As it turned out, your Lordships then did a very wise thing, because you had the best inquiry that has ever been carried out on the subject. That is the reason why I hope that perhaps there may be something to be said for a contrary view to that which the noble and learned Viscount so eloquently advanced. There may be something in favour of passing this Bill, as a broad general principle, if you like, but in the hope of, and the desire for, just this type of investigation rather than because we feel that the Bill itself should be passsd into law.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I explain what happened on the Public Registers (Scotland) Bill? The Bill was given a Second Reading. A Motion was made on the Committee stage to send it upstairs. The Government resisted that Motion and offered a Commission, under Lord Macmillan, to take evidence on oath. The Bill came back to the House with an Amendment which tore out the inside of the Bill, and re-wrote it.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I fully respect what my noble friend has said, but I should not for a moment regard that as in any way condemning the view which I put to the House. What the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, does not, I think, appreciate—at least, I think he has not fully appreciated the significance of it—is that I cannot accept that this was done on the Osteopaths Bill for the purpose of obtaining an inquiry. The Bill was proposed for Second Reading in the ordinary way. A Motion was put down for the rejection of the Bill and was refused. That meant, of course, that the House endorsed the general principle of the Bill. It was then sent to a Select Committee and an inquiry—which may or may not have been valuable: I accept the noble Lord's evidence that it was extremely valuable—took place. But it would have been quite out of order—or at least, in my view, very ill-judged—if the House had first passed the Second Reading of the Bill in order to get an inquiry. That is not the right way to get an inquiry to discover whether the principle of the Bill is right or wrong. The right way to get an inquiry to discover whether the Bill is, in principle, right or wrong is to put down a Motion for an inquiry, but not to give a Second Reading to a Bill which endorses the principle.
I turn to what my noble friend Lord Saltoun said. Of course, it is true that if you endorse the principle of a Bill, as many Parliaments and Houses of Parliament have done, whether the Bill goes upstairs or remains on the Floor, whether it is considered by a Standing Committee in the House of Commons or by a Committee of the Whole House, it may often happen (we have all known it happen) that the Bill emerges either from the Select Committee or the Standing Committee in a totally different form, radically revised; or perhaps it may not emerge at all, because a Select Committee can reject a Bill altogether and say that it should proceed no further.
But, my Lords, I still submit to the House, with respect, that this is a Public Bill, and whether people vote for it or not is a matter for their own conscience. Nobody should vote for it unless he is prepared to say, in advance of an inquiry, that the principle is established, at any rate to some extent, that the

407
professional organising of a boxing contest should be made an indictable offence, punishable by imprisonment. If noble Lords are prepared for that, then the Bill should receive its Second Reading, but I do not think any noble Lord would be wise to reconcile it with his conscience to say that he had voted for the Bill in order to get an inquiry.
6.56 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I recognise that your Lordships have been here some time. Of course, you have heard every argument on the merits of the Bill. Whether your Lordships are with me or against me on this issue, it is a curious thing that the Second Reading has been on the Order Paper for two weeks, and underneath it says:
"Boxing Bill [H.L.]—The Baroness Summer-skill, in the event of the Bill being read 2a, to move, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."
This is the first time that I have been told that this procedure is out of order.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It is not out of order.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Well, that it is unusual; and it is suggested that this procedure should not be proceeded with, although there have been precedents.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. I must make myself plain. The noble Baroness is perfectly in order in proposing what she does. If She succeeds in getting a majority of this House to endorse the general principle of the Bill as established, she will also be in order in moving her second Motion. I was disturbed by some of the comments Which fell both from her and her noble friend, who seemed to think that it did not matter whether noble Lords found that
the principle of the Bill was established or not, if only they wanted an inquiry. It is that which I am respectfully bound to say is not the correct view of the custom of Parliament.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: In view of the fact that the noble Viscount says I can proceed, I feel, in the circumstances, that I should proceed. May I say one thing about the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Brain? My noble friend, who is a member of the Royal College of Physicians, is absolutely accurate. If I wanted, I could quote all the doctors who have examined this question. In medicine there is no frontier. When we come to compile evidence of any disease we take medical evidence from every country. There are doctors all over the world who have examined this subject for a long time. Dr. Macdonald Critchley was mentioned. What we were offered this afternoon was that the Royal College of Physicians would compile the evidence. I said in my opening that I regarded this as a social problem. Every aspect of it has been discussed this afternoon. I felt that the time had arrived when it Should be examined as a social problem which concerns us all. That is why the limited offer of the Royal College of Physicians would not meet my request.
I think that noble Lords are fully alive to the situation. They know the problems. It is not one that is remote from their lives. Therefore, I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill; and afterwards, if I may, I shall do as I have indicated on the Order Paper.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Shackleton, L.

Amwell, L.

Kenswood, L.

Sinha, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, B. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Lucan, E.

Swanborough, B.

Darwen, L.

Merrivale, L.

Taylor, L. [Teller.]

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Morrison, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hayter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailwyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ampthill, L.

Bathurst, E.

Carnock, L.

Atholl, D.

Boston, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Conesford, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Devonshire, D.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Oswald, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Saltoun, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Scarsdale, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Newton, L.

Teynham, L. [Teller.]

Hastings, L.

Northesk, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill foe read a second time. It comes to us from another place, where it was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith and accepted with generous readiness on all sides. The purpose of this Bill is to authorise local authorities to provide a meals service and recreational facilities for elderly persons of pensionable age. It makes clear that in future local authorities dan incur capital expenditure in order to help voluntary bodies who wish to undertake the service either of "Meals on Wheels" or of recreational facilities fox old people, and this enablement of local authorities means that, in regard to the "Meals-on-Wheels" service, they could supply kitchens, transport, equipment, and, in a very heavy commitment, even help with staff. It also clarifies the point that assistance for recreational activities can be supplied on the same basis.
A change in the Government's attitude has now made it possible for expenditure under the Bill to rank for rate deficiency grant in England and Wales and for an Exchequer equalisation grant in Scotland, and as authorities which qualify for this grant are, in the main, those authorities which are less well off, it is in their areas that the elderly people need the help most acutely, and, therefore, where they will be looking for the assistance that this Bill will help to provide. I am convinced that local authorities will welcome this Bill because, although they have been able to give help in the way of grants to assist voluntary organisations undertaking the work of supplying
410
recreational facilities and meals services, they have had no clear instructions as to the lengths to which they could go in the provision of premises, equipment, transport and so forth.
It will be remembered that in the debate we had in your Lordships' House just over a year ago, when I declared my personal interest in a voluntary organisation, the plea put forward by most of the speakers was that the gap in local authority legislation should be closed. This Bill now makes the position quite clear and there can be no misunderstanding of any kind at all about the scope for assistance. The Bill does, in fact, close the gap, and in this I feel that Her Majesty's Government are not only giving real help to local authorities and voluntary organisations, and also to all those who wish to fulfil a task which they are anxious to undertake and achieve, but are also showing real vision in ensuring that in the long run one important aid to domiiailiary care is being established in a way in which it can make a pattern for the future.
Voluntary organisations, my Lords, can provide a real complement of voluntary workers, and by this I mean the number of people who are able to undertake the work; but it is impossible for these people to provide the cash with which to acquire the tools with which to do the job intended, and I personally do not think it would be right for them to have to do so. The Bill will make it possible for local authorities to supply to individual and accredited voluntary organisations the premises in which they can do the work, and, in the case of "Meal on Wheels", to help with equipment and transport.
It will also ensure that recreational help of the same sort is forthcoming. It will similarity make it possible to supply that equipment to undertake the type of service with which I am primarily responsible, which means that insulated equipment conforming to the hygiene requirements of to-day, and bringing the meal in the right shape to the person who needs it, will be

411
available; and, finally, it will help the burden when it becomes over-heavy when, in supplying 100 or more meals a day, three or five days a week, the local authority could, if necessary, assist the continuity fey supplying either a cook or assistant in the kitchen.
This Bill will make it possible, even more than heretofore, for local authorities and voluntary organisations to integrate their efforts, one with the other, in order to serve the community, and inasmuch as the undertaking is ultimately a direct responsibility of the local authority I am extremely happy that premises, equipment, transport and so on can be loaned as well as given. To my mind the loaning is, in fact, the better concept, for it retains in the hands of the local authority the control of as well as the responsibility for the scheme. Personally, I am delighted at the shape the Bill has taken. I feel that if voluntary organisations are working on a big scheme it is right, both for the voluntary organisation and also for the responsible body, that a form of control should be kept by the responsible body—in this case the responsible body is the local authority. And if the local authority is to loan or give temporarily equipment and other necessities to the voluntary organisation I think it is also necessary for the local authority to be thoroughly satisfied that the job is carried out in a way that is right from the point of view of the person served, and also that money is being used to the full advantage. I am not anxious to have great dollops of money allocated. I am much more anxious to have the tools with which to do the job, so that in fact the zest and the interest of the volunteer are preserved and not lost in the difficulty of acquiring the equipment with which to do the job.
To-day the social services of this country are carried through in very large measure by the local authorities, but local authorities do not wish to undertake such work by themselves without the contributory strength of their own citizens. If we are to achieve the future we look to, we must ensure that participation of this kind is of a shape acceptable to those it aims to serve and possible for the persons who wish to do the work. The local authority aims at decency of living and contentment of living for those
412
who are within its boundaries, and the volunteer who is a member of that community is anxious to play his part in that aim. But the responsibility is vested in the local authority, and therefore the standard of service is their concern.
It is getting late and I will not burden your Lordships with the ramifications of the work that are adumbrated by this Bill. I think it is sufficient to say that if the Bill is used to advantage—as I am sure it will be—it will mean that in no time the additional number of meals to be served per week will be quite beyond what in envisaged to-day, and that by supplying such a meal regularly people will be saved going to hospital, as they so often have to do, because of malnutrition. Moreover, people will be able to come out of hospital that much sooner, confident that they will have a meal regularly supplied. I can see frail but ambulant old people served on a meals centre basis, and many useful projects for the benefit of the community developing from the Bill. With a visionary eye, one can see that, in the long run, fewer institutions will be necessary, because people will be able to remain in their own homes so much longer.
We all realise that the schemes themselves will in time change as to methods, and I am quite convinced that this Bill is the beginning of something very important in bringing happiness into the lives of old people, and that it has a great value financially to the country because of the savings it will effect in national expenditure. I earnestly hope that all concerned will recognise the opportunity which this Bill provides for local authorities and voluntary organisations to work as joint partners both in the production and the carrying through of really imaginative schemes and in making the outcome of the Bill one of happiness for those it aims to serve. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Swanborough.)
7.15 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to make one or two comments on this Bill before it is given a Second Reading. The Bill itself certainly has a great deal which one can welcome in it, but I do not think it goes

413
quite far enough. It certainly is of great advantage for old people, particularly those living by themselves, to be provided with a hot mid-day meal. I should therefore like to associate myself with what the noble Baroness has said about the very good work done by the voluntary organisations in making this provision and to express my pleasure that it will be possible now for the local authorities to assist them in the work which they are doing. From my point of view, however, I find the Bill a rather disappointing one, because for a long time I have been looking forward to the establishment of some sort of comprehensive domiciliary meals service. In fact about four years ago, when I was chairman of a voluntary body which gave an invalid meals service to people in London, together with one of my colleagues on that body I wrote an article which appeared in the medical Press dealing with this particular subject. And from the points of view we expressed there I certainly have seen nothing to change my opinion.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I will mention one or two points to show what I am referring to. Broadly speaking, there are two types of person who need a meal delivered to their home: those who need it for a short time, and those who need it for a long time, or may be even permanently. Those who need it for a short time may be young people or may be old people. They may be people convalescing from illness; they may be people who have been in hospital and have been discharged. It will apply to people of all ages. At the same time, if you are going to take the meal for a long time, or permanently, there will again be two types of person: those who require special diets to deal with some special form of disease from which they suffer, and those who require what one might call a normal diet—those elderly folk who are frail but not necessarily sick.
The noble Baroness mentioned the number of times the meal should be available, and I think that any service should be available on five days a week—not that everybody will want it, but a certain number will, and it should be available in that way. That is why I am rather disappointed in the Bill, because
414
it refers to elderly people or old people, and gives no indication what that means. I take it that it means when people reach pensionable age, 60 for women and 65 for men. It does not list all the younger people to whom I have referred who do require a meal delivered to them in their homes.
When the Bill was debated in another place it was stated that the Bill did not apply to disabled persons because they are covered by Section 29 of the National Assistance Act. Possibly that is so, but that means another complication, another series of meals to be given under different powers, which I should have thought again makes for overlapping and complication in administration.
Surely, it is possible for a local authority to provide a meal service of the kind of which I have spoken under Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, which deals with care, after-care and prevention of disease. Surely the supply of a midday meal is part of care and after-care and may well be taken as part of the prevention too. I rather think that one or two local authorities have done something under this section, but not a great many; and I think that again makes a third complication, a third power available to local authorities under this Bill.
At the same time, in regard to care and after-care and those under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act we have never found out the definition of the word "invalid". It is a matter which I have raised on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House and we have never got far. Though I have mentioned it now I do not expect to get far with it to-day. I am afraid that local authorities working and operating under several powers once again will mean that people will fall between Section 28 of the National Health Service Act, Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, and quite possibly Section 1 of this new Bill when it becomes an Act.
I should like to end on rather a more cheerful note. I trust that many local authorities will take advantage of the power they are given to contribute to forms of recreation for old people. I trust that they will take a broad view of what they may do. One example I can give which may be of great value to old

415
people is the provision of a day centre—Which could be contributed to, or provided, by the local authority—where old people could be taken, particularly those who were homebound. They could go to a club for the day, and thus give their families a respite. This would encourage them and be good for their morale. This would apply particularly to those who live by themselves who tend to be just as homebound as those who live with their families. I should call the Bill we are now discussing a definite step in the right direction. But there is a great deal more to do before we can say that we have a comprehensive meal service. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Crook had hoped to speak on this Bill, but unfortunately he has had to leave the House for another engagement. He asks me to say on his behalf and that of my noble friends on these Benches that we wholeheartedly support this Bill.
7.24 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise as a member of a local authority to say how much I welcome this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, has pointed out the tremendous value of co-operation between voluntary organisations and statutory authorities in work of this kind. I suppose we have all had experience of this, both from being associated with voluntary organisations and also from being on local authorities. I know of at least two or three places where this work is going on and where I am sure it could be more successfully and more effectively carried out if there were a little more money available from the local authorities, a little more assistance with equipment, and so on. It would then be an even more effective service than it is already.
I, too should like to say, as Lord Amulree has said, how valuable, in addition to the "Meals on Wheels" food aspect, is the aspect of recreation and the possibility of providing for old people a certain amount of community life which they otherwise might not have, either because of loneliness, because of not being able to get about, or because of having no place to which to go. I
416
think one of the sadder facts which has recently emerged—I saw it in the paper not long ago—is the great number of old people who commit suicide. This is a really tragic fact. I am sure that one reason for it is loneliness, having nobody to talk to and nobody to take an interest in them.
With the assistance of the voluntary organisations, and with the co-operation of the local authorities, not only will "Meals on Wheels" and other forms of service of that kind be encouraged and I hope enlarged, but also this aspect of clubs for old people, or a day centre such as Lord Amulree has suggested, will come within the ambit of this Bill. I think this is most important. It is very valuable indeed, and we are much indebted to Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith in another place and to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this Bill. I hope that it will be supported strongly, not only in your Lordships' House but in the country; that the whole of the local authority areas will realise the opportunity that is given to them, and that it will really be a most effective piece of legislation.
7.27 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Baroness who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has dealt so fully with the details of it that it only remains for me to welcome it warmly on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The purpose of the Bill is to enable local authorities and voluntary organisations, working in partnership, to give more help and comfort to the elderly, especially in their own homes. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health sets great store on this sort of partnership between the statutory and voluntary services. The "Meals on Wheels" service is particularly well suited to the voluntary organisations. As my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood has emphasised, one of the greatest burdens of old age is loneliness. The voluntary worker who delivers the meals can make friends with the elderly, listen to their problems and generally make a break in the monotony of living alone, to such an extent that his or her visit is often of as great benefit as the meal itself. My right honourable friend is confident that, with the additional powers given to them in this Bill, local authorities will do what they

417
can to help voluntary organisations make their maximum contribution in this field. Where there is need of services that cannot be met by voluntary organisations, local authorities will now have the power to provide them direct.
The aim of statutory and voluntary services is to provide conditions in which elderly people can live for as long as possible in their own homes. However welcoming institutions for the care of the elderly may be, however great the comfort, companionship and security they may provide, there can be no substitute for a person's own home. There must sometimes come a point when old people can no longer safely look after themselves at home, but this Bill will ensure that that point is delayed as long as possible. I am personally pleased that it falls to my lot to welcome this Bill on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to congratulate the noble Baroness and her honourable friend in another place for bringing it before the House, and to express the hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
7.29 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, there are two things that I should like to say before I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. The first is that I perhaps did not say sufficient about how much help has been given in the past by local authorities. They have been more than generous in the subsidy per capita that they have given for meals. But the gap in the legislation was so broad that, quite often, they were frightened to make capital grants for which they had no authority. This is what this Bill seeks to remedy.
Inasmuch as it is now under the "Expenses" heading for rate deficiency grants in England and Wales, and Exchequer equalisation grants in Scotland, I think that my noble friend Lord Amulree need not be too apprehensive that people coming out of hospital will be in difficulty about getting meals. The fact that the meals required fall into two categories has always been recognised and dealt with. The short term and the long or permanent term fall into two easy categories. The difficult category is that of the young person who needs a meal for only a short time. But everybody
418
occupied in this job is anxious to see that all who should have a meal get it and get it regularly. Many of us are exploring and experimenting in the field of luncheon clubs and day centres on a neighbourhood basis, so that small clubs can not only provide day-to-day luncheons within the club but also send out a meal to the person who is home-bound or bedridden. Voluntary organisations throughout the country will welcome this Bill tremendously, because they will feel that they have the opportunity to serve and get the full benefit of their energies. I am quite convinced that local authorities will be happy to have a clarification of the difficulty that has presented itself to them. I do hope that your Lordships will support the Bill, and now give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RECORDED DELIVERY SERVICE BILL
7.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, yesterday in your Lordships' House there was under discussion the province of the Postmaster General's empire, which I think I might safely say was struck by a severe thunderstorm. The province to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to-day is one of calm prosperity. This is a Bill to deal with it, a Bill which was piloted through another place by the honourable Member for Stroud. It deals with a new service recently introduced by the Post Office called the recorded delivery service. This is a service which is cheaper than the old registered post, and it is felt to be more suitable for documents conveyed through the post. It is not suitable for sending your Lordships' family jewels, but most apt for the unpleasant and disagreeable forms, as well as the pleasant ones, which are now an essential part of both local and central Government.
If your Lordships wished to use this service, you would go into a post office with the letter to be posted, fill in an

419
orange form and pay a fee of 6d., as opposed to the 1s. 6d. to be paid for a registered letter. As a result of that, when the postman delivers the letter at the requisite address he notes down the fact, and it is kept in a file in case the information is wanted. If the sender wants to know that his letter has in fact been delivered, he can, either later or at the time when he posts it, fill in a further form, at the cost of another 6d., and he will be given by the Post Office the information that his letter has in fact been delivered. That is the same form as you fill up if you wish to know that a registered letter has been delivered.
This entails a saving for the sender and a saving for the Post Office. The registered post is at the moment run at a loss, and the more people that use the new recorded delivery service the better it will suit the Post Office and the less they will lose on their registered postal service. The chief reason for this is that letters under the recorded delivery scheme travel as ordinary mail; they are not kept in separate little packets or in special enclosures, or transferred from man to man with a signature required as they pass from one officer to another.
This is a useful service and, I believe, a popular one. Perhaps my noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, will be able to say how much it is used. But it is not quite as useful as it should be, because at the moment there are many Government Departments and local authorities who would like to take the opportunities it affords to perform just as efficient a service as does the registered post, but by Statute they are not allowed to do so. There are various Acts which deal with the service of notices on people by means of the post, and they all at the moment allow it to be done by post only if the registered post is used. Some of the Statutes require service only, and a certificate of posting is enough. Others allow it to be done by registered post, but require that the person to whom the notice was sent may show that the letter was not received by him, in which case the advice of delivery would be very useful to the sender. There are others where the person to whom the document has been sent can attempt to prove that
420
it has not been delivered. There again the advice of delivery is useful.
My Lords, this Bill has been set out in fact as a blanket measure to cover all the Acts of Parliament, both public and local, that can be found, although it does not deal with Statutory Instruments, which it has been felt should be more suitably dealt with by further Statutory Instruments to amend them. I think that this is in hand, and, again, perhaps my noble friend can say how this is getting on. Of course, the result of this Bill will not be that one has to use the new service. It will merely make it possible to do so if anybody wants to, thereby saving cost.
I think I ought briefly to explain the clauses of the Bill itself. The first clause provides for recorded delivery as a voluntary alternative to registered post. It also clears up one or two points supplementary to that. For instance, under the Law of Property Act there is a provision that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered. There again, the time will be equally valuable in the case of the recorded delivery service. The second subsection of Clause 1 brings in the Schedule, to which I shall come in a moment.
The third subsection gives the Postmaster General the power to make amendments to Local or Private Acts if it is found that they are in some unusual form, and the general "blanket" provisions do not cover them. This has been done because there has not been time to examine all the local Acts which refer to "registered post". Where this has to be done by means of an Order, subsection (4) of Clause 1 provides that the promoter of the local legislation shall be consulted, unless it is a very old Act and it is impossible to find out who in fact was the promoter. Subsection (5), gives a power to make these orders subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Subsection (6) prevents the Bill from being construed as allowing anyone to use the recorded delivery service to post things for which the Post Office do not allow the service to be used. For instance, one could not send bank notes or coins, or any article worth more than £2, or bearer securities.

421
The rest of the Bill is merely clearing up the details that are involved. It looks very complicated, and I think perhaps I could run very briefly through it. Clause 2 deals with the enactments to which the Bill applies. There are, of course, the Public General Acts; there are also the Measures of the Church Assembly, which that Assembly has agreed should be covered by this Bill. Then there are the special provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Scheme, the revision and amendment of which is a very difficult and lengthy process, and it was felt better to do this in the Bill itself. Clause 2 (2) prevents the Post Office from being liable to suit for loss or damage in regard to the recorded delivery service, because anybody who wishes to send a truly valuable thing through the post ought still to use the registered post, where the Post Office are liable. Then there are various further points about the Northern Irish state of affairs. The Northern Irish Ministry of Finance have said, in regard to subsection (2) (c), that they will themselves promote legislation which will amend the provisions excepted from the Bill by this paragraph. Subsection (3) of Clause 2 provides for various alterations in the wording of enactments, and for the application of the Bill to Acts which confirm a Provisional Order or scheme.
Clause 3 declares that the Bill will apply, unlike the policy provision, to Acts of United Kingdom Parliament which extend to Northern Ireland, but subsection (2) saves the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to amend a Bill in so far as it applies to them. Then there is what seems to me to be a most recondite measure, but, of course, one that is very necessary, which applies to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. There are, I am assured, words in this subsection which do bring in the difficult problem of the Bishop of Sodor and Man and any Suffragan that he may have. It seems to me that this is the sort of point which explains why your Lordships never seem to be able to put down a satisfactory Amendment that passes the rigours of the Government draftsmen.
The Schedule is ancillary and straightforward. It explains the way the Act will work and covers all the small points
422
that can be thought of. The last three paragraphs of this Schedule deal with specific Acts, which would not otherwise be covered because of the wording in them. In case your Lordships are curious, the Citation Amendment (Scotland) Act is, so far as I understand it, something to do with subpœnas, except that in Scotland they are called citations. I think the other two paragraphs speak for themselves.
My Lords, that is an explanation of this Bill. I would re-emphasise that it is only a voluntary measure. If people wish to use this good, new service they will now be able to do so, and they will be able to prove to the satisfaction of the courts that they have properly served notices by means of its use, whereas before that was not possible. It has been agreed with the Government Departments, with the Association of Municipal Corporations and with the County Councils' Association. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Crook (who I believe did mention at an earlier stage last year that this was a desirable point), is also satisfied with the contents of the Bill; and it was in fact promised in March of last year. Meanwhile, the necessary examination and consultations have gone on and it is a comparatively simple Bill that results. Nevertheless, I think that it will be an extremely handy one. It will save a lot of public money, and I hope that your Lord-Ships will approve of it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
7.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, as the noble Viscount said, my noble friend Lord Crook had hoped to say a few words on this Bill entirely commending it, and saying that we on this side are entirely in agreement. In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not think your Lordships would expect anything further to be said from this side.
7.45 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross on the very clear distillation of the provisions and purpose of this Bill which we have just imbibed. The Government welcome the Bill and are most grateful to the noble Viscount for presenting it

423
to your Lordships. You will be interested to know that considerable use is already being made of the recorded delivery service, and that postings of recorded delivery packets are now running at the rate of about 9 million a year. This Bill will contribute to the further growth of the service by enabling people to use it, instead of the more expensive registered post which in many cases is at present obligatory for the service of documents by post.
The noble Lord, Lord Crook, who was, I know, to have spoken to-day, but gave me his explanation for enforced absence, alluded to this matter in the debate on the Second Reading of the Post Office Bill in this House on March 9 last year. He said then that he understood the Postmaster-General had discovered some 50 Statutes which specified the use of registered post for sending documents. Your Lordships' will be interested to know, I think, that this number finally reached 100. The noble Lord, whose interest in this Bill we on this side of your Lordships' House greatly welcome, will also see—if he reads the Record of this debate—that, in answering a Question by him on July 24 last year, I said there was general agreement among Government Departments that recorded delivery could be made an alternative to registration "save in a few exceptional cases". That phrase was inserted out of political caution. In this case I was being overcautious, however, and he will be glad to know that there are now no exceptions to the general agreement. There has thus been full consultation with the Government Departments concerned with enactments amended by the Bill, and the Bill has their agreement.
The Bill also has the support of the Associations which represent local authorities—the County Counails' Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. This is important, because the Bill applies to local Acts. It is also important, because local authorities are much concerned With the notices and documents due to be sent under the Public General Acts which the Bill will amend. Indeed, local authorities and their representatives were among the first to press last year for
424
amending legislation which would enable them to use the new service.
The Bill deals in the main with Statutes, and your Lordships may wonder what is being done to amend provisions about use of registered post contained in subordinate legislation. Such legislation can, of course, be amended by further subordinate legislation, and the Departments responsible have already made a good deal of progress with the necessary changes. As one instance, your Lordships will have noticed that the Standing Orders for Private Business in your Lordships' House were amended on March 29 last year.
The passage of the Bill will, of course, as my noble friend has said, enable much greater use to be made of the recorded delivery service; and this, in turn, will happily add to the savings mentioned by my noble friend, which the public and the Post Office have already derived from the new service. With two such desirable results, it is not perhaps surprising that the Bill has had such a generous measure of support from all quarters, and I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COAL CONSUMERS' COUNCILS (NORTHERN IRISH INTERESTS) BILL
7.48 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

LONDON BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eight o'clock.