Sitting of 29 January 1963

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

  TANGANYIKA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Tanganyika, and assuring me that you will make good the expense attending the same.
  It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BRADFORD CORPORATION (CONDITIONING HOUSE) BILL (By Order)
    WATFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
PETITION

  Housing (Rating and Valuation)
  Sir S. Storey: I rise to present a humble Petition on behalf of the Sale Owner Occupiers' Association. The Association, being apprehensive of the effects of revaluation of house property, are of the opinion that existing legislation relating to rating and valuation is harsh in its operation and unfair to ratepayers, and, having the support of many local authorities, ratepayer and residents associations and owner occupiers associations, as well as 25,000 individuals who have signed a Petition in similar terms to
  728
  the Minister of Housing and Local Government, therefore humbly pray:

  (a) That Her Majesty's Government may be pleased to order an immediate inquiry into existing rating and valuation law and practice, granting such persons as they may be pleased to appoint sufficient terms of reference to enable them to recommend such changes in the method and sources of collection of local government revenues as may appear to such Commission to be just and equitable.

  (b) That pending consideration of such report and/or recommendations Her Majesty's Government may be pleased to recommend that the operation of the afore-mentioned re-valuation of house properties may be postponed sine die.

  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie on the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

    Medical Aid to Developing Countries (Report)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what progress has been made in implementing the recommendation of the Porritt Working Party on Medical Aid to the Developing Countries, to operate co-ordinating machinery for placing student nurses from overseas in suitable posts in Britain.
    The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The arrangements for direct contact between matrons of training hospitals in Britain and prospective nursing trainees from Commonwealth countries are continuing satisfactorily. There are at present over 9,000 nursing students from these countries training in British hospitals. My Department, in consultation with the High Commissions and Students Officers of Commonwealth Governments in London, is acting as a clearing house in case of need and so providing such co-ordinating machinery as seems necessary.
    Mr. Boyden: What is the right hon. Gentleman's Department doing about the individual students, unsponsored students, which was the point of the Porritt Committee? Has his Department staff to handle them, and are the regional hospital boards co-operating with his Department in this matter?
    Mr. Vosper: I am discussing all these proposals with Sir Arthur Porritt next week and I will have regard to that point. Generally speaking, unsponsored students are not covered by my Department but are covered by the satisfactory arrangements with the individual hospitals. If Sir Arthur Porritt and his colleagues think there is room for improvement, I will, of course, consider it.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what schemes are being developed to train, in Britain, groups of student nurses from the developing countries, following the recommendation of the Porritt Working Party.
    Mr. Vosper: A successful example is the scheme for the training of 200 Malayan nurses in Britain. The students were selected by the Malayan Government and the arrangements for training were made by my Department and the Ministry of Health in consultation with regional hospital boards. 153 students have so far been placed for training in 55 hospitals. I shall be happy to try to make similar arrangements for other developing countries.
    Mr. Boyden: Is the right hon. Gentleman in contact with the Government of Nigeria, who have been very progressive in the educational fields in this way? Are there any developments there, and also, for example, in Sierra Leone?
    Mr. Vosper: There are some Nigerian nurses in this country at a more advanced level under Government arrangements. Those Nigerian nurses at student level are under the unsponsored arrangements. It is open to Nigeria to apply as Malaya did for a scheme of this nature.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the Government take the initiative through our High Commissioners in the Commonwealth countries and encourage them to draw attention to these facilities?
    Mr. Vosper: I will. I intend to draw the attention of all overseas governments to the Porritt recommendations, but I cannot advise them to apply for this form of technical assistance as opposed to some form of other priority.

    Overseas Information Services
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation what proposals he has for the further development of the Overseas Information Services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Vosper: Together with my noble and right hon. Friends, during last year I reviewed how far our overseas information work meets the changing needs of the day. We have decided that our efforts should now be extended in three main ways. First, we propose an increase in the British Council's English language teaching and training work, including greater use of modern methods. The Council's representation in new and developing Commonwealth and foreign countries will also be strengthened, together with some expansion in Eastern Europe.
    Second, we shall improve and extend the British Information Services in some Commonwealth countries in Asia and Africa. Third, we shall increase our supplies of television material to the ever-growing number of stations overseas. Estimates will be presented for the House's approval in due course. Broadly, however, these and other changes will involve extra expenditure of about £1 million a year.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend say whether these are new services and not merely extensions of old ones? Will he ensure that these information services get to the national newspapers in this country, too many of which take a far too defeatist view of our future?
    Mr. Vosper: While I might share my hon. Friend's view as expressed in the latter part of his supplementary question, that is beyond my responsibility. Regarding the first part of it, these are new services. Extra funds will be available to meet what is called "risen costs" of the existing services.
    Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the various book schemes came into that survey? Is he aware that many hon. Members consider that the Government should spend more money on that service?
    Mr. Vosper: Yes, and as a result of this review I am about to open negotiations with the publisher with particular regard to African needs.

    Journalism (Training Courses)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation if he will consider sending teams of British journalists overseas to conduct short training courses for newspapermen in developing countries.
    Mr. Vosper: I should be prepared to consider a request for this form of assistance if it were made by an overseas Government or Governments, and if it appeared the most suitable way of meeting the need.
    Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for having an open mind on this suggestion, may I ask him if he is aware that this kind of scheme seems to have been operated successfully under American auspices? Is he aware that helping the newspapers to establish good standards in the emergent countries is a very important contribution to general adult education?
    Mr. Vosper: Yes. I am aware of the American initiative. I am also aware of the initiative of the Thompson Foundation in this country. Although the suggestion of the hon. Member is a good one, I cannot dictate to overseas countries that they should apply for this particular form of technical asistance. However, I am quite willing to meet it if they should apply.

    Nigeria (Teachers)
    Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary for Technical Co-operation whether the scheme for sending United Kingdom teachers to Nigeria to conduct vacation courses is to be repeated this year; and whether it is proposed to extend this scheme to any other countries.
    Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir. At the requests of the Governments of Nigeria, Tanganyika, Uganda and Nyasaland, vacation courses for teachers will be held in those countries during August. 880 teachers from these four countries will be attending the courses in which sixty-six United Kingdom teachers will take part.
    Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a wide
    732
    welcome for his announcement that this scheme, which was so successful in Nigeria, is to be extended to other countries? Can he say whether there were applications from any other countries and whether they were turned down?
    Mr. Vosper: There is a suggestion—I cannot put it higher than that—for a similar scheme to be held in Northern Rhodesia, and I would be sympathetic to that. That is the only other application I know of; in fact, all the applications have been met to date.
    Mr. Boyden: Is the Minister in touch with the Sierra Leone Government on this matter? Is he aware that the local school authorities and the Fourah Bay College could make excellent facilities available for such courses?
    Mr. Vosper: This is a question of an overseas Government making application. I would agree with what the hon. Member says, but I suggest that we wait and have a further look at that point.

  HOUSING

    Rents
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will make a statement on the rental increases and the compulsory vacating of tenancies which have resulted from the decontrol introduced by the Rent Acts; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the resulting hardships.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Rental increases since the Rent Act have varied widely, but I have no reason to think that they have been generally unreasonable.
    I have no figures of the number of people who have left because they found the rent too high for them. This can certainly be a hardship; but the remedy is not to freeze the market—it is to build more houses.
    Sir B. Janner: Has the Minister not read any of the reports of people who have been turned out of their homes—and there have been tens of thousands of them throughout the country—either as the result of court orders or as a consequence of increases in rents? Is

    733
    the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this hits a large number of people? What is he going to do when the new rating valuation attacks them further in those cases where rates will be increased?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not know from where the hon. Member gets his figures, but I have absolutely no evidence of hardship on anything like that scale. I would remind the House that local authorities have power to apply to me for compulsory purchase where they fear that such a thing might happen as a result of exorbitant rents, and the procedure seems to be working satisfactorily.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Regarding compulsory purchase, does not the Minister remember that he and his predecessors have refused to confirm compulsory purchase orders even when the rent asked was five times the gross value? In view of that, how can he consider that this is a real remedy for the situation?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have always said that in judging these cases it is not possible to look at the rent alone and that local authorities must remember that there has to be a threat of homelessness as well as exorbitant rent.
    Mr. G. Thomas: When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), the Minister referred to the evidence he has and the scale of increases of which he is aware. Would he give us an idea of that scale? Is he aware that his reply will surprise people in Cardiff, which he recently visited, where increases in rents have been excessive beyond all measure?
    Sir K. Joseph: I recognise, of course, that there are some bad cases, but, in general, my evidence is that rents have not risen as fast as incomes. All local authority dwellings and half the privately owned rented dwellings are still rented at an average of about twice the gross value.

    Municipal Housing Programmes
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what increase in the municipal housing programme he is planning for 1963.
    Sir K. Joseph: I expect to see an increase of about 6 per cent. in the number of houses approved for local authorities and new towns during 1963.
    Mr. Swingler: Is that not a very modest aim indeed in view of the high level of unemployment at the present time and the opportunity which is presented to the Minister for a really massive increase in the housing effort because of the unfortunately wide and spreading unemployment? Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and also consider taking the first step; that is, an immediate reduction of interest rates?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept the last part of that supplementary question, but I would certainly welcome any greater speed in house building which local authorities with needs can manage to achieve. This is only an estimate of what they will be able to achieve.

    Improvements
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will now make a statement on the replies he has received from local authorities to his circular of 2nd August asking them to let him know by 31st December, 1962, their plans for dealing, among other things, with houses lacking a bath, hot water and inside lavatory.
    Sir K. Joseph: One thousand and ninety-one—or about 75 per cent.—of the housing authorities in England and Wales have now replied. Four hundred and thirty-two of them have indicated that they have taken or propose to take further action to get more houses improved, particularly by schemes of area improvement. Of the remaining authorities, some say there is little scope for improvement work in their areas, others want more time to consider the position, and others, for a variety of reasons, have at the moment felt unable to make any proposals. I intend to follow up with those authorities where there appears to be opportunity for a further drive on improvement work.
    Mr. Allaun: Whilst the splendid plans of Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Birmingham, Salford and certain other places are very welcome, is it not true that in many places they are not even scratching the surface? Would the Minister consider issuing a second circular pressing for a crash programme, thus meeting the dearest wishes of so many housewives and also helping the foundrymen

    735
    who make the baths, skilled building workers and unemployed labourers in certain cases to find work?
    Sir K. Joseph: While welcoming the desire of so many of these authorities to press ahead, the Government are not satisfied with progress, and I shall be making an announcement as soon as my study of the problem is complete.

    Rent Act, 1957
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that the movement of redundant workers is being halted by the Rent Act, which decontrols houses on a change of tenant, making it difficult for those going to new jobs elsewere to find homes at rents they can afford; and if he will take steps to amend this section of the Act.
    Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on 22nd January.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that if he thinks that this is not happening he is quite out of touch with ordinary working people who cannot afford to go to a house at three times the rent they were paying before? Is he also aware that the Labour Party has decided to reintroduce control on houses which may change hands and also to restore control to houses which have become decontrolled under the Rent Act?
    Sir K. Joseph: This is a very difficult problem, but surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that if we put back a control on houses it will in general lead to an increase of owners selling those houses when they become vacant and thus reducing the accommodation becoming available to let.
    Mr. Allaun: What is the point of renting them if they are going to rent them at rents which are inflated to such an extent? This is of no advantage.
    Sir K. Joseph: The problem would be even worse if there were a smaller pool of accommodation to let even at present rents.

    Development Districts
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what extra
    736
    assistance he will now give to housing authorities in development districts with a view to attracting new industries.
    Sir K. Joseph: A special subsidy for new houses to meet the urgent needs of industry is already available under the Housing Act, 1961. I cannot increase this subsidy without legislation, but I have undertaken on the Government's behalf to keep subsidies under review.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that this will give some cause for pleasure in the areas mentioned, but in view of the recent unemployment figures, will he take steps to ensure that the points which he has made to the Government are indeed complied with at the earliest possible moment?
    Sir K. Joseph

    Co-operative Housing Schemes
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what further action he is taking to assist in the formation of co-operative housing schemes by the establishment of a Government-financed promoting body.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am considering what part co-operative schemes might play in the national housing effort, but I am not yet ready to make a statement.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister appreciate that, despite repeated assurances that co-operative housing schemes will be encouraged, so far not one penny of the £25 million provided by the 1961 Act has gone to a tenants' co-operative housing association? When will the leaflet promised by the last Minister of Housing a year ago be circulated? When will some effective help in buying land and planning and financing these schemes be forthcoming, because the discussions have been going on for a long time?
    Sir K. Joseph: These are all large and very important questions, and I will follow up the particular point about the leaflet which the hon. Lady has raised, but I do not think that she can judge the £25 million scheme simply on its success in helping co-operative ventures. There are a number of projects in the pipeline to use most of the £25 million.
    Mrs. Slater: We quite agree that the success of this scheme cannot be judged on one aspect of it, but does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that at least he could be getting on with this and telling co-operative associations just how much they are likely to receive from this £25 million?

    Tenants (Right to Purchase)
    Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has given to the letter of the town clerk of West Ham, dated 16th January, 1963, inviting him to consider introducing legislation which would have the effect of ensuring that where residential premises are offered for sale the tenants should have the right of first refusal.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am sending the hon. and learned Member a copy of my reply.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Has the Minister given an affirmative answer to the suggestion that, in cases where property companies buy blocks of houses at auction sales, the tenants of the houses should be given first refusal of buying them? Is he aware that in my constituency and in other places property companies are buying up blocks of small houses wholesale, in which the tenants have lived for many years—for decades in fact—without the tenants being given any chance of redeeming the situation? Is not this practice both harsh and unjust?
    Sir K. Joseph: In many cases landlords give first refusals to tenants, but it would raise all sorts of difficulties to make that a statutory obligation and would introduce by a side-wind an obligation to control prices as well. If the hon. Member would be good enough, I should be grateful to receive details of any cases where eviction occurs as a result of the process he describes.
    Mr. A. Lewis: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a good suggestion which the town clerk has sent forward to protect tenants? As the Minister has said that he is interested in looking after the interests of tenants, may I ask whether he could not have discussions through his Department with the town clerk of West Ham to see
    738
    whether a suitable scheme could be put forward? Failing that, could the right hon. Gentleman have discussions with hon. Members on this side of the House, since we can give him a Private Bill which will meet the point?
    Sir K. Joseph: Obviously, I shall study any views sent to me, but this is part of the wider discussions we have had already on leasehold enfranchisement.

    Western Ground Rents, Limited
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will publish his recent official correspondence with Western Ground Rents, Limited concerning the prices they charge for the sale of freeholds or the renewal of leases.
    Sir K. Joseph: Copies of a letter which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan) sent to Western Ground Rents, Limited, on 6th July, 1961, and of the company's reply were sent to me recently by a member of the company, who thought that the information furnished in reply would be of interest to me. It is not for me to publish these letters.
    Mr. Thomas: Am I to understand from that reply that the Minister has not initiated any correspondence with Western Ground Rents? Am I further to understand that the categorical statement which he made from the Box shortly before Christmas that Western Ground Rents was charging reasonable rents was made without any consultation with the firm concerned? On what evidence did the right hon. Gentleman base his statement?
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, first, and then my predecessor, and then I invited evidence of hardship. A number of letters were sent to my Department and these were studied. It was on the basis of these and the valuers' advice on these that I made the statement to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have been assured by some of the larger freeholders in South Wales that the terms they ask are reasonable? If they are reasonable, would it not be an advantage to the freeholders as well as the leaseholders, in view of the high incidence

    739
    of these tenancies, if there were some sort of tribunal which would show that they are reasonable?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to evade something which my hon. Friend raises, but that is not the question that I am answering at the moment.
    Mr. Thomas: But will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether he made that detailed statement to the House without having had any official communication with the largest ground landlord in South Wales, and whether we are now to assume that since he rejects the letters of people complaining of hardship he has not taken these letters up with Western Ground Rents?
    Sir K. Joseph: There are three points here. I did not initiate correspondence, but I was going to say in answer to the next Question but one that I had seen the chairman and general manager of Western Ground Rents and had asked them much the same questions, though not exactly the same, as the hon. Member's hon. Friend whose original letter of 6th July, which is the letter under reference, was sent to Western Ground Rents. After my approach the chairman sent me a copy of the letter which Western Ground Rents originally sent to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). That is how that letter came into my possession. I did not ignore the letters sent to me about alleged leasehold hardship. I had them carefully studied and I studied them myself. It was on the evidence of those letters that I made my statement about the rents and not on the evidence of anything either discussed by me or exchanged between me and Western Ground Rents in correspondence.
    Mr. Thomas: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again at the earliest possible moment.

    Evictions, Cardiff
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that a county court judge has expressed his inability to prevent the evictions of families in the Cardiff area until legislation is changed; and what
    740
    action he will take to lessen the number of evictions.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am unable to identify the statement referred to by the hon. Member. If he will let me have more details, I will write to him.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this statement was not published in the Press and that the people who are faced with eviction, because the landlord wishes to sell the property and for that reason alone, were told by the judge in the court that he could do nothing to protect them because of the Rent Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what protection can be given and what help can be given to judges in this matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: There are several possible protections in these circumstances, and I should be grateful if the hon. Member would send me details so that I can study them.

    Water Supplies
    Mr. Mappasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he will authorise local authorities to make financial grants towards the cost of installing separate service water pipes in place of pipes common to several dwellings where the water provision is inadequate.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): My right hon. Friend is prepared to consider a provision to this effect when an opportunity for legislation arises, but he cannot say when this will be.
    Mr. Mapp: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is now three years old and that the Association of Municipal Corporations is now in full agreement with it? Is he also aware that in our older towns, as for example in Oldham, there are 30,000 houses which are without individual water storage? Is he aware that there are common water pipes to hundreds of homes? Is it not time that priorities were changed so that this discretionary grant can become available to local authorities?
    Mr. Corfield: I take note of what the hon. Member says, and I assure him that we are in close touch with the Association of Municipal Corporations on the matter.

    741
    But the other local authority associations do not regard this as urgent, and the A.M.C. itself regards it as only having local significance.

    Rating Valuation
    Sir Richard Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he has now considered taking steps to help those on whom the expected rise in rate valuation will fall most severely, allowing for the probable difference in poundage.
    Sir K. Joseph: There are no steps which I could take to help particular ratepayers. The Government's reasons for deciding against any derating of houses generally in individual counties and county boroughs were explained in the White Paper issued last year (Cmnd. 1663).
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is not very satisfactory? There will be cases of acute hardship and something should be prepared for such cases. Will he think again about this?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not like to raise false hopes. At the moment the bulk of residential occupiers will be bearing a lower share of the rates as a result of revaluation, but we must wait to see the effects on individual areas of the analysis that is now going on of the new valuation lists. That should be out very soon.
    Mr. MacColl: Is the Minister saying that he will publish a revised analysis of the figures given in Cmnd. 1663? Will he confirm that the decision not to use these powers was that they were based on a fairly quick sample assessment of what was happening? Now that the actual valuations have been published, is it not time for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision he took?
    Sir K. Joseph: Certainly, we must look again when the results are published in a few weeks, but there is no reason yet to suppose that the average increase in householder's share will reach a level in any county or county borough to justify a change in that decision.
    Mr. Temple: Will my right hon. Friend set up a committee to study the
    742
    possibility of the payment of rates on a weekly basis, which would help just this category of ratepayer?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is, of course, power for this to be done now; but I will look into the point, although it does not arise immediately out of this Question.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Is it not a matter not only of the rise in the householder's share as a whole, which may be one thing, but of the exceptional rise which some householders in particular are having to meet?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, and this is just what I cannot do anything about.

    Expenditure
    Mr. A. Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) if he is aware that there was a 24 per cent, reduction in the purchasing value of the £ sterling, and a 41 per cent. increase in the index of retail prices between 1951 and 1961 and that expenditure on local authority houses has fallen by 11 per cent. what was the reason for this; and what action he proposes to take to restore this position;
    (2) if he is aware that, between 1951 and 1961, expenditure on private house building rose by 810 per cent., whilst at the same time expenditure on local authority house building fell by 11 per cent.; and what action he proposes to take to rectify this imbalance.
    Sir K. Joseph: In 1961 as compared with 1951 many more houses from a much larger total programme were built privately. This increase in private building has restored the balance lost in 1951 when nearly 90 per cent. of total housing was for local authorities. While local authority housing will increase, it is still the Government's policy to look to private builders as the main providers of new houses.
    Mr. Lewis: Do not the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer reveal a shocking state of affairs? Taking into account the depreciation in the value of the £ and the rise in the cost of building, is it not terrible that we have an 810 per cent. increase in private building while there has been a falling of more

    743
    than 11 per cent. in local authority building? Since it is just those with low incomes who really need the housing and it is those people, in the main, who are council tenants, ought not the Minister to do something to increase council house building? The 6 per cent. rise he has announced will not recover anything which has been lost over the past years.
    Sir K. Joseph: Most of the people of this country are better housed now than ever before, and local authority housing is now increasing again.

    Metropolitan Green Belt
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what representations have been made to him to relax restrictions on house building in the London green belt; and what has been his reply.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have received no general representations of this kind; but I have received many appeals against refusals of permission to allow building in the Metropolitan green belt and its proposed extensions.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great concern among people who care about the health, amenities and planning of the Metropolitan area at the suggestions which have been made in many quarters, including the Press, that the green belt should be nibbled away for house building? Will he give an assurance that he will not yield to any such temptation and that he will maintain the green belt as it is?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have made plain that it is the Government's policy not to abandon the green belt.
    Mr. Awbery: But that is what the Minister is doing.
    Mr. M. Stewart: This is an important matter and I wish to press the Minister about it. He will know that it is being suggested that his Ministry is considering not, of course, the general abandonment of the green belt but a willingness to make exceptions here and there. Since his predecessor, the present Home Secretary, condemned even that policy, will he make clear that he is not considering anything of the sort?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have said again and again that the Government do not intend to solve the housing problem by slashing the green belt. But there is a constant stream of proposals to develop individual places—often by one house, often more—in different parts of the green belt. These are considered on their merits, and the vast bulk of them are refused.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    War Department Land, Swynnerton
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when he expects a decision to be reached on the use of the 720 acres of land remaining unused in the War Department's hands at Swynnerton; and what authorities are at present considering the future of this site.
    Sir K. Joseph: The future use of this site is being considered as part of the regional study of the West Midlands which is now being made by the Government. Work on this is being pressed ahead but I cannot yet say when a decision is likely to be taken.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that this work has been pressed ahead for a couple of years and that we have had that sort of reply a bit too often? While we appreciate the importance of taking the right decision in the use of this site, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the crying need for both the development of industry and housing in north Staffordshire and the urgency for his reaching a conclusion on this matter after the couple of years that have already been wasted?
    Sir K. Joseph: There are a number of interests to be reconciled in coming to any of these major planning decisions, but I recognise the force of what the hon. Member says.
    Mrs. Slater: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give some idea of how long this consideration will take? It is about three years since a deputation visited this site, which is a very large one and could be used to great advantage?
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot answer the hon. Lady's Question in full today. It will be done as soon as possible.

    Local Government Reorganisation (Housing Authorities)
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is aware that the proposals for the reorganisation of local government involving the creation of larger housing authorities out of smaller ones will in many cases lead to a considerable increase in the number of houses under one control; and whether he will accordingly issue a circular emphasizing again the importance of skilled housing management under trained managers.
    Sir K. Joseph: Such advice was given by circular to all housing authorities in March, 1959. That advice is still valid. I would expect that it will be taken into account by reorganised authorities when making arrangements for the management of their houses. But I do not think I should single out this particular aspect of good administration for special mention following reorganisation.
    Mr. MacColl: As the right hon. Gentleman has just said, it is four years since the publication of "Councils and their Houses", which was a very good report of the Central Advisory Committee. Does he not think that, in view of the dramatic increase in the responsibilities of a number of councils as a result of reorganisation, he ought either to reissue that pamphlet or reissue his circular to draw attention to the need for properly staffed housing departments?
    Sir K. Joseph: I will consider that suggestion, but I must leave it to the discretion of responsible local authorities.

    Rate Deficiency Grants
    Mr. MacCollasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities, for each of the last two convenient years, applied for expenditure in excess of normal to be admitted for rate deficiency grant; how many of these applications were allowed; and what was the total amount of grant paid in respect of this expenditure.
    Sir K. Joseph: For the reasons mentioned in my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on 22nd January, invitations to apply have so far been issued for 1959–60 only. The replies from some 150 authorities are now being considered and I hope to settle most of the cases in the course of the next few weeks. The amount of grant at issue for 1959–60 is about £134,000 out of £100 million, or about one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. MacColl: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering what action he will take on these applications, will he bear in mind the special needs of those authorities which wish to spend money on capital works in areas of high unemployment?
    Sir K. Joseph

    National Parks (Sussex Downs)
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what reply he has sent to the National Parks Commission following their expression of concern at his reply to their request for confirmation of the Order designating the Sussex Downs as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
    Sir K. Joseph: I explained that I felt obliged to return the order so that everyone concerned could have an opportunity of making representations to the Commission if they wished to do so; and I added that I was pleased to learn that the Commission intended to submit a new order. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the reply I sent to the Commission.
    Sir T. Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great disappointment at the long delays which have taken place? Does it not seem that this procedure is rather ridiculous? We now have to go through the same thing again. Would he look at the principle involved and see if he can speed up this matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes. Although the Commission was doing what was imposed upon it by statute and law, I felt that it would be observing the spirit as well as the letter of the law if it invited

    747
    the opinions of those people whose land interests might be affected. There is that interest to reconcile.
    Sir T. Beamish: In that case, if another small modification results from this next round, do we go through the same procedure yet again for another two years?
    Sir K. Joseph: I certainly hope not. This occurred only because there was an extension of the originally designated area. I will seek to avoid any further delay if possible. I hope the Commission will carry out the consultations, which are, I think, sensible, as soon as it possibly can.

    Greater London
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many letters and resolutions he has received supporting the proposed reorganisation of local government in Greater London and how many opposing it.
    Sir K. Joseph: No count has been kept. Most people have been more concerned with particular proposals than with the general pattern of the re-organisation.
    Mr. Prentice: Why has no count been taken? Is it simply that the figures would be inconvenient to the Government's case? Would not the Minister agree that the resolutions and messages he has received confirm the impression that the scheme is opposed by the local authorities themselves, by those who work for them, and by people who are interested in civic and local affairs throughout the whole of the Greater London area?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. Hundreds of stereotyped letters have been received on a number of points, particularly on the borough groupings. Obviously a number of people with special interests have very properly written in on points where they detect weaknesses in the Measure. Human nature being what it is, people do not generally write to Ministers when they are pleased about something.
    Mr. Lipton: Has not the Minister begun to realise that in the not too distant future there will be a Labour Government in power which will wipe out all this nonsense on which he is engaged? Why is he wasting the time of the House and
    748
    the country with this ridiculous legislation?
    Mr. Doughty: Whilst dissociating myself from the last supplementary question, may I ask the Minister if he will undertake to look carefully at the objections made by those affected by the proposals and realise that the views expressed are very strongly held by these people?
    Sir K. Joseph: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I am in absolutely no doubt about the strength of the views held by many people concerned.

    Thames Valley (Flooding)
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what arrangements have been made by his Department, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned, for dealing with such emergencies as might arise as a result of exceptional flooding in the Thames Valley.
    Sir K. Joseph: It is impossible to be precise in advance about the degree of flooding, if it should occur. In these circumstances it is not feasible to give any useful advice to local authorities. Authorities have a great deal of experience of handling emergencies as they arise, and my Department is ready to go to their assistance as soon as any help is needed.
    Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a certain amount of forethought and co-ordination is necessary and desirable if certain events of the 1947 flood are not to be repeated?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. Local officials have been in touch with my Department about this and they have been told how such assistance can be obtained in emergency.

    Lots Road Power Station (Atmospheric Pollution)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what consultations he has had with the London Transport Board regarding the effect on atmospheric pollution of their proposed conversion of the Lots Road Power Station from coal to oil burning; and at what height the chimney gases will be discharged into the atmosphere.
    Mr. Corfield: The Alkali Inspectorate have been in consultation with the London Transport Executive. The change will eliminate grit emissions and should reduce smoke. All chimney gases will be discharged through existing 275 ft. chimneys; the four 162 ft. chimneys will become redundant.
    Dr. Stross: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me that although there will be less smoke and no grit following this change there will be very much more sulphur dioxide? Is not this most undesirable? Would it not be far better if this installation were not used at all and the main source of electricity supply came from the Electricity Board? If it is argued that in that case there is no guarantee against failure of the ventilation of the Underground, does he not agree that this could easily and cheaply be achieved by installing secondhand jet aero engines using kerosene which have no sulphur in them at all?
    Mr. Corfield: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, I am assured that the ground level concentration of sulphur dioxide in the power station will be reduced, and, it is hoped, reduced substantially. With regard to the future and alternative methods of working on the Underground, I think that this is a little beyond my competence, but I will certainly go into that with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
    Dr. Stross: I am very grateful that this is now to be considered. Many of us in the House, and certainly many medical men in the country as a whole, look upon sulphur dioxide as being more dangerous than many other forms of pollution.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sure that this is most invaluable, but it is not a question. That is the trouble. We must confine ourselves to questions now.

    Green Belt (Bristol)
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what proposals he has made to the authorities concerned with reference to utilising
    750
    parts of the green belt around Bristol for other purposes; what acreage it is suggested should be used, and for what purpose; if the authorities concerned have been consulted; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corfield: There is as yet no approved green belt around Bristol. Gloucestershire County Council has submitted proposals for green belt in the county and my right hon. Friend is in consultation with the county council and the district councils on modifications he has suggested. The modifications cover an area of approximately 27,200 acres out of a total of 65,700 acres, and for the most part leave these areas unallocated as white land. The purpose of the proposals is to make reserve provision for an increased population in the Greater Bristol area, if that should come about, while preserving the essential features of the proposed green belt.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the green belt plan when brought into operation was intended to be of a permanent character and now it appears that the green belt is to be taken away? Is it the policy of the Conservative Party to do away inch by inch with the green belt system?
    Mr. Corfield: I can assure the hon. Member and the House that the whole purpose of these modifications is to preserve a green belt which will have a permanent character. These are only green belt proposals. They have not been approved. Our anxiety is to ensure that we select an area which will withstand the pressures which are likely to develop as a result of a growing population which is greater than that envisaged at present.

    Office Development (Control)
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will now announce his proposals for the control of office development.
    Sir K. Joseph: I hope to make a statement about the office problem shortly.
    Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he said that he would

    751
    make a statement after Christmas. Is it not time that he stopped dilly-dallying over this very important matter and came to a decision very quickly, particularly in view of the need to distribute this type of employment?
    Sir K. Joseph: This is a problem full of difficulties, but I hope to make a statement shortly.
    Sir J. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend include in his statement the idea of an I.D.C. system for office blocks, and will he also not confine it to England and Wales alone?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, I hope to cover both those points in what I have to say.

  EMPLOYMENT, SCOTLAND
  Mr. Manuelasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement outlining the current proposals of Her Majesty's Government for dealing with the high and persistent unemployment which affects many areas in Scotland.
  Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister, following his recent talks with representatives of the Scottish trade unions, what additional and immediate steps he has in mind to solve the increasingly difficult problem of unemployment.
  Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress about unemployment in Scotland.
  Mr. Rossasked the Prime Minister whether, following his discussions with representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, he will make a statement on new projects and policies to combat the continuing rise in Scottish unemployment.
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the leaders of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With several of my right hon. Friends I met a deputation of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 22nd January. The members of the deputation
  752
  told us of their concern about unemployment in Scotland and offered suggestions for tackling the problem. The Government are already giving urgent consideration to this problem and will take full account of the points raised by the deputation. Hon. Members will know that extensive measures which have already been taken were described by the Government in the House of Lords last week.
  Mr. Manuel: Is the Prime Minister aware that he seems to be the great coordinator who does not co-ordinate? Can he inform the House of what actual liaison exists between the six or seven Government Departments responsible for the present deplorable unemployment in Scotland? Further, is he aware that we are sick to death of the dithering and procrastination arising from his lack of co-ordination of these Departments, and will he tell us what he proposes to do to ease the position in the immediate future?
  The Prime Minister: A great deal has already been done and a great deal will be done. As regards the actual machinery of Government, if that is the point, great steps in this direction also are being taken, and I am satisfied that there is full coordination between all Departments concerned.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling on all sides expressed in another place last week was of the great inadequacy of existing policy to solve this problem? What specific reasons did he give to the Scottish T.U.C. representatives as grounds for confidence? Was it just a confidence trick, or has he something quite specific and definite to offer us?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad to know that I gave a sense of confidence to the Scottish Trades Union Congress. We had a very good discussion. I have met its representatives on several occasions, and on many occasions I have been able to bring about the things for which they asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] One was the Scottish strip mill some time ago. Another was the request to bring the motor car industry to Scotland. I am examining very closely some of the very practical suggestions which they made, and I hope to be able very shortly to make announcements in respect of them.
  Dr. Mabon: Does the Prime Minister realise that his inconsequential statement about the holding of talks with the Scottish Trades Union Congress means that his position next week, when he meets the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, which is composed largely of business men, will be all the more serious and that, if he does not offer something specific next week to alleviate unemployment in Scotland, the Government will be at the point of no return?
  The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that the Government will be returned. What I am anxious to do is to make suggestions valuable to the employment situation in Scotland.
  Mr. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that the specific proposals put forward by the representatives of the Scottish T.U.C. at his meeting with them last week were in addition to anything that has been done under the Local Employment Act because of the need for something more and that they command wider support in Scotland? Does not he agree that the acceptance of some of these proposals is the one thing which would lighten the darkness settling over Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman says that he has turned up trumps before. This is a chance for him to do something for Scotland now.
  The Prime Minister: That is why I expressed my gratitude for the proposals, which were of a very practical kind. We have been very carefully into them. One or two of them we had in hand, and others gave us certain ideas. I hope shortly to be able to implement a considerable number of them, if not all of them. One of the good things was that one of the proposals was, by chance, implemented the next day.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is one specific problem in Scotland which urgently needs consideration, namely, the fact that over 2,000 miners at the Barony Colliery have lost their work through the collapse of a pit shaft? Since this colliery has a very large coal output and the men are very anxious to start work again, can the right hon. Gentleman do something to expedite a decision by those responsible?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware of this particular question, but I will
  754
  bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend, who will no doubt do the same with the Chairman of the National Coal Board.
  Mr. John MacLeod: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Hydro-Electric Board gets on with the development of hydro-electric schemes which were delayed unnecessarily for two years by the Mackenzie Report, as this would help employment in the North and other areas of Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: I will consider that.
  Mr. Grimond: First, can the Prime Minister say whether consideration is being given to some tax inducement being given to firms to go to areas of high unemployment? Secondly, has he considered the need for a Highland development board? If so, when will a pronouncement be made?
  The Prime Minister: I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman says in the second part of his supplementary question. With regard to the first part, I must not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.
  Mr. G. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that his answers rather give the impression that the problem has grown up almost without his being aware of it and that he is not aware of the deepness and urgency of the problem in Scotland? While these individual items will help—they are better than nothing—they do nothing to suggest that the Government have a radical programme for getting to the heart of the problem in Scotland. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance in this matter?
  The Prime Minister: The Scottish deputation which came to see me was very fair and friendly in respect of the fact that we had long recognised this problem. Apart from the general state of the economy, there were certain special problems in Scotland which we have tried to wrestle with and on which we have made a considerable improvement, and when the general economy expands again they will show themselves.
  Mr. Rankin rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dalyell, No. 2.
  Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Was not No. Ql1 included in the Prime Minister's reply?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think so.

  SPORT (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what arrangement at present exists for Ministerial responsibility for co-ordination of Government support for sport; and if he will relieve the Lord President of the Council of his responsibility for sport in view of the weight of the responsibilities he already has for science and unemployment.
  The Prime Minister: Government support for sport is co-ordinated by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council through the programmes administered by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I am satisfied that he will be able to do this without any adverse effect on his other responsibilities.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the Prime Minister's reply indicate that the recommendations of Sir John Wolfenden and his colleagues are not being given the urgent attention that many would like to see?
  The Prime Minister: That is a rather wider question. A great deal is being done, but my Answer simply dealt with the question of Ministerial responsibility.

  EMPLOYMENT, NORTH-EAST
  Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister what new policy Her Majesty's Government propose for curing unemployment in the North-East during 1963; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 24th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Speir) and other hon. Members on this subject.
  Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that that Answer does not go far enough and that what the North-East is looking for is some positive policies in order to attack a problem that has been
  756
  growing over the years and that dealing with it in another place or even in another continent is insufficient at this stage?
  The Prime Minister: I answered the Question which was tabled. I may add that I think that the undertaking of this assignment by my noble Friend has been widely welcomed and. I feel sure, will be of value.
  Sir C. Osborne: Since we have to sell one-third of our manufactures abroad, is not the only cure for unemployment to get our export prices down so that the 5 million men who make those exports shall have jobs?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, the whole economy of the country, as is well known, depends on the success of its exports.
  Mr. Jay: As the Government have now very belatedly scheduled the whole of Merseyside as a development district, why do they still refuse to schedule the North-East coast?
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Merseyside was scheduled and then such progress was made with the new industries brought there that it was thought right to deschedule it. Now it has been put back into the position of being able to draw benefit, under certain conditions, under the Local Employment Act. We hope to deal with the North-East Coast as a whole, and when my noble Friend has made his recommendations we shall consider them.
  Mr. Jay: The Prime Minister has not answered the question. If he thinks it right to schedule Merseyside, why does not he also schedule the whole North-East coast where unemployment is just as high?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that at present certain places on the North-East coast are scheduled. The question will arise whether the schedule should be widened, but what we are trying to do now is to deal with the area as a whole.

  PRESIDENT DE GAULLE
  Mr. Donnellyasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement regarding his latest official communication with President de Gaulle.
  The Prime Minister: I do not recall ever having received an official communication from General de Gaulle, certainly not in the last twenty years.
  Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the impression is growing in this country that President de Gaulle has defeated him diplomatically on almost every aspect of foreign policy and that there are new challenges implicit in the latest Franco-German treaty which have much wider implications than the Common Market? Can he say when at a critical time in this century we have had less leadership from a British Prime Minister?
  The Prime Minister: In so far as the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is meant to be of aid in the deep sense of patriotism which he has, I welcome it. In so far as it is merely an attack upon me, I think that I can afford to forget about it.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whatever may be the channel of communication with President de Gaulle, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware of damaging statements by the President and by French spokesmen to the effect that my right hon. Friend preferred to make the Nassau Agreement rather than to have European or Anglo-French interdependence in nuclear defence? Is an official denial of these damaging statements to be made?
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with that at some length in my speech at Liverpool.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the Prime Minister realise that the total collapse of the Government's policies in these negotiations, with all that that means for our economic and foreign policy position, suggests that this is no time—[Laughter.]—
  Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman has lost the leadership now.
  Mr. Wilson: —suggests that he might deal with this question in a less frivolous manner than was indicated by his first reply? Has he not even now developed an alternative policy to put forward, and will he inform President de Gaulle, when he is in touch with him, that the first step that he intends to take is to call a Commonwealth conference and stop being
  758
  pushed around by President de Gaulle or anybody else?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman made a quite good recovery at the end of his supplementary question, as he sometimes does, but I thought that at the beginning he opened a rather wide flank. I thought that he was against Britain joining the Common Market.
  Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us hold the view that President de Gaulle owes this country very much more than we owe him and that we are getting a little tired of the General and of some of these people associated with the European Economic Community and the European movement? Is it not time that we made up our minds to stand on our own legs by whatever device is open to us? Will the Prime Minister be good enough to inform the House when we shall have a statement from him—an authentic statement—on the present situation arising out of the intransigence of General de Gaulle?
  The Prime Minister: So long as these negotiations were in being, it would have been very improper, unwise and altogether wrong of me to do anything that could interfere with their possible success. If and when they come to an end, a situation will have been created which we shall deal with. I am convinced—and encouraged in my view by the right hon. Gentleman—that we shall deal with that situation as we have always dealt with difficulties facing us. We shall face it, I believe, as a united country.
  Mr. G. Brown: In view of the announcement that the French delegation expects to leave Brussels for home at 5 p.m. today, will the Prime Minister undertake to make a full statement tomorrow on the position as he sees it?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, a statement will have to be made at the right moment. We have an important debate tomorrow and I am not sure when my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be back. I understand also that there will be considerable discussion among the five other members of the Community this evening and perhaps tonight. But, of course, a statement will be made at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. Brown: The Prime Minister has referred to "considerable discussion" among the five. Is he aware that in Britain a very unhappy feeling is growing of humiliation at the sense of hanging around while everybody else is discussing us and we seem unwilling to say anything? If the French have gone home and the Six as a whole have stopped talking together, would it not be better for everyone if the Prime Minister made a full statement at an early moment?
  The Prime Minister: That is a matter for consideration. I do not think it is humiliating to feel that five out of the six member countries are on our side and that we have the sympathy and support of all Europe and the free world.

WHITEHEAD IRON AND STEEL COMPANY
Sir G. Nabarro(by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency or talks with the directors of the state-owned steel firm of Richard Thomas and Baldwins concerning the latter's takeover bid, announced yesterday evening, for the non-nationalised firm, the Whitehead Iron and Steel Company, and whether he will make a statement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The Agency has been in close touch with the Treasury at all stages. The reasons for the proposed action by Richard Thomas and Baldwins were fully explained in the announcement to which my hon. Friend referred.
Sir G. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate, first, that this behaviour by Richard Thomas and Baldwins suggests that it has plans for overtly adding to the area of the nationalised steel industry, which is completely contrary to the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Secondly, having regard to the fact that Richard Thomas and Baldwins has already borrowed £135 million from the Treasury, and is heavily in overdraft with its bankers, would it not be a fair conclusion that the firm would have to come back to this House to borrow more money to pay for Whiteheads if Richard Thomas
760
and Baldwins were to succeed? Would not that be an intolerable position for the Conservative party to be placed in?
Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. The initiative was not taken by Richard Thomas and Baldwins, but by Stewarts and Lloyds. The directors of Richard Thomas and Baldwins thought that this bid by Stewarts and Lloyds, if successful, would seriously damage their own business and, therefore, they wished to act in defence of their business and in the interests of the people employed in it.
At the same time, it is my opinion that this action will make it easier rather than more difficult to complete the denationalisation of the steel industry. Anything which damages Richard Thomas and Baldwins will make it more difficult to transfer the firm back to private ownership.
Mr. Grimond: Do we understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's last reply that the bid by Richard Thomas and Baldwins is part of the policy of denationalisation? I think that he said that it would make it easier to denationalise? Is it not the case that the Conservative Party fought the last General Election partly on the policy that steel should be denationalised? Is it still the Conservative Party's view that it should be denationalised?
Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has not followed my argument. It is simple. Pending the denationalisation of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, it is our policy that it should operate as a commercial concern and protect itself as a commercial concern can do. In so doing, it will make it easier for ultimate denationalisation to take place.
Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on these benches want to see the steel industry organised in the way that will best fit it to serve the interests of this country? Is he further aware that some of us were concerned when the take-over bid was made by Stewarts and Lloyds, because it seemed to be calculated to deal a very heavy blow at Richard Thomas and Baldwins, since Whiteheads is such a large customer of R.T.B.s? Whiteheads' custom seemed in danger of being removed from Richard Thomas and Baldwins. Our view is the fact that Richard Thomas and

761
Baldwins is a nationalised company should not stand in the way of its exercising the rights of private enterprise companies in the steel industry.
Mr. Maudling: I think that Stewarts and Lloyds was perfectly entitled to make its bid. The only decision before the Government was whether we should allow Richard Thomas and Baldwins to defend itself in the normal commercial way.
Sir C. Osborne: Since the object of the take-over bid is to compel Whiteheads to buy steel billets at £33 a ton from English manufacturers, whereas now it is buying them at £30 a ton from Canadian manufacturers—a price which includes freight—will this move not make the inefficiency of Richard Thomas and Baldwins even greater by guaranteeing this market for the firm, thus making it more difficult for steel finishers to sell their goods abroad?
Mr. Maudling: I am advised that Richard Thomas and Baldwins regard the Canadian competition in imported billets as a temporary factor on this level and not as a permanent one.
Mr. Ifor Davies: Is the Chancellor aware that the steel workers in my constituency welcome this intervention by Richard Thomas and Baldwins? Is he further aware of the statement, issued last night by Richard Thomas and Baldwins, that the immediate consequence of the success of the Stewarts and Lloyds bid would be the closure of the Elba Works, at Gowerton, in my constituency, which employs 500 men, and unemployment at Redbourn and Ebbw Vale? In view of this great threat of unemployment, will he see to it that the Government give every support to Richard Thomas and Baldwins in these negotiations?
Mr. Maudling: We think that the firm should act in these circumstances as any commercial firm would do in protecting its interests.
Sir C. Osborne: Where is it to get the money from?
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: In view of the disastrous record of Richard Thomas and Baldwins over the last four years, for which there is ample documentation in the speeches of its chairman,
762
does my right hon. Friend think that the adding to Richard Thomas and Baldwins of a company now under private enterprise will make it easier to denationalise R.T.B.s? Is it not, on the contrary, much more likely that yet another company will fall under the same damaging auspices?
Mr. Maudling: I do not think that that is the position. Richard Thomas and Baldwins was not trying to take this firm over but it was faced by a threat from someone else which, in effect, would take away from it a very important customer and make its difficulties even greater.
Mr. M. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any attempt was made by the Government to prevent the original act of jungle aggression perpetrated by Stewarts and Lloyds and, if so, the result of that Government intervention?
Mr. Maudling: Stewarts and Lloyds is perfectly entitled to make this move if it thinks that it is in the interests of the company to do so. There was no reason to stop the company.
Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members find it obnoxious that public money should be used for a take-over bid? Is not the solution to these problems the fact that it is essential that Richard Thomas and Baldwins should be sold back to the public so that private money, and not public money, can be used?
Mr. Maudling: It is our objective to denationalise Richard Thomas and Baldwins. As the House is aware, we have been continuing the process of denationalisation of the steel industry and Richard Thomas and Baldwins remains, but the job of denationalising R.T.B. will be made very much more difficult if, in the meanwhile, it loses one of its main customers.
Mr. Jay: Is not the decisive point the fact that Stewarts and Lloyds is likely to close down two plants in South Wales and that, even if public money is to be made available by way of loan, the prevention of that closing down is a perfectly proper use of public money in the spirit of the Government's own Local Employment Act?
Mr. Maudling: A certain amount of custom would be going from Whiteheads to one firm or the other in either event. It is perfectly reasonable that the decision should be taken on a commercial basis.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss this matter any further now.
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the replies from the Treasury Bench, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

DIVISION No. 24 (CORRECTION)
Mr. Speaker: I now call the Tellers in the Aye Division Lobby in Division No. 24, held at 5.34 p.m. on 23rd January.
Mr. J. E. B. HILL (LORD COMMISSIONER OF THE TREASURY) and Dr. BROUGHTON, the Tellers in the Aye Lobby in Division No. 24, 23rd January, 1963, came to the Table.
Mr. Hill: Mr. Speaker, I have to report that in Division No. 24, taken on 23rd January at 5.34 p.m., the number of Ayes was incorrectly reported by us as 277, when in foot the correct number was 267.
Mr. Speaker: I will direct the Clerk to correct the number in the Journal accordingly.

LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
3.42 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—
Committee
1.—(1) The remaining Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on Clause 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the second of those days; and the Business Committee shall report to the House their recommendations as to those Proceedings not later than the first' day of February, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
(2) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on Clause 1 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.
2. The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill except Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to the House on or before the twenty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three.
Report and Third Reading
3.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purpose of Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their recommendations as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill except Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to the House.
Business Committee
4. The recommendations in any report made under Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in paragraph 1 (1) or 3 (2) of this Order.
Procedure in Standing Committee
5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the

765
Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for the Motion from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
Order of Proceedings in Committee
6. In any Committee on the Bill, no Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the recommendations of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.
Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee
7. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report the Bill (or such of its provisions as were committed or re-committed to that Committee) to the House without putting any Question.
Dilatory motions
8. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra hour on allotted days
9. —(1) On an allotted day the Proceedings on the Bill shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period for which Proceedings on the Bill are exempted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) shall be in addition to the said period of one hour (or in addition to any longer period for which the Proceedings are exempted under Standing Order No. 1A (Exemption from Standing Order No. 1)).
Standing Order No. 12
10. Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.
Private business
11.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and shall be exempted by this paragraph from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period of three hours from the conclusion of those Proceedings or, if the Proceedings on the Bill are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.
(2) The foregoing sub-paragraph shall not apply on a day on which a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) and no opposed private business shall be taken on such an allotted day.
12.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

(a)the Question or Questions already pro-proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on an amendment so moved, or a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the amendment be made, or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) which apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.
(4) If, on an allotted day, a Motion is made under the said Standing Order No. 9, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day at any time after Seven o'clock shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the said Motion under Standing Order No. 9.
Supplemental orders
13. —(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.
(2) If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order is under consideration at Seven o'clock on a day on which any

767
private business has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock, the private business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded, and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period equal to the time for which it so stands over:
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply on a day on which a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) and no opposed private business shall be taken on such a day.
(3) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required on a Motion moved the following day by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
14. Nothing in this Order or in a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b)prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal
15.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
16. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday or the day on which this Order is agreed to) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day;
"the Bill" means the London Government Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
All Allocation of Time Motions, or Guillotine Motions, cause resentment. Some cause anger, but very few surprise
768
the House of Commons. Yesterday, when the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made some comments on my announcement, they said that they were surprised that this Motion was being introduced, and claimed that it was unjustified. However, from the moment the Government announced their intention—and it is long ago now—to legislate on the subject, an Allocation of Time Motion was, if not inevitable, at least probable.
On a number of occasions, the Opposition have made plain, as is their undoubted right, that their parliamentary opposition to the Bill would be intensive and formidable. On occasions, they have gone beyond that and have indicated that it would be obstructive as well. I quote from the speech by Lord Morrison of Lambeth in July, 1961:
"I beg to serve notice on Her Majesty's Government that, if they do think of bringing in an Act of Parliament to implement this silly Report, I will see to it that the Labour Party and a lot of Tories in the House will fight to obstruct the Bill. I will mobilise all the support I can to obstruct the Bill Clause by Clause and line by line, even if I have to do it myself."
We were also warned officially, perfectly fairly, by the Labour Party, in the most explicit terms last June:
"We shall fight this Bill Clause by Clause and line by line in the House of Commons…Let the Government not imagine that it is going to have an easy passage."
The argument for putting on a guillotine, even before the Committee stage of the Bill started, was probably stronger in this case than when the same Lord Morrison of Lambeth, then Mr. Herbert Morrison, decided to do exactly that with the Iron and Steel Bill in 1948, when he said:
"The Opposition have declared, as is their right, that they will fight and oppose this Bill from the beginning to the end. Therefore, we have to face that position. We seek to get this Bill through. That is what it was introduced for."
He went on to defend the introduction of the guillotine—I emphasise that it was even before the Committee stage had started—saying:
"Now, we are a very reasonable Government, and we feel that the best course is to let the Opposition know where we stand from the beginning of the proceedings, in order that they can make their plans so as to make the

769
most effective use of the time available…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1429–31.]
Every word is clearly applicable to the Motion before the House today.
We decided, in spite of this very clear precedent, that it would be right to start the Bill in the ordinary way in Committee and to take on the Floor of the House Clause 1 and its related Schedule, the First Schedule. I should mention that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government approached the hon. Member for Fulham some time ago to inquire whether it was possible to arrange a voluntary timetable. Nobody will be surprised to find that it was not possible. Nor will anyone, knowing the strength of the Opposition's feeling on the Bill, blame the hon. Member. Still, that is the position and that is the reason why I must now proceed to justify the Motion to the House.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman referred to what was said by Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, on the 1949 Iron and Steel Bill. Surely the difference between that and this occasion is that in 1945 we had a mandate from the electorate to go on with that Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what mandate he has for this Bill?
Mr. Macleod: I will deal specifically with the question of a mandate, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so in due course.
When such a Motion is before the House, the words which the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan once used are always true. On the guillotine on the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill, he said:
"We all know very well that, when a Motion of this kind is brought before the House, it is necessary now to establish it, not on grounds of constitutional propriety, but purely on empirical considerations; that is to say, do the circumstances of the case warrant the Motion?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 51.]
Everyone will agree that that is the question before the House today. Is this, then, an appropriate Bill for an Allocation of Time Motion, and, if so, is this an appropriate Allocation of Time Motion to bring forward?
I need not trace the origins of the Bill and, in any case, it is out of order to debate the Bill's merits. However, it had its origin in the unanimous Report
770
of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Greater London, on which we had a two-day debate. We had a two-day debate later on the Second Reading of the Bill, to which reference appeared in the Gracious Speech. It has been known for a long time that the Government intended to make this one of the main items in their legislative programme now before us.
I now take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the question of the mandate. The argument is that the Government should not proceed with a major Measure of this kind if it were not envisaged in their General Election manifesto. I do not think that that argument is sound, for both general and particular reasons. The general reason is that no party—and this can be checked by a reference to the manifestos of the parties at the last or any General Election—specifies each major piece of legislation which it will carry through during the course of its tenure of office.
In the Conservative manifesto of 1959 there were not more than half a dozen specific references to legislation, whereas about 200 Bills will have been passed, of which I would reckon that at least 50 would fall into the category of major Bills. No doubt if the Labour Party had been elected, its legislative programme, at any rate in volume of Bills, would have been roughly of the same order.
On the general point, it seems to me quite unrealistic, and, indeed, out of keeping with our practice, to maintain that such a major Measure has to be included. In the case of the London Government Bill, I think that there are further and cogent particular reasons, some of which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading debate and some of which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) in Committee a few days ago.
The position is that the Royal Commission was set up in December, 1957. It reported in October, 1960; it was in full swing and, I suppose, beginning to come to the drafting stage at the time of the General Election in October, 1959. Obviously, no party would commit itself to adopting, in whole or even in part, the Report of a Royal Commission which

771
it had not seen. Yet in our General Election manifesto there were these words:
"We look forward to reforming and strengthening the structure of local democracy, in the light of reports from the Local Government Commissions for England and Wales."
One really cannot argue that by that one was committing oneself to take no action in relation to London because we had shown the priority that we attached to London by setting up the Royal Commission. Indeed, the logic of this particular argument only has to be stated to see how absurd it is, that no action could be taken on any Royal Commission sitting at the time of a General Election until the next Parliament but one.
It may be argued that this perhaps otherwise cogent argument which I am presenting to the House is invalidated to some extent because we have not adopted in the whole the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Few Governments ever do accept all the recommendations of a Royal Commission, but the two main points of divergence here are the educational arrangements and the size and groupings of the boroughs. At least as far as the second is concerned the Royal Commission went out of its way to say that its proposals were provisional and had not the same authority as the rest of its conclusions. Hon. Members will find a reference at page 193 of the Report.
Again, I think that it may be argued from the size of the majorities on Clause 1 of the Bill, which varied from 66 to 26, that the case for an Allocation of Time Motion is weakened. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, I might as well lead with my chin on this. The true test of the Bill of course, is the majority on Second Reading and this, after a two-day debate, was 78. Similarly, the two-day discussion that we had earlier on the Government's proposals resulted in a Government majority of 104. It is no doubt true that on Clause 1 and the First Schedule hon. Members on both sides of the House and a number of hon. Members on this side have particular points of view which they wish to put forward.
Perhaps I may illustrate this from my own Borough of Enfield, part of which I represent in the House, and which is very much affected by the Bill. Enfield has only recently become a borough. Because it is in Middlesex it is unable to look forward to the powers of a county
772
borough and realises, with many other boroughs in and near London, that its hopes lie in such a Bill as is before the House.
I think that it is true to say that practically nobody in Enfield, of any political party, dislikes the idea of the Bill. But there is argument in Enfield—and as there is an Amendment on this point I will not refer further to it—as to the appropriate grouping of the boroughs in the North-East part of the Greater London area.
Mr. Mellish: That will be the only concession that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government will make.
Mr. Macleod: But I do not want him to.
Similarly, many Members who are glad to see increased powers going to the boroughs do not necessarily agree with the Government's view of how the boundaries should be drawn.
For some time the Labour Party has sought to argue that this Measure is one dictated by party considerations. This has involved them in a number of absurdities. It is hard to believe that the members of a Royal Commission which recommended the disappearance of the L.C.C. were so minded. It is also impossible to believe that town clerks called in to assist the Minister would for a moment take such political considerations into account in making their recommendations. Moreover, it is unquestionably true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said, that whatever the general approval for the Bill may be a number of Conservative Members and Conservative constituencies would wish to see other boundary arrangements made.
It is also perfectly true that some, although I hope few, go further and do not like the Bill at all. The Opposition will remember paragraph 210 of the Report of the Royal Commission, which says:
"The London Labour Party is not only a policy-making body, but is also the party machine for organising the party and fighting elections. It appeared to us that its principal, and perfectly legitimate, object was to ensure that as far as possible any reorganisation of London government would facilitate rather than impede its task as a party machine of gaining and maintaining political power."

773
What is the Labour Party, after that, to say that political considerations on this side of the House affect this Bill?
Mr. George Brown: Is the Minister therefore saying that we should not advance an argument because the idea is already in our minds, but we are wrong to say that the idea is in his mind?
Mr. Macleod: Not in the least. All I am saying is that it involves one in abstruse and complex argument if we start arguing that political considerations motivate this side of the House, or, indeed, have produced this particular Bill.
There have been four Amendments on Clause 1 and the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" and those took up two days on the Floor of the House, with an extension on each day, which the Opposition voted against, and then there was a short debate on the beginning of the First Schedule and we reached no decision on it. If this Motion is accepted Clause I and the First Schedule will have occupied the House for four days, with some extensions of time, plus any time which we can take today on the Schedule. This would mean—forgetting altogether any possibilities of debate today—that for one Clause and for one Schedule the equivalent of at least 12 sittings of the Standing Committee is proposed.
A leader in The Times this morning compared this with the eight sittings that there were for Clause 1 of the Betting and Gaming Bill. That, of course, was sitting upstairs, as compared with sittings on the Floor of the House, and the true comparison is that at least 12—and, if the House wishes it, more—sittings could be taken for this Clause and this Schedule.
Mr. Richard Marsh: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this point, will he say whether it is any part of his case that the length of discussion so far has in any way been improperly prolonged or that there has been any fillibustering?
Mr. Macleod: Improperly prolonged, of course, is a matter for the Chair, and I am too old a hand to fall into that particular trap. Shall we say that there has been no marked anxiety to complete the proceedings.
774
I should now like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Fulham, East, that this Motion is being taken at very short notice. This is quite true, although I would point out that it is customary for a Guillotine Motion to be considered as a matter of some urgency. There is, moreover, a special difficulty in this case which is linked with the other part of my business statement yesterday.
There are many precedents for taking such a Motion after one day has elapsed. I have not the records for such pre-war Motions as there may have been, but the reason that we are taking this Motion today, and not on Wednesday, which, I agree, would be more in accordance with precedent, is that I understand it is the desire of the House, on both sides, to have a two-day debate on defence.
These two conflict. Clearly, it would not be possible to arrange the two-day debate on defence on consecutive days without the procedure which we are suggesting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not blaming anybody. This simply happens. The right hon. Member for Belper will remember—this was about the only thing on which we agreed yesterday —that he welcomed the second day being given to defence. He must follow the logic of that argument.
The main features of the Motion were given to the House by my statement yesterday and my answers to supplementary questions. In response, however, to a reasonable request from the hon. Member for Fulham, I arranged for copies of the Motion to be made available even though the great bulk of its text was in common form. We did a rapid operation on that. Literally hundreds of copies were provided and were available by six o'clock. It is, perhaps, some measure of the synthetic indignation that we have to some extent about this matter that the total number of copies asked for was four. Nevertheless, I am glad to have been of service to the House and to have provided an opportunity to four Members to read the Motion.
The Report of the Business Committee is not before us yet, but I should like to refer to that presently because it is of great importance that a detailed allocation should emerge from the Committee's consideration. There is one point which should be made. If we argue—as, I am sure, the Opposition will, and as I

775
would argue if I were in their place—that four days, excluding today, or 12 sittings of a Standing Committee in equivalent time is not sufficient to dispose of a Clause and its related Schedule, we are getting near to saying that if a Bill of this nature is opposed—and, for that matter, perhaps even if it is not opposed—it can never hope to get through the House of Commons without a guillotine.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) came near to arguing that. Indeed, he was arguing it on Second Reading on 11th December. There was a great deal in what he said. Certainly, the history of the controversial Measures since the war, starting with the great nationalisation Acts, seems to suggest that that is the case.
I suggest that sometime, not in the context of a particular debate, not in the context of a particular Allocation of Time Motion, but simply as a method of considering the procedure of the House, it would be very suitable if, as a House, we turned our attention to this problem. I genuinely believe that the last Leader of the House from the Labour side was very near the truth in some of his observations on Second Reading.
As to the Business Committee, it is normal simply to give a block of parliamentary time to the discussion of a Clause or, in this case, of a Schedule. If we were to do that, however, we might have an utterly unsatisfactory position in that the whole of the time could conceivably be taken by earlier Amendments to the Schedule. We might find ourselves in the same sort of position as we did in 1947, when, out of a total 127 Clauses and 13 Schedules in the Transport Bill, 35 Clauses and five Schedules, not to mention 197 Amendments, simply were not discussed in Committee.
Therefore, what we might do is that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who would be a member of the Business Committee, would probably wish to propose to that Committee that the actual allocation of time—and this would come back as a Motion in due course—should be drawn in such a way that each of the groups of Amendments provisionally selected by the Chair for discussion should have a separate time allotted to
776
them. It is for the Business Committee to work that out, but the House will, I think, feel that some Amendments to the First Schedule are of greater importance than others. I think that the House as a whole would wish that the Report of the Business Committee reflected that.
My next point concerns the Business Sub-Committee for the Standing Committee. It is suggested that seven weeks should be allocated, apart from Clause 1 and the First Schedule. Again, it is for the Business Sub-Committee to allocate time. If, however, three sittings were arranged, it is easy to see that in addition to the 12 or more downstairs, there could be 21 upstairs—at least 33 in all.
In these circumstances, there are always two courses for a Government to follow. The dilemma never varies. Either the Government can guillotine the Bill, or they can abandon it. Both sides of the House of Commons and the House as a whole dislike an Allocation of Time Motion. The Government dislike it because they lose time in bringing it forward and because it puts the Bill in a straitjacket. The Opposition dislike it because it may curtail their ordinary rights of criticism.
I have two observations upon that. First, if one did not recognise that in certain circumstances a guillotine could be introduced on a Measure, this could be tantamount to saying that the Opposition, or, for that matter, any group of Members, on any side of the House, could veto a Bill. No Government could accept that position, nor could any Opposition, who, naturally, hope one day to occupy the position of the Government.
Secondly, this is a Bill of the very greatest importance. The House may, however, recall that such procedural Motions have been applied, for example, to Bills that were even more important, like the Parliament Bill of 1911, the Ottawa Agreements Bill of 1931–32 and a considerable number of Irish Bills.
I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Fulham, who, I believe, will follow me, will make his usual courteous, witty, acid speech. He knows, however, as we in this House know, that in these Motions there is always something of an element of shadow boxing. From the very first time that this matter was debated in the House in 1887, when it was moved by

777
Mr. W. H. Smith and replied to by Mr. Gladstone, in whose shoes the hon. Member for Fulham stands today, Governments and Oppositions have said exactly the same thing.
There is only one argument basically on each side. The Government say that without such an allocation of time they could not get within a reasonable period a Bill to which they attach great importance. Definition turns, of course, upon what one considers to be reasonable. The case of the Opposition, particularly as one comes nearer to a General Election, is always, without exception, that they do not object in general to a guillotine, but that they object to a guillotine on the Bill in question. We know that that is exactly the same argument that we have all used ever since Gladstone's day. It is exactly the same argument that the hon. Member for Fulham will be using in a few minutes' time.
The truth is that this is a long, complicated, difficult, immensely controversial Bill. The Opposition have said that they have no intention of letting us have the Bill if they can help it. I make it plain that in their position and feeling, if I did, the same way about a Bill which they produced, I would do and say exactly the same. There is nothing between us in that respect.
In that case, however, if the Government attach great importance to a Bill which, without such a Motion, they could not reasonably hope to obtain in a Session on which they have embarked, their only course is to ask the House of Commons for allocation of time procedure. That is precisely the purpose of the Motion that is now before us.
3.59 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: The purpose of the Motion which the Leader of the House has just moved is to squeeze and truncate discussion on the London Government Bill. The arrangements for the introduction of the Motion have themselves been squeezed and truncated. We have here haste upon haste, guillotine upon guillotine. The Leader of the House, in effect, admitted that there is no precedent for the indecent speed with which the Motion has been thrust before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted yesterday a precedent from 1949 which
778
showed that he had completely failed to take the point that was being made from this side of the House. As he showed, in 1949 the text of the Guillotine Motion was first put on the Order Paper and subsequently the Motion itself was tabled. That did at least give us, in 1949, an opportunity, when the Government announced they were to introduce the Motion, to know what the Motion was. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and the House as a whole to notice what was done here. Even those of us on this side, who, by the ordinary courtesies of procedure, would be informed first, only knew about three o'clock that this was what was to be done.
The House itself was informed at 3.30 that it would be required to debate today a Motion the text of which would not be officially on the Order Paper until this morning.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Scandalous."]—That is not the proper way to conduct the business of the House; and, apart from the failure to let hon. Members see the text of the Motion sufficiently early, it is extremely undesirable that the announced business of the House should be altered except for very grave reasons.
We all know very well that the work of an hon. Member is not done exclusively in this Chamber. Hon. Members have many other engagements which are quite properly part of their parliamentary work, and a conscientious Member tries to fit in his time, some in the House some outside, so that he can be employed to maximum usefulness all the time. But if he is to do that he is entitled to a little advance notice of what business is toward in the House. That is why we have the business question on Thursday and are told the business for the following week and the next Monday.
Once that is announced hon. Members are entitled to arrange their time and their engagements in the light of that fact. To have business interfered with afterwards is a grave inconvenience to hon. Members. It is also an inconvenience to the many people outside the House who have an interest in the business that the House is doing. There are an enormous number of people interested in this Bill which is proposed to be guillotined. Some of them might quite reasonably have expected that if there was to be a Guillotine Motion on

779
it, there would be reasonable notice of that so that they could make arrangements, if they could, to get into the Public Gallery. That has been denied them.
Then—and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said nothing on this—what about people in the trade union movement who have made arrangements to come and listen to the discussion on the subject we were to have been debating this afteroon? We are debating this Guillotine Motion today because Her Majesty's Government have been pleased to thrust somewhere into the future the Contracts of Employment Bill. That is an interesting comment on the Government's sense of priorities. This Contracts of Employment Bill was part of their Industrial Charter. It was to be one of the great achievements of this Government The moment the need for this rather shoddy manœuvre arose they pushed it off.
I say that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in permitting himself to be used in this procedure has shown that he has no proper regard for the duties of his office. In his position it is his business to concern himself not only with the Government's convenience, but with the proper performance of their duties by all hon. Members of the House. He has exposed them to inconvenience. He has exposed members of the public to inconveniece; and he has given no adequate reason why he should do so. He said that we have to take the Motion today because we had already agreed to give tomorrow to defence.
The right hon. Gentleman gave no adequate reason for not leaving this Motion until next week. Had he done that, and even if there had been a Motion as rigid as it is, it would have added at the most one week to the time taken to get this Bill out of Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House gave us no adequate reason at all why Her Majesty's Government was not prepared to allow that further week in order that we should be treated in a proper manner. I say that about the circumstances in which the Motion was introduced and the responsibility of the Leader of the House in the matter.
780
I now turn to the larger question of the justification of a Guillotine Motion at all in these circumstances. The Leader of the House was good enough to tell me what speech I should be making on this occasion. I was happy to be told that I stood in the shoes of Mr. Gladstone; and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, presumably stands in the shoes of Mr. W. H. Smith—who, I believe, was immortalised by W. S. Gilbert as the First Lord of the Admiralty in the opera "H.M.S. Pinafore".
It seems to me that he has cast me for the more splendid rôle on this occasion. But I shall disappoint the Leader of the House. I am not going to make a kind of "midnight oil speech" with an account of what was said in 1897, 1943, or whenever it was. I would ask the House, first, to consider what are the basic principles on which our rules concerning guillotines and Closures are based. I believe that they are based on two twin principles, two principles that are firmly tied together. One is that the will of the majority is, in the end, entitled to prevail. The other is that minorities have as absolute a right to be heard, to take part in a discussion and to seek to alter proposed Measures as much as they can.
Those principles are principles on which not only our procedure is based. They are the principles of democratic government itself. Democratic government cannot be established unless it is understood that the will of the majority is, in the end, to prevail. But having said that, one must immediately say that if the majority are to claim that right they must give to the minority the right to argue, to discuss and to see that whatever is proposed comes under the light of public opinion. Those two principles are interlocked.
If the minority seek to do more than they are entitled to do, if the seek to be purely fractious, flippant or obstructive they cannot complain if, in the end, they are overridden; but conversely, if the majority deny to the minority the right to put forward and promote proper discussion, then the majority cut away from themselves the whole moral authority on which the principle of their own will rests. That is the situation, in principle, with which we are

781
faced; and the purpose of those two interlocking principles is that not only should the will of the majority prevail, but that the will of the majority should be an informed will, formed after free discussion and argument, and not the hasty decision of a clique that happen to be the majority at any particular moment. That is what those principles are for. Our rules of procedure are so designed as to see that those principles are carried into effect.
If I have carried the House with me so far I think that I can now develop the argument as follows: that if that is what we are out for we can say that a Guillotine can be justified, and only justified, in the following circumstances: first, if it can be shown that the minority have gone beyond their right of discussion, argument and opposition and have behaved in the full sense of the word in an obstructive manner. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, made only a half-hearted attempt to prove that and then gave it up. He adduced evidence to show that we had expressed strong opposition to the Bill, but that is not to the point.
The right hon. Gentleman adduced, in the end, one passage from one speech made by the noble Lord Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in natural indignation, when the Government first announced their intentions. But I would have thought that even if there were anything particular in that passage, that would have justified the right hon. Gentleman's colleague moving a Guillotine Motion in another place and not in this Chamber. Or perhaps that is the Government's intention?
The only other piece of evidence which the right hon. Gentleman advanced was that I had declined suggestions made to me by the Minister for a voluntary timetable. Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that, I think the House should have the whole truth of it, and it is this. The Minister asked me whether I would consider some kind of agreed timetable on the Bill. He will bear me out that I did not return to him a flat and permanent "No". I said that I could not answer that question until we had begun the proceedings in Committee; that we should have to consider that in the light of what happened in Committee. I think that
782
that was a perfectly proper position to take. I think that it is wrong to start agreeing timetables before the Committee has even begun. It is not fair to back benchers to do so.
If we had had a few meetings of the Committee, and the Minister had then come to me aid said, "We cannot be satisfied with this progress, will you agree a timetable?", that would have been a different matter, but that is not what happened. I think that it can, therefore, be said that the Leader of the House had adduced no evidence to show that the Opposition have gone beyond their true rights and obstructed, and later I shall show, from the history of the debate so far, that we have not obstructed.
A second circumstance which might justify a Guillotine Motion is if the Government have made every effort to allow proper time for the discussion of the Bill and still are not able to get it through. I shall show shortly, by reference to the history of the Bill, that the Government have not made any such effort.
Thirdly, a Guillotine Motion might be justified if it could be argued that the Bill was really so slight that only a factious and tiresome Opposition would want to take much time over it, or if it could be shown that there was a passionate public demand for the Bill, or if it could be shown that the overriding interests of the State demanded the swift passage of the Bill. I shall show shortly by reference to the nature of the Bill that none of those conditions is fulfilled in this case. This Bill is not slight, nor is there a strong public demand for it, nor is it one of which it may be said that the interests of the State require its speedy passage.
Let me take the point I was making that the history of our debates on the Bill so far clearly shows that the Opposition have not gone an inch beyond their true right of argument, opposition and discussion. Anyone who was here during the two days in Committee of the whole House must know that that is so. During the whole of that time only once, I think, after many formal Questions put from the Chair, did the Government think it necessary to move, or the Chair think it right to accept, the Closure. How many occasions have there been when, during two days of

783
discussion of a Bill in a Committee of the whole House, the Closure has been moved only once? Not many, I think. This does not suggest that during those two days the Government thought that they were being unreasonably held up.
Look at the attitude of the Chair on the matter. We have all known discussions in Committee of the whole House when the Chair has become anxious and distressed at the eagerness of some hon. Members to prolong the debate on a particular point. If the House will allow me to say so, I remember seeing a former Chairman of Ways and Means, Sir Charles MacAndrew, as he then was, rise, and, with a look of pain and distress on his face, say to Members still trying to catch his eye, "I do hope that the Committee will be willing to reach a decision now". No such pain or distress was shown by the Chair at any time during those two days of debate. At no time did the Chair think it right to remonstrate either wildly or seriously with any Member for wasting the time of the House.
I have rarely known two days of debate in Committee of the whole House during which there were fewer points of order. Indeed, there was only one which took up any perceptible time, and that arose when one hon. Gentleman opposite called one of his hon. Friends—I use the word "Friend" in its technical sense—a renegade. He called him a renegade explicitly, and implied that he was complacent and cowardly.
Mr. Frederic Harris: I am the hon. Member to whom the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is referring. I took the matter up with the so-called hon. Member. He has never had the decency even to apologise for what he did under those circumstances.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is utterly out of order on this Motion.
Mr. Stewart: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the point I am making is out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I am referring not to the hon. Member who is now on his feet, but to the hon. Member who revealed that interesting little revelation about a past incident.
Mr. Stewart: It was, as you say, Mr. Speaker, extremely interesting, and, to
784
us, helpful. It is reasonable to say that the question whether "renegade" is a Parliamentary expression is worth a little time as a point of order, unless we are to take it as common form that these pleasantries are to be exchanged among hon. Gentlemen opposite.
There was nothing in the attitude of the Chair to suggest that we were wasting time, nor in the attitude of the Minister to whom I pay full tribute for the diligent, courteous replies he gave to the points raised, but if he reads his speeches he will see that in those replies he clearly took the point that he was answering serious arguments. If he read those debates he could not contend that he was being asked to reply to frivolous or obstructive points. Neither the attitude of the Chair nor the attitude of the Minister will bear out a charge of obstruction.
We are obliged to notice, too, that a perceptible proportion of those two days was taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If they are to be given time for the discussion of the part of the Bill in which they are most critical of the Government, it is unreasonable if the guillotine is to be clamped down when we approach those parts of the Bill on which we are most critical of the Government. I say, then, that the first condition is not fulfilled. The charge of obstruction made against the Opposition cannot be made out.
What about the second condition which I argue might justify the guillotine? Can it be said that the Government have made every effort to get the Bill through by a reaonable time, and have diligently sought so to arrange their timetable as to get their business without having to plague the House with a Guillotine Motion? To answer that, let us look at the history of the Bill.
We were told that we had known for a long time that a Bill of this sort was coming. But a Bill of what kind? It is true that right back in February of last year we debated a White Paper and knew for certain then that the Government were to introduce a Bill, but the intervening months have not enabled anybody to prepare for discussion of that Bill, because all through those months the Government have been altering the target. They have changed their views, and are to change them

785
again, on what ought to be done about the control of London's traffic. We have had at least three different plans for education thrown up and rejected before the one finally put in the Bill.
The powers of the Greater London Council, particularly with regard to housing and planning, are likely still to be modified by the Government, and, as for the boundaries, we have moved far away from the proposals made by the Royal Commission. Then, almost at the last minute, the Government hurriedly announced that they were going to put the Metropolitan Water Board in the Bill, and they then announced that it was to be taken out again.
The result of all these wriggles of policy was that although the Government knew more than twelve months ago that they were to have a Bill on London Government, they were still hurriedly scribbling out the last drafts of it in the autumn of last year. Had it not been for those wriggles and delay the Second Reading of the Bill could have taken place at least three weeks, and possibly a month, before it did. We are having to pay now, by this Guillotine Motion, for the time the Government lost by their own vacillation earlier on the contents of the Bill. I am told that there are to be further Amendments on Report.
I am not going into detail to any great extent on the actual provisions of the Motion before us. I will make one or two special comments, of which the first is this. I see that only two days are to be allowed for Report and Third Reading of the Bill. It seems to me to be wholly inadequate. I understand—I hope, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) catches your eye he will be able to develop the point, since transport problems are especially in his sphere—that it is the intention of the Government to put down important Amendments to that part of the Bill on Report.
So, apart from all the rest, we shall have to consider important new material, for which the Government will be responsible, in those two days on Report. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Government have shown proper expedition in the earlier stages
786
of the Bill, and there is no justification for asking the House to see its time truncated because previously the Government have been vacillating and too lazy.
I said that the third condition which might justify the imposition of a guillotine might arise from the nature of the Bill. Is it a Bill of so slight a nature that only the factious would wish to prolong discussion on it? Is it a Bill for which there is such a strong public demand that we can brush aside the Opposition in this House? Is it a Bill necessary for the welfare of the State and so one which we must hurry through this House? Let us have a look at the nature of the Bill to see how it stands up to any of those tests.
Is it a slight Bill? The Bill introduces something quite new in the local government of this country. What is being created in Greater London is a semi-region in population, in resources and in powers. This is something quite new in local government. This is a major change. One could almost have argued that it should be treated as a constitutional Bill, and the whole of the proceedings taken in Committee of the whole House.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has himself referred to it as a long, complicated and difficult Bill. It is a Bill which contains a reversal of the previous national policy about how education should be administered. In recent years we have tended to see the necessity for putting the responsibility for education into the hands of larger authorities. In respect of Greater London we are to reverse that policy and put it back into the hands of smaller authoritions. That is not a light matter.
Another comment on the seriousness of the Bill comes from the Minister's own remarks on 24th January, when he said:
"We realise that this operation of reform makes all the progress we want on the housing and planning front more difficult for a couple of years."
There is to be two years' delay in the actual work of housing and planning in order to get through changes in the machinery.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Read on.
Mr. Stewart: The Minister said:
"…we are doing this because we believe that it will improve things after that period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1963; vol. 670, c. 326.]
Certainly. But does not the Minister realise that the first sentence is a statement of fact which everyone will accept? The second is a statement of the Government's view, and that is exactly what is in dispute. The House is entitled to full time to consider whether the reforms, so-called, contained in the Bill are so valuable as to justify delaying housing in London, of all places, for two years at this time.
Is it a Bill for which there is any great public demand? There has been some argument about the question of mandate and it was taken up by the Leader of the House. I will say a few words about it. But, first, may I make clear that I certainly do not argue that the Government are not entitled to introduce a Bill at all unless they had a mandate at the last election. I do say that when a Government not only introduced a Bill, but do so towards the end of their life as a Government, and then ask the House to accept a Guillotine Motion in respect of it, and when it cannot be shown that the Opposition have been obstructive, I think that they ought to be able to show some evidence that behind the Bill there is not only the will of a stale Government, but a clear expression of public will as well. That the Government cannot do.
It is silly to tell us about the vague general statements regarding local government reform that the Conservative Party made at the last election. Did they tell anyone that they proposed to destroy the councils of London and Middlesex? Did they dream of telling anybody that they would take the education, health and child care services of the counties and cut them up into a dozen or more bits? Did they tell their hon. Friends who represent Surrey constituencies that they would cut off two-thirds of the population of that county and leave the truncated remainder to manage the rest of the services?
The Government know perfectly well that even had they thought of doing so, they would never have dreamed of saying so before the election. It is in the absence of any such evidence of public
788
support that we say that the justification for moving a Guillotine Motion vanishes. Yet, despite the size of the Bill and the lack of any public support for it, we are being asked to toil through it in the Committee stage in seven weeks. The Leader of the House suggested 21 sittings. What we are having for Clause 1 and the First Schedule is equivalent to 12 sittings. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever put those figures side by side and looked at what is in the Bill?
I make the right hon. Gentleman a present of this. I should have accepted four days for Clause 1 and the First Schedule. We think that entirely reasonable. Had I been asked at the start how much time we wanted for Clause 1 and the First Schedule, being in Opposition, I should probably have said five days. I should have been perfectly content to settle for four. But surely the Leader of the House, if he has read the Bill, must realise that if four days is a reasonable allocation for those parts of the Bill which, after all, only establish the boroughs and delineate their boundaries, when we come to the reconstruction of practically all the local government services of 8 million people, an offer of only 21 meetings is absurdly out of proportion. If the equivalent of 12 meetings is right for Clause 1 and the First Schedule—I accept that it is—the provision made for discussing the rest of the Bill is ludicrously inadequate, and the Government must be aware of that.
Finally, is this an urgent Bill? Can the Government say, "We are truncating the discussion; nothing in the way in which the Opposition have behaved justifies us in so doing. We are inconveniencing the House and abusing the Guillotine procedure by using it where it is not necessary. But we do so because the safety and welfare of the State depends on getting the London Government Bill through in this Session"? Is that to be seriously argued? Has not the Government occasionally cast an eye on some of the other problems which might be occupying their attention at the present time?
I can tell the Leader of the House—I think he knows—why the Government are so anxious to get the Bill through in this Session. Because it provides for the election of the new local government bodies in the spring of next year. Why

789
does it provide for these elections then? It was not the original intention of the Government. In February, it was explained to us that those bodies were to be elected in the autumn of 1964. Suddenly, that is brought six months' nearer, and that is supposed to give urgency to the passage of the Bill. Why was this brought six months' nearer—to avoid the popular judgment on the Bill before the Government had managed to push it so far that they hoped that what they had done could not be undone?
Is the Leader of the House going to pretend that there is not an element of political manœuvre all through the passing of this Measure? We oppose this Motion, not just because it is common form for an Opposition to oppose a Guillotine Motion, but because the timing of this Motion and the method of its introduction is an affront to the House; because it is not justified by anything either in the conduct of the Opposition 01 the nature of the Bill and because it comes from a Government whose behaviour, whose fortunes and whose standing in the public eye is such that not only have they no authority for the Bill, but no authority for any other of their policies.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. A. E. Oram: I want to add my protest, as earnestly as I can, to the magnificent protest made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) against the procedure which the Government are adopting in connection with this Bill. I do so partly on grounds of general concern for good procedure in this House, partly because of its application to this Bill and, thirdly, I confess, because I am concerned about the effect of this Guillotine Motion on the due discussion of the case I hope to present on behalf of the borough which I have the honour to represent.
Listening to the Leader of the House moving the Motion, it seemed to me that he was not sufficiently aware, or conscience-stricken, about the very serious step involved in the introduction of a Motion of this kind. All authorities stress that the introduction of a Guillotine Motion, particularly at such an early stage as this, is a drastic step and one which should be taken only in the most extreme cases.
790
I recall that soon after I came to this House I had the temerity to suggest the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole procedure of Parliament. Later, I had the honour to serve on that Select Committee. When I got there I found that my senior colleagues were not so much concerned about points of procedure which I at that time thought of great significance, as with others which were more mysterious to me.
One, in particular, which I remember was very much debated in that Select Committee. It was one upon which the Committee ultimately made a recommendation, this question of the use of the guillotine. We had before us many expert and highly respected witnesses, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whom I see in his place. All of them expressed their utter dislike of the use of this drastic procedure of the guillotine. I shall not attempt to quote from many of those expert witnesses, but I ask the House to consider the views of two of them.
Mr. Speaker of that time, Mr. Speaker Morrison, gave his view to the Select Committee. I quote his answer to Question 928, in which he said that a compulsory timetable is
"a most regrettable step if it can possibly be avoided."
He described it as an instrument of
"last resort and a disagreeable one."
I ask the Leader of the House whether, in this case, he can justify the use of such a step as a disagreeable last resort, or is it being taken, not in that serious sense, but merely to serve the purposes of his Government and party?
The second expert witness I quote was the Clerk of the House at that time, whose services we all recall with great respect. Sir Edward Fellowes, in answer to Question 254, said:
"I regard the guillotine as a serious Parliamentary offence."
That is a very appropriate phrase to use in connection with the Motion which is now before the House. It is "a serious Parliamentary offence".
Both these witnesses, Mr. Speaker Morrison and Sir Edward Fellowes, made the point, which, I think, applies especially to this Bill, that the imposition of an Allocation of Time Motion acts

791
particularly to the disadvantage of Government back benchers who may be critical of a Bill. In answer to Question 253, Sir Edward Fellowes said:
"I consider that it is bad for legislation, because it tends to shut out Government back benchers."
Mr. Speaker Morrison said that a timetable
"tends to be parcelled out amongst…those issues which have caused the greatest dissension between the two parties and all the non-political parts of the Bill escape any scrutiny at all."
Presumably by "non-political" he meant the non-party-political parts.
I therefore urge the House that it is particularly bad to impose this Motion in the case of a complicated Bill such as this concerning which Government back benchers feel particularly aggrieved. When we are considering legislation which is not only in dispute between the Government and the Opposition, but in many important respects is in dispute between the Government and their own supporters, the only reasonable and fair way to proceed is by way of a voluntary agreement on a timetable, taking into account the wishes not only of the Opposition but of the other interests which have expressed themselves on the matter.
It is no use the Leader of the House or the Minister of Housing and Local Government saying that they have made an attempt in this case to get such a voluntary agreement. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham gave the House the full facts regarding the quite inadequate approaches which appear to have been made in this sense. Certainly, with a Bill of this kind it is necessary to let matters proceed in the ordinary way to get the feeling of the various people concerned before there is any possibility of a voluntary agreement.
I agree with my hon. Friend also in relation to what he said about the two days we have so far had for discussion of Clause 1. No case can possibly be made that in any sense the debates during those two days were unduly prolonged or obstructive. I wish to give two illustrations in connection with those debates which, I think, utterly refute any suggestion that hon. Members on this side of the House were in any way attempting to make unnecessary speeches, or had had their full
792
opportunity of putting forward their case as they saw it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) had a number of important points to make on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." She sat very diligently through the debates and sought to catch the eye of the Chair, but she was prevented from making her speech by the moving of the Closure and she has not yet had an opportunity of stating her case.
I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) is present. He will recall that during the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" both of us were seeking to catch the eye of the Chair because we had a number of general points to put before the Committee at that stage. But when I saw that he was attempting to speak we had a quick consultation and agreed that I would not further seek to catch the eye of the Chair and that only he would attempt to speak.
I am not saying that that is of great importance. I merely put it to illustrate the atmosphere which existed on this side of the House at that time. It shows that my hon. Friends and I were not seeking to make every possible speech, but only to put reasonable cases: and then to state them adequately and not at too great a length. I suggest that even on Clause 1 there was not adequate time for every point to be adequately dealt with.
I now turn to a point on which I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. He said, in relation to the Motion, that, in his view, the two days being allowed to discuss Schedule 1 were sufficient and that he would have settled for such a time limit had he been engaged in negotiations on the matter. I question whether two days will be sufficient.
I invite the House to consider why the Government decided to bring Clause 1 and the First Schedule before a Committee of the whole House. I would like to think that it was because they regarded the matter as of constitutional importance. It is traditional that constitutional matters should be given the status and dignity of consideration by a Committee of the whole House.

793
If it is appropriate that the constitution of a quite small Colonial Territory should come before the whole House, surely it is equally important that we should consider the constitutional rearrangement of the whole of the Metropolis in that way. That is obviously a vital piece of constitutional machinery which should come before a Committee of the whole House and, possibly, the Government had that in mind.
Mr. Iain Macleod: I would not like silence on this point to be taken as consent. The reason I thought it right to ask the House to consider Clause 1 and the First Schedule on the Floor of the House was, frankly, not so much because I regard them as in any definition of the word "constitutional"—because I do not—but because they affect so many hon. Members' constituencies. That is, with respect, a different point.
Mr. Oram: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having made that point, because I expected that that was the main reason why the Government brought the matter before the whole House. I recall, for instance, that during business questions on a number of Thursdays my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) pointed out that a great number of hon. Members were directly affected by these matters and that it would be impossible for them all to serve on a Committee upstairs, thus depriving them of an opportunity to move Amendments concerning their constituencies. I imagine that it was in response to that sort of representation that the Government decided to bring the matter before the whole House.
But if that was the reason, surely it is all the more important that full time should be allowed to enable all hon. Members to make their points, move Amendments and adequately discuss the affairs of their localities. In the Royal Commission's Report it is stated that 109 constituencies are directly affected in the review area. That means that 109 hon. Members are directly entitled to consider the Bill in relation to the boundaries of their constituencies. In addition, the other constituencies and local authorities in, say, Essex, Kent and Surrey are almost as directly affected because the remnants of those authorities are very much concerned. Thus there are a considerable
794
number of hon. Members who should be given an opportunity to state their points of view.
A study of the Order Paper reveals that about one-third of such hon. Members have a direct interest in the Amendments which have been tabled. I did some arithmetic this morning and I think that I am right in saying that 36 names appear in connection with the Amendments to the First Schedule. That does not take into account the other hon. Members who are entitled not to put down their names, but who may want to oppose the Amendments from the point of view of their local authorities.
It should be made clear that it is not a question of the House being divided on party lines. I counted the party affiliations of those whose names are on the Order Paper and discovered that there are fewer concerned with Amendments from this side of the House than from the Government side. I am open to correction, but I gather that there appear the names of 14 Opposition hon. Members and the names of 22 Government supporters—or perhaps I should say "Government supporters generally" since many of them do not support the Government on this issue. It is important to recall the views I quoted, especially those of Sir Edward Fellowes, to the effect that a Guillotine Motion of this kind acts even more to the disadvantage of Government back benchers than it does to Opposition hon. Members.
I am also concerned with the case of the borough which I represent, together with my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North. We are interested in a number of Amendments, in conjunction with our colleagues who represent neighbouring boroughs. I have checked the figures and have found that the Chair had indicated that eleven groups of Amendments were selected for the ordinary process of debate had this Motion not been brought forward.
No doubt when the Business Committee becomes active that number, eleven, may be reduced. Even so, and even if it is reduced to six or seven groups of Amendments which will have to be considered on the remaining two days, one must take into account other important aspects which are time consuming. There are, first, the hon. Members directly concerned—those promoting

795
the Amendments. Secondly, adequate time must be provided for hon. Members to state contrary views. Thirdly, we hope to receive full answers from the Minister, including full interventions from the Opposition Front Bench. Fourthly, we must take into account something which is so often forgotten; that a great deal of time is taken up in the Division Lobbies.
A four or five-hour debate is often truncated by voting and it will be found that on such important matters as local authority boundaries, and so on, hon. Members with a full and reasonable case' to adduce will be confined to just a few minutes each in which to establish often complicated and important cases.
It is natural for each hon. Member to regard his own case as especially important. I notice with trepidation that the cases of other local authorities like Bermondsey, Wandsworth and Wembley will be considered before the cases of East Ham, West Ham, Barking, and so on. I shall not be able to complain if my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) considers that Bermondsey is worth a good deal of detailed discussion. I fear that the later Amendments will be squeezed for time because of the very natural and understandable enthusiasm of other hon. Members for their cases. I have not the same enthusiasm for them, of course, but I am very anxious that there should be adequate consideration of the case of the part of London that I represent.
Already, East Ham is aggrieved at the way in which it has been treated. I have a letter here from the Town Clerk of East Ham concerning the review which was made by the four visiting town clerks when they examined the boundary proposals of the Bill. I will quote a few sentences from his letter about what went on at that inquiry:
"So far as metropolitan Essex was concerned a meeting was held, with all twelve authorities present, which lasted little more than a day and merely consisted of a short statement by each authority with a few questions by the Town Clerk of Plymouth, who conducted the meeting. He then made a quite cursory inspection of the area by car. No opportunity was given of challenging statements made, in cross-examination, and the view of many authorities present was that the whole thing was largely a waste of time and effort…"
796
That is an accusation of inadequate consideration being given to an important case. During the debate on Clause 1 the Minister said that he was prepared to think earnestly about proposals for different borough groupings. In our case a mistake which is so easily made by an outsider is to assume that because East Ham and West Ham are similarly named they should automatically be merged. It is obvious to anybody with a knowledge of the localities that an entirely different case emerges and that East Ham and Barking are more appropriate for merging than East Ham and West Ham. I hope to have the opportunity to develop that case later.
According to the Town Clerk of East Ham, our local case was not adequately heard. There may have been reasons for that which I do not know. However, if there was inadequate consideration at the local inquiry there must be adequate consideration of it here in the House of Commons where the final decision is made. It is because I believe that the timetable on the First Schedule is liable to truncate the discussion of this important case in East London, because what I feel about my own case is liable to be repeated throughout the whole of Greater London, and because this is a matter of great constitutional importance—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that neither of the two inquiries which took place, which were good and thorough investigations, namely, the Sir Edwin Herbert Committee and the Commission, recommended this proposal?
Mr. Oram: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It illustrates my point that there is much to be said that only adequate time will allow to be properly deployed. We are not likely to get adequate time.
I was saying that I believe that it is not only this local consideration which I have been trying to explain which makes the Motion particularly deplorable. The Bill determines the future government of the most important capital city in the world. Such sweeping changes as are here proposed ought not to be the victims of this highly undesirable and unwarranted Motion.
5.5 p.m.
Sir Hugh Linstead: The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) made two references to Government back

797
benchers being prejudiced by Guillotine Motions which aroused considerable sympathy in my mind. It was a reminder to the House that there are two oppositions in any House of this kind. One is the Opposition on the left-hand side of the Chair, which is an Opposition to the Government of the day. The other is the opposition of back benchers, certainly against the Government Front Bench, sometimes indeed against both Front Benches.
Any Guillotine Motion provokes a feeling of opposition among back benchers on both sides of the House against those who are responsible for the Motion. We all find any Guillotine Motion irritating and inconvenient, but that is a fault of the Motion and I do not think that in general Guillotine Motions can be regarded as an abuse of the procedure of the House. However, I have one very clear criticism of the Motion. At the risk of upsetting my right hon. Friend, I must add my protest about the short notice which has been given to the House of this change. It is obvious from looking round the House that hon. Members who are considerably concerned with the details of the Bill and who would have liked to have been here today have not found it possible to come today because of the extremely short notice given to them.
It follows from that that there is an obligation upon the Government to do all they can to minimise the inconvenience caused when fixing a timetable and, so far as possible, to ensure that each one of us who has perhaps a purely local point but nevertheless a point of importance has the time to make our point properly.
Having made that criticism, I must say that my general view of Guillotine Motions is that they are extremely sensible. They are an ordinary businesslike procedure. I am not a great admirer of the proceedings in the French National Assembly, but the French have a sensible habit of referring a Bill once it has received general approval to what is called a Commission of Presidents of the Parties to work out an agreed timetable for consideration of the details.
Although I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, I disagreed with his statement that he thought it was a mistake to have too early a timetable Motion. In
798
a complicated Bill if there is to be a timetable Motion the earlier we have it the better. When he spoke to us there may have been in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House some extension of the timetable procedure, but I do not think that we have found it necessary for the great bulk of Bills. They work themselves out in the ordinary course of events, but what therefore happens is that the guillotine procedure becomes necessary in practice only for highly controversial Bills. The procedure then ceases to be what on the surface it is designed to be, namely, a procedure to enable the House to give proper consideration to a Bill. It becomes a weapon in the hands of the Government in order to govern and a weapon in the hands of the Opposition in order to oppose. We have been very familiar with them in the past and I suspect that today we shall again listen to a number of speeches designed to obstruct the passage of this Motion and to that extent to obstruct the Government in securing the passage of the Bill.
I should like to see a timetable Motion become not a challenge to the Opposition and not a weapon in the hands of the Government capable of abuse, but a Motion in the hands of the House to enable the House to give better, more logical and more well-defined consideration to Amendments. It seems to me, therefore, with respect to this Motion that for the orderly running of our proceedings a great deal turns upon the Business Committee and its ability so to divide the time that a fair hearing is given not merely to individual hon. Members but more particularly in this case to the localities which they represent.
Mr. A. Lewis: Is the hon. Member not aware that usually a Guillotine Motion is brought in when there is a wide divergence of opinion between Government supporters and the Opposition, but on this Bill a number of hon. Members opposite are, rightly, very much opposed to it and they will take up a great deal of the time which in our view properly should be the time of the Opposition? A timetable Motion is usually so arranged as to give fair play to the Opposition, but we have no means of controlling the period for which hon. Members opposite will use the allocation of time which rightly should be ours.
Sir H. Linstead: I think that the hon. Member is supporting the point of view which I wanted to urge, which was that it was important that the Business Committee should so sub-divide the allotted time as to be certain that on these constituency and local points each district affected is afforded time. There is nothing to prevent the time being so allocated to particular Amendments as to ensure that each local case can be properly put.
Mr. A. Lewis: Let us assume for argument's sake that an hour or two is allowed for a particular Amendment. If an hon. Member opposite speaks, he can take up half or even the whole of that allotted time if he wishes. No one can stop him. He can take up the time which should be alloted to others on the Opposition side to debate the issue.
Sir H. Linstead: The hon. Member is assuming that that habit is confined to this side of the House. It would be easily possible for an hon. Member opposite to do that.
Mr. A. Lewis: It is not our Bill, it is the Government's Bill.
Sir H. Linstead: These are Amendments where the opposition is not confined to this or that side of the House, but to putting particular cases. All I ask is that the Business Committee should attempt to ensure that each of these local points is properly put, no matter whether by my hon. Friends or by hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Marsh: This is an important point. Is not a case being properly put until such time as it can be said that somebody is improperly obstructing the business? Is it part of the hon. Member's case that some of the people who have put points so far have been obstructing business? If they have not been obstructing, then surely they are entitled to go on putting those points.
Sir H. Linstead: It is not part of my case that there has been obstruction on the questions which we have considered so far, and particularly on the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I am anxious to secure that when we come to the local points in the First Schedule, an opportunity shall be given, through the recommendations of the Business Committee, to ensure that par-
800
ticular groups of the community are not denied the chance to have their case deployed to the House. I do not wish to go further than that.
I want to come back to the general principle which I enunciated earlier and to say that I gathered from what the Leader of the House said when he moved the Motion that there was in his mind some possibility of a Select Committee examining the whole question of the guillotine procedure. I would welcome it, not in relation to a specific Bill such as this one, but as a general question of our manner of conducting business.
Guillotine procedures which are simply a challenge to the Opposition and merely sharpen their objections to a Measure are not designed to ensure that our business is carried through in the best way. They are also liable to abuse in that a Government, no matter of what party, may use them to force through business without proper discussion. I am sure that we want to devise a system whereby we have timetable Motions designed not for the advantage of the Opposition or of the Government but essentially for the advantage of the House, to enable it to do its business properly.
Mr. A. Lewis: Is not the hon. Member aware that the Government already have their opportunity? They can move the Closure at any time if they like on any Question, and subject to Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker feeling that an adequate discussion has ensued, the Closure is put so that there can be no attempt at filibustering.
Sir H. Linstead: Since I was in the House between 1945 and 1950 I know something of filibustering from the point of view of the filibusterer, and having been in the House for the last seven or eight years I have experienced filibustering from the other point of view. Without Guillotine or timetable Motions, any determined Opposition can wreck any Government programme.
5.18 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: Even though the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has given general support to the Government's view and to the Motion, and even though he has gone further than that and has presented a case in favour of more and more timetable Motions, I still think that he

801
deserves to be congratulated, because as far as I know he is the only back bencher opposite who is seeking to intervene in the debate. During most of the debate there have been three back benchers opposite and now there are five or six, with three Ministers, and one Parliamentary Private Secretary, which does not add up to a full House by any reckoning.
The hon. Member for Putney gave as his reason for the emptiness of that side of the House the fact that hon. Members had not received proper warning because of the Government's haste. That may be the explanation, or there may be others. There may be other activities going on in the Palace of Westminster. Hon. Members may be murdering the Common Market or electrocuting the Minister of Power, or engaging in some other desirable activity of that sort. But, whatever they are doing, I hope that it is noted, particularly in London, how few hon. Members opposite have intervened in the debate.
I hope that none of those who have refused to come here and oppose the Motion today will go to their London constituencies and say that they did not have a proper opportunity to put the case in the House for their part of London. No Conservative Member of Parliament who has failed to turn up and participate in the debate has any right at a later stage to protest at the speed with which the Government have put the matter through.
Mine is not a London constituency, but I do not believe that a debate of this kind should be monopolised by those who are directly concerned with the Bill. The Bill concerns the whole country and the whole House of Commons. Even if that were not accepted hitherto—and I should think that it would be because the government of London can have a great effect on the whole country and on the world—the fact that this Motion comes before us today and, in particular, the reasons given by the Leader of the House for presenting it underline that the whole country is very much concerned. This is the aspect of the matter to which I shall come in a few minutes.
It may well be thought that the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) was so overwhelming and devastating that it demolished the Government's case completely and there is nothing further to
802
be said. I certainly agree that it was one of the most devastating speeches I have ever heard in the House. At the end of it, there was not a scrap of the Government's case left. However, there were some remarks made by the Leader of the House which deserve comment in the interests not only of London but of the House of Commons.
The Leader of the House said that there is really only one argument on one side and one argument on the other side of the House in these debates. Presumably, what he means is that the Government say that the majority must have its way and the argument of the Opposition is that the minority has the night to state its case, and that is really what it is all about. The right hon. Gentleman spoke almost as though debates on Guillotine Motions were a kind of game. He produced quotations from what had been said on previous occasions, suggesting that the matter could be lightly dismissed in that fashion. That is the way he approached it today, and that is why he was so effectively demolished by my hon. Friend. Indeed, if there were only one argument on the Government side, the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the arguments which he did produce in support of his case, would have been wiser to stick to that one argument.
What were the claims which the right hon. Gentleman made? First, he quoted his precedents—only two, so far as we could discover—to prove the charge that the Labour Party was determined to obstruct the Bill. He quoted Lord Morrison and he quoted a statement made by the Labour Party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said, this was no reason for introducing a Guillotine Motion in this House. All the statements he quoted about alleged prospects of obstruction were made months or even years ago.
In another part of his speech, the Leader of the House boasted that he wanted to be frank with the House. If he intended to cite those precedents, he would have been much more frank with the House if he had said at the beginning of the Bill that he intended to have a guillotine on it right away. He had no right whatever to produce, as reasons for bringing forward this Motion, statements about obstruction made many months ago which were

803
fully known to him when the Bill was introduced in the first place. So those arguments do not stand up.
Dealing with the speed with which the Motion had been put on the Order Paper, the Leader of the House said that he and the Chief Whip had been grinding out the stuff on the duplicating machine and they had managed to get 400 copies into the Vote Office. They were aggrieved that only four people had taken copies. Apparently, the Chief Whip's arm is still aching, and the two right hon. Gentlemen are much aggrieved.
I did not have the curiosity to go and look at the Motion. One does not have to read between the lines of an edict of Nero to know that it is tyrannical. I knew perfectly well that the kind of Motion which they would spend all the afternoon typing out and duplicating would be the kind of thing we have before us today. I think that it is to the credit of the acumen of all but four Members of the House that they did not have any curiosity about what would be in the Motion.
Sir K. Joseph: The Motion, when produced, did provide for what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) described as a generous provision on the Floor of the House for the remaining parts of the First Schedule.
Mr. Foot: We all knew that the Government, particularly when they spent the whole afternoon on the matter, would have a little sugar to coat the pill. Of course they did. But the whole Motion is unsatisfactory and, as my hon. Friend says, it is tyrannical and obstructive to the proper performance of its duties by the House. That argument does not stand up.
Next—I thought that this was the most offensive part of his speech—the Leader of the House sought to say, as most Ministers have, that the Bill had nothing to do with party politics. Such a thought never crosses their minds. Never, even in the most secret recesses where they decide these matters, has that possibility been mentioned. It never occurs to them that there are any political implications in the Bill at all. That is the claim of the Leader of the House. He really should not lay it on as thick as that. He
804
does have another job. He is head of the Conservative Central Office. Perhaps it is not so easy for him to keep his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde activities readily and permanently separated. I dare say that even Dr. Jekyll himself had occasional illicit passions, even if they did not land him in trouble with the General Medical Council. Even the Dr. Jekyll we have here may, occasionally, have thoughts occurring to him which he should properly have only when he is Mr. Hyde across the way. It is quite absurd for the Leader of the House to pretend that no partisan matters arise.
What are we left with in the argument of the Leader of the House? He quoted a speech made by Aneurin Bevan on one occasion, and he thought that he was quoting with great effect. He said that both sides argue about Guillotine Motions but that each Motion has to be judged on its merits and has to be judged on the particular case. I do not think that anyone contests that view. But, if that is to be the basis on which the speeches of the Leader of the House are to be judged, what then? If the case for a Guillotine Motion is to be judged on the particular facts of the particular case, it is absolutely essential that the Leader of the House should prove that there has been some form of obstruction. That must be proved.
What we had from the right hon. Gentleman today was not even the slightest attempt at such proof. In reply to one of my hon. Friends who asked whether he was saying that there had been any obstruction, his answer was that, at least, one could say that there had been no marked anxiety on the part of the Opposition to get the Bill through. Of course not. If that is the justification for a guillotine, one could have a guillotine in any case where the Opposition showed no marked anxiety to get a Measure through. Thus, the only basis upon which the Leader of the House founded his case today, applied to this particular Guillotine Motion, is one on which one could have a guillotine on almost any Measure which a Government brought before the House of Commons.
This is why I think that the speech of the Leader of the House was extremely dangerous for the House of Commons as a whole, not only from the point of view of London. If a speech of that kind were to be allowed to pass without dissent

805
or comment, the situation would be serious indeed. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite had responsibilities in this matter, but most of them have not discharged their responsibilities today.
We have had so many Guillotine Motions over the past two or three years that the numbers of people who turn up to discuss them are getting smaller and smaller. This is very serious. I can remember the days, not many years ago, when debates on Guillotine Motions were very fiercely fought. Today, there is a number of hon. Members on this side and very few hon. Members opposite. This process suits the Government. The Government like Guillotine Motions; they do not mind them. It is an easy way for them to get their business through. But Governments get changed.
We are discussing something which concerns the whole House of Commons. It is very serious that a Motion of this kind should be proposed on such flippant grounds, it is very serious that the Leader of the House should not think it important to put forward a substantial case to try to convince the House of the need for it, and it is a further aggravation that the House of Commons itself has become so used to this procedure that it thinks that the Motion can go through in a short time.
I do not say that it would not be possible to find a single precedent in the opposite sense, but I can remember the time, not many years ago, when it was regarded as almost certain that if the Government proposed to introduce a Guillotine Motion they had to devote a full day's debate to it. I do not say that if we ransacked the archives we should not find a single case in which something different happened, but I am sure that hon. Members who have been members of the House for many years will agree that up to a few years ago almost every time that the Government wanted to introduce a guillotine a whole day's debate had to be given up for it. It is right that Governments should have to do this because it is one of the deterrents to their introducing Guillotine Motions. That is not the case now.
The Leader of the House has very grave responsibilities. I am not sure how long he has been Leader of the House, but I guarantee that he has intro-
806
duced more Guillotine Motions than any other Leader of the House for many years. I doubt whether a Leader of the House has introduced as many Guillotine Motions in a period of office of one and a half years as the present Leader of the House. This is a very serious state of affairs. We had the guillotine on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. Earlier we had the guillotine on the National Health Service Bills and on the Pipelines Bill. I have not the exact figures, but in his short spell as Leader of the House, not yet two years, the right hon. Gentleman must have introduced six or seven Guillotine Motions.
Mr. Mellish: The Government even introduced the guillotine on the Road Safety Bill.
Mr. Foot: It is becoming common practice, and, of course, if the House allows it, the Government will go on doing it. They will not restrain themselves. When they hear speeches of the kind we have heard today encouraging them to go ahead and introduce more Guillotine Motions, they will be very eager to do it.
The hon. Member for Putney apparently thinks that it is good for the House of Commons that debates on every major Bill should be fixed in advance by a timetable, with everything orderly and arranged, with half an hour for this and one and a half hours for that and votes at regular intervals, and I am sure that members of the Government would agree with him. The Chief Whip would love it. The Minister would not have to show any deference to the House. He would not even have to show any courtesy to the House. He would not have to consider whether it was advantageous for him to give way, or whether he should think about certain matters again. It would all be cut and dried. The Minister would know exactly when he would get his Bill and it would not matter what anyone said in the House.
The only sanction which the House of Commons has over discourteous Ministers who will not listen to what they are being told is to disrupt the Government's timetable. All the theorists outside who say that it is unwise and stupid that there should be all-night sittings in the House of Commons, and that the House should be kept up late and prevented from going

807
home, and who consider it an extraordinary way to run the affairs of a great nation, do not understand the process of discussion in the House. We can enforce proper sanctions on the Government only if we can dictate to them how long the discussion will be. But if the Government can dictate to the House of Commons on how long the discussion will be, all power is in the hands of the Government. This is the situation to which the Government, and, in particular, the Leader of the House, are working.
Mr. A. Lewis: Where is the Leader of the House?
Mr. Foot: He has left the debate. He went a long way towards enunciating in plain open words the doctrine which I am attributing to him. He took a sentence of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and misconstrued it. As I understood it, he said that he thought that we had reached the stage when all major controversial Measures should be subject to the guillotine, that it was becoming accepted more and more that this was how we should conduct our affairs in the House. Certainly, from his conduct, that appears to be the basis on which he is working.
Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is what has happened with most controversial Measures in the past. But that is not true. A large number of highly controversial Measures have gone through the House since 1945 without the imposition of the guillotine.
I suppose that few more controversial Measures than the National Health Service Bill have passed through the House since 1945. It was such a controversial Measure that it was opposed on every conceivable occasion by hon. Members opposite who were then in opposition. They voted against the Second Reading. They even went to the extreme course of putting down a reasoned Amendment against the Third Reading, a very rare occurrence on a Bill such as that, as hon. Members will know. They tabled many Amendments and there were bitter discussions in Committee. Discussion of the Bill took up many days and there was bitter controversy about it in the House reflecting the controversy outside. But that Bill was carried through the House without the imposition of the guillotine.
808
Many other Measures which were just as controversial and just as far-reaching as the Bill before us now were passed between 1945 and 1951 without the imposition of the guillotine.
The Government, in thinking that they can ram through a Measure of this kind without even having made the effort to get it through the House by proper debate, are debasing the House of Commons. They have no right to do what they are attempting to do. To add to the offence, they have not sought to justify their action in the House today. All that the Leader of the House did was to say, "Let us make our old ploys in the guillotine game. I wash my hands of it. I have a Conservative Central Office meeting to attend"—or whatever the meeting may be—"and the House of Commons can go hang". I do not blame the few back bench Members opposite who have turned up for this state of affairs because presumably they are here for some purpose, although it is an un-revealed purpose at the moment. But what about the others? They do not care a scrap what happens to the House of Commons. They do not care a scrap that this Measure is being forced through by this quite improper Motion.
The Government are not merely slashing and tearing the Government of London, as I understand from my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies, for their own party purposes in a manner which is utterly disgraceful, but in the process they are inflicting the gravest possible injury on the House of Commons itself, and it is time that the House protested.
5.40 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: I speak today with an apology because I have not been in the House as long as other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken and who have had considerable experience of this procedure, either in Opposition or in Government. I do not think that anybody is endeared of the guillotine procedure. My particular complaint, touched upon by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), is that we have had such short notice of this Motion. He drew attention to the fact that so few hon. Members are present. This is not due to discourtesy by hon. Members on either side of the House but to the fact that they had such short notice of this Motion.

809
The London Government Bill covers an enormous range. It encompasses not only the rights and privileges of thousands of people working in the county councils but also those of the boroughs and their boundaries. It is one of the longest Bills I have seen since I entered this House. It covers an inordinate number of matters.
One of my objections to the Government's policy on this matter is that there is perhaps a tendency for the Bill to be rushed through without sufficiently detailed examination of each Clause and the effect which it will have on the electorate. I must be careful at this point, because we are only discussing the Motion as related to the London Government Bill, but it is fair to say that the Bill will affect, in some degree or other, about one-fifth of the country's population. I believe, therefore, that the Government have been wrong in serving such short notice of this Motion, and have also erred on the mean side in the amount of time to be allocated to consideration of the Bill.
There have been suggestions, to which I am not a party, that the guillotine is necessary because certain hon. Members are blocking the passage of the Bill. With the exception of today, I can honestly say that all the speeches I have heard from both sides of the House have had behind them genuine and deep feelings, expressed by hon. Members not only on behalf of their constituents but as a reflection of their own feelings and consciences. On the other hand, one must face reality. We obviously cannot have this Measure going on for the entire Session, important though it is. Other Measures must also be considered.
My chief concern is one which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead)—the question of timing. If Amendments to the Schedules are to be given proper consideration it would be more equitable for an equal amount of time to be given to the discussion of each Schedule, otherwise hon. Members, being also extremely annoyed over the first three Schedules, will devote an inordinate amount of time to them. This will mean that those who are unfortunate enough to be concerned with later Schedules—I am in the middle so that I can be fair to those who come before and after—will not get a fair share of the time. We must be absolutely
810
certain that when the timetable is drawn up there is a method by which a reasonable amount of time is allowed for discussion of each Schedule. The Government consider it sufficiently important to have Clause 1 and the First Schedule on the Floor of the House. These matters are of great local importance in the London area and adequate time should be devoted to them.
I do not want to detain the House—
Mr. Mellish: Go on.
Dr. Glyn: No, because the longer we talk on the Guillotine Motion the shorter will be the time for discussing Amendments to the Bill.
Mr. Marsh: Why?
Dr. Glyn: It is quite clear, whether one supports the Bill fully or not, that the Guillotine Motion will be passed. Therefore, the shorter the time we take to discuss it the more time we will have to discuss the Bill.
Mr. Marsh: Would not the logic of that argument lead to the conclusion that an issue like this should be passed formally? This involves curtailment of Parliamentary discussion, which the hon. Gentleman admits offends a great deal of Parliamentary opinion. Yet he objects to spending long in discussing it.
Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman has come to the point with which I intended to deal. We are, first, discussing the guillotine as it affects the Bill. Many hon. Members have gone further. In that respect I am with them. I think that the whole question of the guillotine procedure should be carefully looked at. Obviously, it is the aim of any Government to secure a Measure in the minimum amount of time in many cases.
Mr. Marsh Mr. Marsh indicated dissent.
Dr. Glyn: The hon. Member shakes his head, but this is a means by which debate can be curtailed to the length which the Government wish to have. Whether one agrees or not with this machinery is another question. Personally I think there is a lot to be said for what has been suggested by hon. Members—that the whole question of timetable Motions and proceedure should be looked at by a Select Committee. I do not like the idea of the

811
Guillotine. I wish there could be some other Parliamentary means to ensure hon. Members adequate time to express their views without having to resort to this type of machinery which I believe we all agree does not produce the best relations between the two sides of the House.
Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Gentleman referred to a Select Committee. I sat on a Select Committee in the 1958…59 Session which put up all sorts of ideas to the Government. But this Government are notorious for setting up Select Committees in order to stave off crises. Broadly speaking, the results of our considerations were completely wasted by the Government, who never intended to do anything about this matter anyway. As Aneurin Bevan once put it, the hon. Gentleman does not want to gaze into the crystal when he can read the book.
Dr. Glyn: I am grateful, for what the Gentleman has said supports my contention. I think that there should be a Select Committee, of which the Government take note, in order to review the whole question of Parliamentary procedure. I can see that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is extremely annoyed.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I do not think that it would be in order if this debate were to turn into a review of Parliamentary procedure. What we are debating is the Motion in relation to this particular Bill.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Of course we accept your Ruling but, with great respect, I ask you to reconsider it because, in effect, the whole of the discussion today is on a matter of Parliamentary procedure. The Guillotine Motion is a procedural Motion. I should have thought it relevant for an hon. Member to say that a Select Committee had considered alternative systems. That is the point which I put. The question is whether we need this procedure to curtail Parliamentary discussion. The hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Glyn) asked, quite rightly, whether there was any other way. The hon. Member in his ignorance said that we ought to set up a Select Committee in the future. I reminded him that a Select Committee had already considered this in the quite recent past.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Reference in passing is in order, but we have a Motion before us and the debate should be kept to that as far as possible.
Dr. Glyn: I am sorry if I have trespassed and I will not continue the argument which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was kind enough to take up, except to say that I hope that we shall not have to debate a Guillotine Motion in future and that there will be other means of accommodating the House.
This is a Guillotine Motion on a specific subject and I do not think that I will be out of place if I say that I hope that, if it is carried, the Motion will not result in my right hon. Friend forcing his will on the House on each occasion. I hope that he will use the Guillotine with discretion and not force hon. Members into the Lobby against him by refusing to listen to our arguments on the various items which come up.
Finally, I make one last appeal to those on the Business Committee to make sure that an equitable allocation of time is given to all the Amendments so that each constituency point can be given the consideration which it merits.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. Ede: The Leader of the House paid me the compliment of alluding to my speech on Second Reading and saying that I was very near the truth. An hon. Friend of mine said that I was an expert witness. There is a well-known epigram which indicates that expert witnesses are very remote from the truth. All I did was to deal with the facts of the case.
I got my copy of the Bill from the Vote Office. It contains 205 pages, 17 Schedules and nine parts. It is not possible to get a Bill of this size through the House of Commons without a guillotine, and I said so. That does not mean that I like the guillotine, particularly when I am on this side of the House. During the short time that I led the House, I had a majority of only six, and any Leader of the House who proposes a Guillotine Motion when he has a majority of six will find that he is the first victim. Even during the terror at the time of the French Revolution one or two of the people who were very near the top when the thing started never ran the risk, if

813
they could avoid it, of getting too near the instrument.
This is a Bill which wipes out local government as we have known it in London and the suburbs and elaborately, through 17 Schedules enacts an altogether new machinery. The hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), who played a distinguished part in opposing the Bill last week—and all credit to him for it—has hinted at the real trouble. When the House resumes in Committee and we return to the First Schedule, we shall lay out the pattern of local government in areas over the whole of this great part of the country. I have put on the Amendment Paper an Amendment, No. 36. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has put down one, No. 35.
If it is decided by the Business Committee that the end of Amendment No. 35 shall be the end of one compartment of time under the Business Committee's Report, I shall be very happy, because I shall start the next stage with my Amendment No. 36. But when we reach Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, the hon. and learned Member, whose Amendment I intend to support if it is called, will be "sweating on the top line", as we used to say in unhappier times, and will be wondering whether he will be allowed to speak.
From my knowledge of the area with which his Amendment deals, I know that about 350,000 people want his Amendment to be discussed. Whether it is discussed depends on the kind of luck which operates while that part of the Bill is being discussed. I hope that the Business Committee will see that the compartments of time applied to the First Schedule are quite small so that each of the areas concerned can have a chance of having its future adequately discussed. We can be certain that when the Bill is passed and the Royal Assent is given, it will be a good few years before any rearrangement of authorities in the London area is undertaken.
If any future Leader of the House asks the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the House for advice on introducing a Bill to rearrange the areas of local government in Greater London, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will reply, "You leave it where I left it". Unless he is a member
814
of my party, the right hon. Gentleman would not advise him to bring in any such Bill.
Let us face the fact that the House still preserves too much of the atmosphere of the House of Commons of the eighteenth century, when there were about a dozen gladiators—I am talking of the period before the abolition of the Irish Parliament—and about 550 Members who came here merely to take part when a Division was called. I sometimes think that we have almost got back to it when I am asked whether there is to be a Division and when people say that, if there is not, there is no need to worry. The type of Member we now have has so changed in the 170 years since that time that every hon. Member is now expected by his constituents to take an active part in the business of the House. I am talking about the House as it is.
I think that we have to face up to the fact that one cannot get great Measures through easily. It was no surprise to the Leader of the House that I said what I did on the Second Reading of the Bill. He has quoted a similar statement that I made on a previous occasion. We have now to face the fact of the review of London government which, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) pointed out the other night, in 1953 I said was a matter which demanded attention. I still think so. I am glad that the present Government have been foolhardy enough to bring in this Bill so that in the next Parliament, whoever is leading the House, will not be worried by anything of this kind.
Mr. Mellish: I should hope that we would amend this wretched Bill when we were in power.
Mr. Ede: I would like to see my hon. Friend trying to use his blandishments on whoever may be the Leader of the next House. I know that the proposition is well-nigh irresistible but he would find that the irresistible force of my hon. Friend's bonhomie had reached the irremovable obstacle of Government necessity.
People all over greater London will find themselves grouped with other people under this Bill, it may be without any discussion of their particular problem at all unless the Business Committee

815
sees that the compartments on this particular page are very small. I have tabled Amendment No. 36.
I know how keenly all my fellow burgesses in Epsom and Ewell feel on this issue. I know from my contacts with members of the Croydon Town Council how much they hope that they will not be brigaded with Coulsdon and Purley, and how the constituents in Coulsdon and Purley of the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East are quite determined that if they can avoid it they will never become any part of any local government unit which consists, apart from them, of Croydon. These antipathies exist. The jealousies which exist between neighbours are one of the difficulties that any reform of local government always have to contend with.
I regard the remainder of the First Schedule as the most important part of the Bill as far as the main aims of local government are concerned. The local government machine should exist to create communities, groups of people who feel that they owe a common loyalty to the community in which they live. Where such communities exist it is very dangerous indeed to attempt to divide them or to link them up with somebody else who does not quite hold all the same ideals that they do. Inside such a community there can still be strong parties, although their loyalty is to the whole human mass of population that makes up that community.
I know that as far as those parts of the county of Surrey are concerned they resent very much indeed the way in which they are being torn away from their own county and some of them put into London and others linked up with boroughs with whom they feel they have no great concern. They will take a long time to become new communities which will be imbued with a sense of local patriotism that will enable the work there to be done adequately and appropriately.
Last week I was astounded at the way so able a Minister as the Minister of Housing and Local Government suddenly found that somebody who drafted the Bill had managed to bring in principles which I had never heard of in connection with local government. The size of a community has nothing to do with the principle. I cannot give way
816
on this, because the Government have decided that 60,000 is the number and—
Sir K. Joseph: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to tease me, but I was talking about the size of a council, as he will remember. I am sure that he does not wish me to be less than candid with the House. I could easily have got away with saying that I was going to reconsider the size, having secret reservations about still imposing the maximum, but I thought it my duty to explain the full extent of the concession I was prepared to make.
Mr. Ede: I am sorry; I was so absorbed in the problem of 60,000 at one time in connection with the new communities that I forgot that I was temporarily alluding to the number of councillors who will be elected to the new bodies. I do not believe that there is any principle in that.
I served on an urban district council of nine, which we increased to 12 and then to 18. Then the area was incorporated with an adjoining area and the council now consists of 40 members. I started in 1908 and I have come right down to the present day, and during the whole of that period the efficiency of the local government of that area has not depended merely on the number of councillors, but on the number of councillors who are willing to give sufficient time and attention to be able to formulate policy that commends itself to the community.
I saw the Surrey County Council grow from 77 to just over 100—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Member, but this is not an occasion to go into the merits of what is in the Bill. We are discussing purely an Allocation of Time Motion.
Mr. Ede: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think that I have made the point that I wanted to make.
What we want to get is a feeling all over this great area that although it is very difficult sometimes to find the physical boundaries, that we create a group of communities which can each be self-contained and yet play a vital part in the whole area. I regard this as the core of the Bill.

817
I believe that London has never been quite able to establish itself as a unit. Therefore, I have always felt that it was necessary that as the mass of people grew in number there should be some revision. I want the revision to be made, however, on the basis of trying to get the willing grouping of these people into communities that are viable, that can take a pride in themselves and that can carry on the tradition of local government, which, on the whole, has been very sound.
Unless the Business Committee is careful in the way in which it recommends the House to deal with the remainder of the First Schedule, I do not believe that we shall get that ideal. If Coulsdon and Purley, and Epsom and Ewell and numbers of other places get no chance of having their voice heard on the Floor of the House of Commons in this matter, there will be a continuing grievance that will embitter public life in those and other areas for a good many years.
There has been too much attention to detail in the Bill for it to receive adequate consideration on the Floor of the House. Therefore, what we do on the remainder of the First Schedule I regard as being a test of whether the Bill, when it becomes an Act, can adequately deal with the many problems that will confront the great community which it ought to serve.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise for only a few minutes, because I have not been present for the whole of the debate and I regret that I have to leave presently. It is not right, therefore, to detain the House for long.
I endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—except, of course, when he was out of order—that he was kind enough to make about my constituency, the way it has been treated and the feelings that undoubtedly will be aroused there, and in me, if, when we come to the Amendment in the First Schedule, in page 89, line 42, column 2, to leave out from "Croydon" to the end of line 43, we are in any way prevented from putting our quite genuine views.
I also thoroughly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the necessity in the Bill of getting agreement among the people affected so far as is possible. I do not know whether my
818
right hon. Friend the Minister intends to steamroller the Bill without considering Amendments, or without attempting to obtain agreement simply because he has a guillotine. If he does that and it is simply a matter of looking at the clock, he will leave behind a very bad taste.
Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. and learned Member realises, I am sure, that, to mix my metaphors, the guillotine must inevitably steamroller some of the Amendments. The timetable will inevitably ensure that some Amendments are not even considered.
Mr. Doughty: I do not know how long each Amendment will take; we must wait and see. It also depends upon the Minister. That is why I stress that if he is reasonable, gives way and tries to accommodate hon. Members who have put down Amendments, on whatever side of the Committee they sit, the Bill is likely to go through a great deal more quickly.
If, however, the Guillotine Motion is for the purpose of getting the Bill through without any possible agreement, or without Amendments being accepted in whole or in part, what is the point of the Committee stage? We might as well have a guillotine of an hour for the whole Bill, half-an-hour for each Front Bench. If the Bill is got through in that way, the Minister must know that it is not 630 Members of Parliament who are affected, but 8 million people, who will say that he was the person who stood in their way.
For those reasons, I cannot support the Guillotine Motion. If there had been, even on a Bill which I do not support, obvious filibustering—and I have been a Member of the House long enough to recognise it when I see it—I should have supported the Motion, because I cannot agree with filibustering. I have, however, served in Committees of the House for the whole of the period during which I have been a Member. Although Clause 1 and the first part of the First Schedule did not go fast, there was certainly no suggestion of filibustering, bearing in mind that the matters discussed were extremely important and vital.
To impose a guillotine before the Committee upstairs has even met is certainly rapid work. I am choosing my words

819
carefully so as to cause offence to nobody. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take careful note of what has been said by the right hon. Member for South Shields about the views of those affected by the Bill. I refer not to Members of Parliament, but to the 8 million people around this big city. I ask him to look at the Amendments before we consider them and to do his best, where possible, to accept Amendments which would make the Bill a better one and would certainly leave a better taste in the mouths of those affected by the passing of the Bill than otherwise would be the case.
6.17 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am glad that the Leader of the House has returned. After making his "maiden" speech, he left the House and has not been back for long. I am sorry that he missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). It was a speech to which the Minister should have listened above all others. My hon. Friend put his finger on the important points.
It is all very well to say that Guillotine Motions are fun between the two sides of the House, but they are not. Debates on such Motions must necessarily be about what this House is about. I always thought that it represented the best of democracy. I gathered, however, that in matters of this kind, when democracy is held up, the Leader of the House treats it as a "lark". That is not what it is.
I may well differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale in saying that at the end of the day a Guillotine Motion may well be necessary for a Government to get their business through. In the instances where a Guillotine Motion is introduced, however, it must be proved beyond doubt that the Opposition have abused democracy and have adopted methods which make it impossible for the Government to get their business. But for a Government to say, as the Government have said on today's Motion, that even before we go upstairs into Committee they will impose a Guillotine Motion, is an indication to the next Government—which, I pray, will be a Labour Government—that the Conservative Party invites them to bring in a Guillotine Motion with every controversial Bill which it introduces. That would be a monstrous abuse of democracy.
820
I have not put the position as effectively or as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. I wish that the Leader of the House could have listened to my hon. Friend's speech, because one can feel passionately about the principle of Guillotine Motions irrespective of the Bills to which they relate.
I feel strongly about the Bill. I admit that to stop the Bill I would do almost anything short of pulling out a revolver and shooting the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I am, however, a democrat and I recognise that in the House of Commons, one can go only so far on a point of debate. Naturally, I would put down as many Amendments as I could to hold up the Bill. The stage would have been reached when, because of my enthusiasm, the Minister would be compelled to introduce his Guillotine Motion. Then, no doubt, I should have been quoted as a good example of why the Government were compelled to introduce such a Motion.
In the debate on Clause 1, I spoke on only three occasions, for not more than ten minutes each time and from the Front Bench. On no occasion could I have been accused of filibustering. We heard in Committee from a number of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). Their argument is to the effect that those in the Conservative Party are a little bit worried about the guillotine, but that they do not mind it provided their own points are discussed. What happens after that does not matter.
So long as we can discuss Putney, or Clapham, or East Surrey, all will be well. That is not what the Bill is all about. It is a question of whether we are all to be able to discuss matters which concern all our constituencies in this Greater London area.
Sir H. Linstead: I know that the hon. Member would not want to do me an injustice. I was patricularly anxious to point out that when we came to the timetable relating to the First Schedule there was an obligation on the Business Committee to see that every community mentioned in that Schedule had a fair share of the time and that time was available for each.
Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for a long time—for as long as I have—and he knows that it is

821
impossible for the Business Committee to do so. It would be impracticable to discuss the First Schedule on the basis of exactly how much time there should be for each area; and let us be fair. If debate is worth anything there must be debate.
If the hon. Gentleman mentions Wandsworth, and what he says is accepted, then that discussion would end immediately and the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied. But it all depends upon the debate and the answers which flow across the Floor of the House. We cannot ask the Business Committee to work out in detail all such matters of principle. That is why this Guillotine Motion is so disgraceful. I have done some homework on the Minister's own Motion. Perhaps he does not care very much about it. If Enfield comes out all right perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has lost whatever small interest he may have had. Perhaps all he was worried about was Enfield.
In 21 sittings upstairs we are to deal with 86 Clauses and 17 Schedules, which means that on every sitting we must get through at least four Clauses. Really! I know that some Clauses are not important and that one, for example, is called "Title", but there are at least 80 that are of fundamental importance and are of importance to one in five of the electorate.
We are accused of preaching in this House the importance of London, of getting emotional about the greatest city in the world; but not only the area of London of which I am proud to be part, but one in five of our population is affected, and four Clauses will have to be dealt with at every sitting. How can we possibly have a proper debate?
Mr. Ede: Has my hon. Friend forgotten the 17 Schedules, nearly each of which rewrites whole Acts of local government law?
Mr. Mellish: No; and some Clauses are really several Clauses. I do not know how it could be done. We have discussed what kind of timetable could be produced and when the Minister gets up he had better answer the questions about the timetable. This provision is not good enough for the debating of such a Bill.
822
We have been sneered at and jeered at for arguing that there is no mandate for the Bill, anyway. I will not go into the merits of the Bill, but it is a fair point to say that in my view the Government cannot introduce a Bill for major reforms of this kind, the first for many years, and affecting so many people, and expect the House to deal with it within a certain period of time in the manner signified.
I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that one does not disclose what one gets from what are called "usual sources". I will not, therefore, disclose where I got the information, but I understand that on Part II, dealing with traffic and highways, the Government intend to put down either a new Clause or a series of Amendments in order, if I may quote the words used to me, to allay some of the fears which have been generally expressed outside. We have not seen the new Clause or the new Amendments, but when we do we shall need a lot of time to consider them and we may have to table Amendments to those Amendments. I am advised that it may be that those cannot be put down until the Report stage of the Bill.
This is not the way to deal with a Bill. It is not right, on the one hand, for the Government to produce a Bill and say that they will amend one part of it in advance because they have made a mistake when, already, we are to have a guillotine on the Bill as it stands, with Amendments to come, which we have not yet seen, and which have to be included in the consideration within this time. It really is a monstrosity and it adds up to this: the Leader of the House has made clear that if the Government of the day want their legislation through and it is controversial they have to bring in with it a timetable Motion. If that is so I can only say I am ashamed that the House, and particularly the other side, takes it so much for granted.
An hon. Gentleman opposite has said it makes a farce of the whole thing. If the Minister of Housing and Local Government is determined that the Bill is not to be altered then he might as well pack up, send us all home, and say that he wants merely a vote on the Floor of the House for the whole of the Bill, that it does not matter a damn about 5 million people, about local government and other things, and all the historical associations

823
of London. The people of London do count, unless they are in the City. The way in which we are dealing with the Bill is a disgrace to this House.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: We have now had speeches from three back bench Members on the other side and although none has threatened insubordination at least, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House earlier this afternoon, they have greeted it with a marked lack of enthusiasm. I hope that this will make the Leader of the House consider that we are not engaged, as he seems to have suggested we should engage, in a mere matter of shadow boxing.
I have had the misfortune to hear a number of speeches introducing a Guillotine Motion. The Leader of the House moved the Motion today in an agreeable but rather lighthearted speech. I have never heard such a Motion moved with less conviction than he showed today; indeed, speeches which we have now heard from other hon. Members on his side of the House will, I think, reinforce my reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He used a number of well-known phrases and clichés to justify what is the Government's own negligence and mismanagement of time and their incompetence in getting their business through.
As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), this escape procedure is something we are getting used to. We are having a Guillotine Motion on many occasions. Only a few months ago we had such a Motion on the Pipelines Bill. Although the Bill was not such a significant Bill as this, it was, like this, a lengthy and complicated one; and the Government then adopted the doctrinaire kind of attitude that they are adopting on this Bill. Under that Bill private monopolies were given rights hitherto enjoyed only by statutory undertakers after many safeguards had been satisfied.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), instead of indulging, as the Minister thought he would, in shadow boxing, disappointed him by dealing with the demerits of the Motion and the need for the House, on behalf of 8 million people,
824
to examine the Bill as carefully as possible and to make what constructive suggestions are possible.
In introducing the Motion, the Leader of the House said that, according to col. 536 of yesterday's debate, the Government were not satisfied with the progress that had been made last week. It seems to me that it is important to consider that evidence, since that is the reason given by the Government for introducing this Motion at this time. Clause I, which is the Clause dealing with the setting-up of—I was going to say the new monsters—of the due consortia of the new London boroughs, is a long Clause of 60 lines and deals with what is, from the point of view of the Government in relation to this Motion, a most important element in their reorganisation. In fact, to this long, complex, and basic Clause only five Amendments were tabled of which two were taken together. There could have easily been many more. When the Clause came before the House there was a discussion on the Money Resolution. This was dealt with with a brevity which commends itself to all back benchers. The speeches of both of my hon. Friends leading for this side of the House and that for the Government were completed in three minutes.
We then proceeded to the first Amendment, which dealt with a distinction—and I mention this to describe the point of evidence to which the Minister referred — in incorporation orders between inner London and the outer London boroughs. We wanted to know the reason for this discrimination. Seven hon. Members took part in the discussion on this second Amendment, apart from the Government speakers who intervened twice. The entire discussion was completed in 59 minutes. Can anybody say that on this important principle of distinction between the inner and outer London boroughs there was any obstruction? To levy such a charge is most unjust, not only to hon. Members on this side of the House but to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We then passed to the second Amendment, which I moved, and which was taken with an Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). This Amendment has already

825
been referred to. It was a matter of some importance, because, as I said—and I think that the view was shared by those who took part in the debate—it went to the root of representative local government, because the Clause as drafted reduced the number of councillors by over 1,000. I moved a moderate Amendment—and it was so called by hon. Gentlemen opposite who took part in the discussion on it—to free the Minister from his arbitrarily small maximum of 60 councillors. I could not be accused of taking up unnecessary time, because my speech lasted not longer than 10 or 11 minutes.
Mr. Mellish: It was a very good speech.
Mr. Skeffington: I am glad that it commended itself to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), as indeed it did apparently to those hon. Members opposite who took part in the discussion. In fact, 14 hon. Members took part in the discussion, seven of whom were from the Government side. Every hon. Gentleman opposite who took part in the discussion gave a degree of support to the Amendment, so much so that some hon. Gentlemen opposite voted for it, while others hoped that the Minister would consider it. This debate, in which 14 hon. Members, apart from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary both of whom intervened twice, took part was completed in about two hours. If an Amendment dealing with a principle which goes to the root of representative government is supported by an equal number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, surely it cannot be said that undue time was taken if the discussion was completed in just under two hours. Again, I say that the right hon. Gentleman stands condemned for trying to justify this Motion on this basis.
We then discussed the two Amendments. The first was disposed of within an hour, and the second within two hours. We then came to the third Amendment, which dealt with the rights of the public in the Greater London area to make representations about the size and compositions and the arrangement of wards in the new boroughs. I pointed out then, and I still believe, that the citizens of London were being denied opportunities which are available outside
826
the review areas. Outside the review areas ordinary citizens, apart from local authorities, have opportunities of making representations on two or three occasions at public inquiries. This right is not being given to the citizens in the review area proposed for the Greater London Council and the boroughs. The Clause as drafted, therefore, not only fails to provide this right, but takes away the right now contained in Section 25 of the Local Government Act, 1939.
I put the case, in a short speech, lasting about 10 minutes. My case was supported by two of my hon. Friends, but not, I think, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister intervened briefly. The whole discussion was completed within an hour. Thus it was that these three Amendments, which were not of a trivial character, and which were not put down to obstruct the progress of the Bill, were dealt with in about four hours.
Mr. A. Evans: Perhaps my hon. Friend will recall that on the last Amendment to which he referred the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department took up quite a lot of time explaining something which was not clear to the House, and that we spent quite a lot of time cross-questioning the hon. and learned Gentleman to discover what he was saying.
Mr. Skeffington: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I should have added that as a result of this last Amendment to which I have referred, which sought an opportunity for any 10 electors to have the right to make representations, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that individuals would have the opportunity to object within one month of the publication of the incorporation orders.
This provision was not in the Bill, and unless a circular had been sent to local authorities this was the first public information we had about it. Had the Amendment not been tabled, we should not have obtained the information in that way on that day. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me about it. The result justifies our having tabled the Amendment, because now every elector knows that he has a right which is not incorporated in the Bill.

827
Taking this series of Amendments which I have described, I do not think that anyone can say that time was wasted, or that the Amendments were without substance. I think that their value can be judged by the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who took part in the discussion.
The rest of the day was spent discussing an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Southwest (Mr. A. Evans).
The following discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," was curtailed by the Government. This is an important Clause. It is the basis of this part of the structure of local government for over 8 million people, and I therefore do not think that anyone could say that an undue length of time was taken discussing the matter. If the Leader of the House says that the justification for the Motion is that the Government were not satisfied with the progress being made, it shows that he has failed to look at the evidence of what actually happened. He has also failed to justify it by proving that hon. Members made over-long or unnecessary speeches, or speeches that were not strictly relevant to the business in hand. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to justify it on those grounds, nor do I think that he can. It is almost flippant and insulting not only to Members on this side, but to hon. Gentlemen opposite, to try to justify the Motion on the grounds advanced by the right hon. Gentleman.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, we all knew that at some point a Guillotine Motion was inevitable if the Government were to get the Bill within a reasonable time. Irrespective of whether there was any obstruction by the Opposition, this is a long and complex Bill dealing with a number of changes about which people outside the House are deeply interested and about which they want us to inquire. The Bill deals with changes in local government and welfare services, apart from the composition of the new boroughs and authorities. It is intolerable that the Leader of the House should have advanced the arguments that he did to justify a Motion to limit time upstairs on the Bill so drastically.
828
If after a few sittings, or even before the proceedings of the Standing Committee had started, the right hon. Gentleman had said, "We know that there will be opposition and we are taking this action to get the timetable Motion out of the way", that would have been honest and frank. But I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has been honest and frank about the reasons which he gives for introducing the Motion.
With reference to the 21 sittings of the Standing Committee which we are to have, I wish to emphasise something which was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. The Bill has 86 Clauses dealing with vital and important services. There are also 17 Schedules to the Bill. The Twelfth Schedule covers five pages and contains 16 paragraphs. The Ninth Schedule runs to 15 pages and 22 paragraphs. The Second Schedule is not so long, but is highly important in that it deals with the setting up of the Greater London Council.
The London County Council has existed ever since the Act of 1888. It may be that the Greater London Council will not have anything like that length of life. It depends on what happens in the national arena in the next few months. As an Opposition we should be failing in our duty, as would back bench Members opposite, if we omitted to give proper consideration to these important Schedules. Some of them will need a great deal of explanation by the Government. They are not allowing enough time.
I recall what I consider to be the disgraceful episode relating to the complicated pipelines legislation, when whole Clauses were dealt with without any discussion in either House. Some of the Schedules to that Measure affected local authorities because of new provisions which came into force. Having regard to the length of the Schedules and its complexities, I think that the Bill now before us should receive more consideration. Its provisions will affect intimately 8 million persons in the area. Its effect will not be related only to one facet of activity. The welfare services are affected; and education, which is a very important matter for our children, our young people and for students. The welfare services for the old are dealt with. There could not be a Bill more important from the

829
point of view of its effect on every citizen. In fact, the Greater London Council will be a microcosm of government itself, so that to try to push this Measure through in 21 sittings of a Standing Committee is a fantastic suggestion. In view of the marked lack of enthusiasm of hon. Members opposite, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will, even now, reconsider the proposed timetable.
As the Committee stage proceedings are to start on Tuesday, I should like to have an undertaking that we shall not find that the Schedules are being discussed on the Floor of the House at the same time. It has been the unfortunate experience of some hon. Members who have served on Standing Committees to have to make speeches in the Committee and then rush to the Chamber to try to do their duty here. We know when the sittings of the Standing Committee are to take place and I hope that there may be an undertaking that the Schedules will not be discussed on the Floor of the House on Tuesdays and Thursdays when the Committee is sitting.
I conclude by saying that this Motion reflects no credit on the Administration who have proposed it, and reveals their lack of consideration for the public outside.
6.44 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Russell: I must apologise for not having been present to hear the whole of the discussion, although I heard most of the speech from my right hon Friend the Leader of the House. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), I feel that I cannot support this Motion. That is not on principle, because it is obvious that Guillotine Motions must be introduced from time to time in our discussions especially on occasions when there is obviously some filibustering taking place, although as yet there has been no indication of that in connection with this Bill. I cannot support the Motion because of the length of time allotted for the various stages.
When my right hon. Friend announced that there would be two more days for the discussion of the First Schedule I thought at first that that was reasonable. But having looked again at the number of Amendments to the First Schedule I do not think it is sufficient time to allow for an adequate discussion.
Mr. Norman Dodds: Is the hon. Member aware that many more Amendments could have been put down and that some hon. Members, although they do not wish to filibuster, would like to raise points relating to their constituencies when the Amendments already tabled are discussed?
Mr. Russell: I appreciate that. But there are seven pages of Amendments as it is, and some raise very important issues affecting boroughs in the area concerned which are of interest not only to hon. Members who have tabled Amendments but to other hon. Members as well.
I ask my right hon. Friend to think again whether this timetable provides sufficient time to discuss the First Schedule in view of its importance. From that point of view it represents virtually half of the Bill. It is the part which proposes the amalgamation of various existing boroughs. The rest of the Bill deals in the main with the counties and consequential matters. It is very important that everyone wishing to express a view on the subject should have a chance to do so.
I am not personally concerned with that part of the Bill which will be discussed in the Standing Committee. In general, I agree with its provisions. But I wonder whether the suggested maximum number of 21 sittings will be sufficient to discuss this part of the Bill, bearing in mind that there are 86 Clauses and a large number of Schedules. I shall be glad not to be on the Standing Committee, because it will be a wearisome business.
Is there such great haste to get through this business and to report the Bill to the House by 21st March? There is another consideration which would now seem to arise. Apparently the negotiations in Brussels regarding our entry into the Common Market have been adjourned. I know that my right hon. Friend has not had time to think out this matter, but had this country been joining the Common Market there would presumably have been a need for legislation later in the Session which would have been of a very controversial kind needing a long time to pass through its various stages. Presumably, that is no longer the case. Although I know that the Government always have legislation which they desire to introduce, I should

831
like my right hon. Friend to consider whether more time can now be given to this important legislation, in view of the fact that even more important and controversial legislation relating to the Common Market will not now need to be discussed.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Norman Dodds: I shall be very brief and to the point. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) that it would be a very bad thing for Parliamentary democracy if the incident we have seen here today were to go unchallenged by a sufficient number of hon. Members.
I have been in this House for a long time. I have listened to many Guillotine Motions being submitted, but I doubt whether I have ever heard a speech in support of one which annoyed me as much as the one we heard this afternoon. The Leader of the House has been referred to by a number of hon. Members who spoke of the flippant way in which he dealt with this matter. His effort to justify the Motion with the reasons he gave must be about the lowest performance I have known him give in this House. He certainly cannot feel very pleased with himself but, after finishing his speech, he sat here obviously enjoying the situation for some time. We are dealing with a very important Measure which intimately affects millions of people, but the right hon. Gentleman did not treat the matter seriously.
I am very sorry that we do not have our proceedings televised so that millions of people may see exactly what happens in this House. It is the performance that counts when arguments are put forward. It must be a matter of regret to the right hon. Gentleman that some hon. Members opposite have condemned the indecent haste which is being shown. Although they did not say "indecent haste", they implied it. The hon. Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) complained about this and said something which I know is true: other hon. Members would have been here if they had had more notice that this Motion was to be discussed today. In the performance of my Parliamentary duties I was elsewhere, and it was only at lunchtime that I learned about this Motion. I know that other
832
hon. Members would also have been here and not away on other Parliamentary duties if they had known.
When he replies to the debate, will the Minister explain why it was essential to give so little notice of this Motion? The Leader of the House has not given any reason for this indecent haste. There are people who suspect the reasons why this has been done. Constituents of mine came to the House to hear our debate on the Second Reading of the Contracts of Employment Bill. Two gentlemen came some distance to hear about that important Measure. It is something for which the Government, after a very sordid performance over the last year or two, sought to get some credit as at last they were to do something about contracts of service. Trade union people are interested in that matter. Did the Leader of the House lightly cancel that other business? I have a duty to my constituents to protest at the way in which this has been done.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) mentioned the number of Amendments which were put down for the Committee stage. In my constituency people are deeply concerned about the proposed grouping. If we had wished to filibuster, we could have put down another Amendment, but we were well satisfied with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). Party politics do not come into this. It is a question of the best interests of the people, on which we must combine. That is what we decided to do on this matter.
It is necessary to ask why so little time has been provided for this consideration. If there were not bitter protests such as there has been up to now there would not be parliamentary democracy, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) spoke. We might as well shut up shop and go home. I could go over the reasons for this procedure, but they have been adequately dealt with. I hope that when the Minister replies he will do very much better than the Leader of the House did. The Leader of the House came to his office with a good reputation, but he has in no way enhanced it. Today, I think he touched rock bottom.
I have the utmost respect for the Minister. He has great capacity. If

833
the Tory Party can persuade the people again to give them a term of office he will do well in whatever Ministry he is given. It was obvious to any hon. Member in the earlier rounds of discussion of the Bill that the Minister did not have an adequate grasp of its contents. I am not blaming his lack of capacity, for it is a very bad Bill. Far too little thought has been given to it. No person, no matter what his ability, could have shone, especially when on the opposite bench there was my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, (Mr. M. Stewart). His performance in these debates, because of his knowledge of local government, has been splendid. If the Minister does not like what I said previously, I think he will give credit for that.
I urge at this late stage that there should be some further thinking on this matter. The Leader of the House should take matters into consideration a little more seriously than he obviously has done up to now and try to see if adequate time can be given so that every aspect of the Bill, many of which affect 300,000 or 500,000 people, shall be considered. Does he appreciate the position he is putting hon. Members in when they represent such a big section of the people who feel deeply about the proposals put forward? This is a very serious matter. I am very worried, but I hope there will be some new thinking and that proposals will be made which, if they are not satisfactory, will at least not cause us the concern which we feel at present.
The Minister when he was hard pressed in the last round of discussions obviously thought that he had a very big point to make. He said that most of the opponents of the Bill had been suggesting that there was a great wave of opposition to it. He went on to ask, if that were so, how could we say that the Government were to get a political advantage? Then it was pointed out to him that it was possible so to gerrymander a Measure that one is prepared even to disregard one's own supporters if the profit to be got out of it is enough.
There has been a shoddy performance this afternoon by the Leader of the House. I believe that the whole basis of the matter is that not enough thought has been given to the Bill. What thought has been given has been in order to gerrymander and to destroy the London County
834
Council, which could be interfered with in no other way. No one who supports the L.C.C. has not admitted that improvements should be made in it. This Bill, even if it is sincerely believed to be an improvement, should be adequately discussed, but the provisions under the Guillotine Motion do not allow that. I make my bitter protest against the Motion.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: I join with my hon. Friends in protesting against this Guillotine Motion. I approach the matter from a point of view slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds). I agree with him that we all felt that the speech of the Leader of the House was deplorable, but I am not sure that I agree that he enjoyed making it. I give him credit for having felt in a very unhappy and miserable situation in having to make it. I think it was a disgraceful thing to do. I also regret that he was not present to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot).
What is happening today, particularly in the light of the speech of the Leader of the House, gives an affront not so much to democracy as to Parliamentary government and to this House as a legislative chamber. I do not share quite the same views about the Bill as some of my hon. Friends. I do not propose to enter into its merits or demerits. I have never used vitriolic language about the Bill as some of my hon. Friends have. One does not have to be a rabid opponent of the Bill in order to take the most violent objection to this Guillotine Motion. I am prepared to say that the Government may have had some courage in introducing a measure of London government reform. My objection goes much deeper and is quite different from being an objection to the Bill itself.
My objection stems from the attitude of the Government in depriving hon. Members of their legitimate opportunities of trying to improve legislation. The Bill is one of vast complexity. It has some good parts, and a lot wants improving, but what affronts me is that any Guillotine Motion deprives hon. Members of their primary function of exercising their rights as legislators and

835
being able to table constructive Amendments to Bills. No one has suggested that there has been any obstruction, and it is admitted that the result of any Guillotine Motion must be to limit the opportunities for debate. In this case the Leader of the House is deliberately limiting the rights and duties of hon. Members to table Amendments and present points of view, whether on behalf of their constituents or not, in order to improve a Measure of this kind.
I am appalled that the Leader of the House should have thought it consistent with his duty to present the Motion in such a perfunctory—I will not say flippant—manner. He seemed to think that it was enough merely to say that the Bill was a complicated, long and difficult Measure and that, therefore, there must be a Guillotine Motion. That is a complete non-sequitur. The more complicated a Bill the more necessary it is that the House should have the elementary right of dealing with it in a sensible way.
I will not repeat the arguments which have been adduced by a number of hon. Members, except to say that there has been no attempt at obstruction. I took part in the first and second day's debates and I recall that we had a short debate on whether the inner London boroughs were as much entitled to a charter as the outer London ones. The outcome was that the Minister, who had not appreciated this point fully, undertook to consider the matter. I have no doubt that, if adequate time were permitted, a great many other points would come to light for the consideration of the Minister, his Department and the Leader of the House, resulting in many improvements.
I have witnessed a great number of debates on Guillotine Motions. Some of them have been justified. Some perhaps not. But one thing has been common to all; no one can say that any Bill has ever been improved because there has been a Guillotine Motion. The last Measure with which I was associated and in respect of which there was a Guillotine Motion was the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I am not arguing whether or not that Motion was necessary, but I do assert that as a result of it certain parts of that Act were not adequately
836
discussed, the result being imperfections in those parts which were not discussed.
That is a glaring case because, as the Leader of the House probably recalls, certain sections of that Act were discussed in considerable detail. A number of Amendments—coming from both sides of the House—were accepted. It was a novel Measure and it was improved as a result of discussion. Experience in the administration of the Act has already shown that there are gaps and lacunae in it as a result of the failure of the Leader of the House to allow adequate time for it to be discussed. Thus I join my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) in protesting most strongly against—and I must choose my words carefully—the callous way in which the House is being treated tonight. I think that the Leader of the House is really treating hon. Members with contempt. He is, in fact, reducing a great number of hon. Members to legislative impotence. He is taking away from them their function as legislators. He is depriving them of their opportunities to improve this piece of legislation. For him now to say, almost as if it is a normal thing to do, that it really needs no justification, is an abrogation of his responsibilities. We are coming to the point, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said, when the Government seem content to treat the passage of Bills as something perfunctory.
If that sort of thing persists it will destroy Parliamentary government. It is notorious that the esteem with which Parliament is held by the public is getting less than it was, and that in itself is deplorable. That tendency will be encouraged if the Leader of the House thinks that it is part of his duty to allow Bills, simply because they are complicated, to go through in this perfunctory way, for it is obvious that whole sections of the Bill cannot be adequately discussed.
If we are to discuss Clause 1 and the First Schedule in the equivalent of 12 sittings of a Standing Committee, how can we adequately consider the rest of the Bill in 21 sittings? It does not make sense. It means that there will be some debates and improvements but that whole chapters of the Measure, which covers a vast field of activity, will go through without being debated at all. That is a

837
situation which can be justified only if at some stage there has been some obstruction or deliberate holdup. There has been nothing of the kind and it is not good enough for the Leader of the House to quote what Lord Morrison of Lambeth has said. He is no longer an hon. Member of this House. He can say what he likes in another place and, in any case, a number of hon. Members do not entirely agree with his attitude.
While some hon. Members have voiced their complete opposition to the Bill—including some hon. Members opposite—others have voiced their desire to try to improve it—and goodness knows it needs a great deal of improvement. I thought that there was one redeeming feature in the speech of the Leader of the House, because he seemed to display an awareness of this problem. While he is Leader of the House does he really want, as it would appear, to embark on a course of conduct which, if unchallenged, will lead the House of Commons into much greater disrespect than it is today?
I thought that in a part of his speech the Leader of the House admitted that Guillotine Motions are unsatisfactory. The trouble is that things are getting worse and will have a serious effect on Parliament unless the tendency is checked. It can easily be checked and I hope that as a result of this debate—and I am trying to be constructive—the right hon. Gentleman will give serious thought to methods by which we can improve our Parliamentary procedure so that Guillotine Motions of this kind can be avoided.
One obvious solution is this. The reason why this Guillotine Motion has become necessary is, it seems, due to an archaic and artificial fear that one cannot carry over a Bill from one Session to another? Why not? After all, Royal Commissions sit from one Session to another, as do Select Committees. There may be a Motion to justify it. It is the absurd fiction that a Bill must be completed in the Session in which it is introduced that leads to the astonishing situation in which many Bills, we are told, have to be rushed through with this indecent haste. Is there any justification for the fiction that if a Bill does not reach the Statute Book in one Session it cannot be carried over at the stage which it reached at the end of one Session to the next Session? That would
838
be the sensible arrangement to make in any sensible Parliamentary organisation. There may well be Bills—this may be one of them—which ought not to have to pass into law in one Session. It should be stated at the outset that a Bill is one which should be spread over two years, that it should get as far as possible in the first Session and be continued in the next Session. There is no justification now for thinking that a Bill must be completed in the Session in which it is introduced.
I do not know—probably my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale knows—whether there was in the seventeenth century some historical justification for that. There may not even have been any justification. It may not have mattered then, but in the mid-twentieth century with the growing complexity of legislation it has produced an intolerable absurdity and is now used as an excuse for Guillotine Motions.
I am anxious to prevent Guillotine Motions. I am anxious to go further and prevent there being an excuse for them. I hope therefore that the Leader of the House will give serious thought to this point. Perhaps he will refer it to the Select Committee on Procedure which is already considering certain matters. Perhaps at the same time he will refer to that Committee the whole question of whether there are not other methods by which we can be saved from the indignity, indecency and stultification of Guillotine Motions.
7.12 p.m.
Mr. Richard Marsh: With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), it would be a great mistake to regard the Minister, as my hon. Friend did, as one who is forced to carry out an unpleasant duty with which he would otherwise find himself in disagreement. There may be a very good argument for looking at our present procedure, but there can be no argument at all for introducing this Motion only two weeks after returning from a Recess.
If the Leader of the House finds that because of changes in procedure and because of the number of hon. Members who want to take part in debates it is no longer possible to deal with controversial Measures except by introducing time-table

839
Motions, which both sides agree are intolerable, there are other channels through which he can deal with it. However, there is no justification for using that argument to impose this time-table Motion on this Bill.
Whatever arguments are adduced in this debate, the merits or demerits of the Bill are not involved. There are two issues. The first is the inconvenience and the undoubted undemocratic practice of timetable Motions. The second factor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) said, is this particular timetable Motion. Although one would want to argue very much about whether discussion should be stopped or curtailed on a particular Bill, hon. Members on both sides will accept that a timetable Motion on any Bill should be properly discussed and is a matter of importance.
There has been talk tonight of hon. Members with other engagements. I represent a London constituency which is affected by the Bill. It is a very old and historic constituency which is to be dissolved and is to become part of the Borough of Woolwich. When I heard that there was to be a time-table Motion, I was in Norwich. This was last night. I had to catch a train this morning to come here to try to make known my point of view on the Motion.
If the debate is to be curtailed on a discussion of this kind, whatever the arguments may be for or against curtailing the debate on the Bill it is beyond argument that hon. Members are entitled to advance points of view for or against the time-table Motion. It is monstrous that with no notice at all the Order Paper was changed. Hon. Members away on Parliamentary business, in many cases 100, 200 or 300 miles from London, heard on the radio in their hotels that the debate on a major Bill was to be curtailed without any warning. They then came galloping down here in an effort to take part in the discussion.
I have no sympathy with the Leader of the House. There was no need for him to do this at this stage. We have been back from the Recess for only two weeks. I appreciate that at some stage he might have felt impelled, in an effort to get the Government's business through,
840
which is his job, to introduce a timetable Motion. It is impossible to justify time-table Motion without hon. Members having any opportunity to take part in the debate. This is an even bigger point than whether or not discussion on the Bill should be curtailed.
I have not any long experience of timetable Motions. I have taken part in the debate on every one which has been introduced since I have been a Member. As the right hon. Gentleman inferred, they seem to be very much like the ritualistic mating dances of the flamingo, where both parties express a great deal of emotion but know that the result is inevitable and nobody is very surprised when it happens.
However, there is quite a different position tonight. This is the first time-table Motion which I have known since 1959 and the first one which I can find in previous debates when every Government back bencher has opposed the Motion. This is not a case of a clash between the Opposition and the Government. Nobody on the back benches opposite who has been actively involved with the Bill has supported the Government. This is an important factor.
The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) and the Leader of the House made much play with the fact that Governments do not necessarily have to have an electoral mandate for every Measure they push through. I accept that entirely. I do not believe that all strong Governments are good Governments, but I believe that all weak Governments are extremely bad and dangerous Governments. The job of the Government is to govern. They have a majority and they are entitled to get their business through. It is for this that they have a mandate.
However, certain principles must be accepted if Parliament has any purpose at all. One principle is that there must be time for reasonable arguments to be deployed reasonably. If this is not so and if Governments can use their majority to prevent reasonable arguments being employed reasonably, it is a complete negation of democracy. If we accept that, any Government at any time can prevent embarrassing arguments being continued merely by going through the Division Lobby. This is entirely different from using their majority to push through legislation which they believe to be essential.

841
Are there any arguments to be deployed on the Bill? I should not have thought that there was any doubt about that. I have discovered in my constituency more feeling on this subject than on any other domestic issue. I am not arguing whether my constituents are right or wrong. But to quote one example—and I do not want to be controversial—since I have been a Member of the House I have had 12 letters about defence and the bomb.
It may be that the priorities are wrong, but I have had on this subject nearly 500 communications from constituents. They are from parents who are worried about their children, they are from teachers, local government employees, and people employed by the L.C.C., and from the local authorities themselves. Now we have had the unusual situation where Conservative local authorities have written to Labour Members saying, "Will you support us against our own party in the House of Commons?"
I am not arguing whether these people are justified or not. I merely say that this is surely evidence that there are arguments to be adduced and pursued. This is not a dispute between Government and Opposition, between Conservative Party and Labour Party where the Conservative Party has found itself in an impasse and has had to use its majority to get out of it. The Leader of the House has only to listen to the speeches of his hon. Friends who have put forward arguments. Some of them feel so strongly and so passionately that they have taken the occasion, not light-heartedly as all of us would understand, of voting against their own party in the Division Lobby.
There are disputes and not only among politicians. There are strong feelings among teachers, architects, people responsible for child care, local authority members and almost every sector of the community. It cannot be argued for a moment, therefore, that this is not an issue on which there is no genuine and reasonable feeling. It cannot be argued that this is a simple issue, or a partisan issue on which the Opposition are making the ritual noises against the Government and putting up opposition just for the sake of opposition. I would defend the Opposition even if they did that.
842
I think that it is the job of the Opposition to put before the electorate all the case against Government Measures, and it is the Government's job to put all the case in their favour. It is also the Opposition's job to stop that legislation coming into effect if it can. Bi-partisanship in Parliament is a complete negation of democracy. This is not a case of that sort. This is a case that cuts right across Parliament. It is not confined to any one section and there are many detailed and expert arguments to be produced.
We are entitled, therefore, to ask if our arguments have been reasonably put. Any Opposition are entitled to go through three stages. First, they can go through the stage of putting arguments as well as they can. When they have exhausted all their arguments they are in a position to try to prevent the Government putting through legislation with which they disagree. At the second stage, the Government are entitled to use their majority to force legislation through. But what they are not entitled to do is to ensure that the electorate have no opportunity of knowing what arguments would have been adduced if time had been given.
The Opposition has put forward arguments, and I speak here of opposition to the Bill and not Her Majesty's Opposition. A large number of hon. Members opposite are sincerely opposed to the Bill and they have been reasonable about it. I have gone through the reports of the debate. There has not been a speech from a back bencher which has lasted more than 20 minutes. Most of the speeches have been very short, lasting about 10 or 15 minutes. There has not been an occasion where the Chair has felt it necessary to intervene. There have been only two sets of points of order. One was a point of order put in his customary dignified fashion by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis). The other was a rather sordid and grubby squabble between a couple of hon. Members opposite who were calling each other names. There has been no attempt at a filibuster.
When I asked the Leader of the House, earlier, whether it was any part of his case that there was obstruction, and organised obstruction, he rather brushed the matter off. He has much more knowledge of Parliamentary procedure than I

843
have, but I should have thought that this was an extremely important question to answer and that we are entitled to an answer to the point. Is it any part of the Government's case that there has been any obstruction to the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman's answer to that was that the Opposition had not shown any enthusiasm for it. Does he really suggest that if the Opposition do not show enthusiasm for a Bill they ought to be stopped from expressing arguments about it?
The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) said that the Government had now lost their greatest impediment to the Bill in that the negotiations on entry into Europe had collapsed. The crusade has fallen through and it looks as though we shall not get in. The hon. Member said that we shall not now have those Bills concerned with the Common Market and the Government will have more time at their disposal. The hon. Member, with respect, was missing the whole point. If we take the argument of the Leader of the House there was no reason to have debate on those Bills either, because they also are contentious issues.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have views about the way the Government were selling everybody down the river. There were hon. Members on both sides who were not enthusiastic for the way in which the Government were breaking some of the pledges they had given. Some of us would have wanted to speak against the way the negotiations were carried out but, according to the Leader of the House, if there is a contentious Bill, with which the Opposition disagree, the Opposition should be automatically stopped from talking about it, because it is inconvenient. I should have thought that those were precisely the Bills that should have been debated at some length.
I appreciate that this is a big Bill, but are we to say that this is not a special occasion and that the right hon. Gentleman has discovered that if we had a big controversial Bill in the House it could not legitimately be discussed? A number of hon. Members opposite, all opposed to what the Government are doing, have said that they hoped the time would be made available for a fair discussion of the various points. With respect, fair dis-
844
cussion on the points in the Bill is the amount of time that an hon. Member can devote to putting forward reasonable, germane points. If he is prevented, or his speech is truncated, then as long as he was relevant in making points and was not being repetitive, it is not fair discussion. Now the Leader of the House says that if there is a big Bill we cannot debate it if the Opposition are not enthusiastically for it. We are entitled to have from the Government a simple statement. What is the Leader of the House getting annoyed about or muttering about?
Mr. Iain Macleod: I was talking to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Marsh: That is fair enough, apparently it is a private debate between the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I had an idea that it was part of the debate in which the rest of us are taking part.
I should have thought that we were entitled to ask either of the right hon. Gentlemen to tell the House clearly and simply whether they believe that hon. Members on either side have been trying deliberately to obstruct the Bill, as has happened in the past on the part of both parties on all sorts of issues. If hon. Members have not obstructed, will the Government also tell us in what way the Bill is different from any other large and contentious Bill? Are we now to accept that all future Measures which are involved and contentious must be guillotined in this way.
The second question we are entitled to put is equally important. May we have an explanation of why it was necessary to apply this timetable Motion in circumstances which clearly made it impossible for some hon. Members to arrange to be here to take part in the debate today?
Mr. Dodds: Has my hon. Friend rejected the main basis advanced by the right hon. Gentleman for the indecent haste, that the late Aneurin Bevan spoke against Guillotine Motions in general, and Lord Morrison of Lambeth, some time ago, made some threats about the Bill?
Mr. Marsh: It is really quite impossible to be held responsible for the combined speeches of Lord Morrison of

845
Lambeth and the late Aneurin Bevan. Of course we reject it. What Lord Morrison of Lambeth said in the House or anywhere else has nothing whatever to do with the way in which this House conducts its business.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Perhaps I should make a small point purely on a question of fact. I did, of course, refer to Lord Morrison of Lambeth's speech. I made another quotation, which will be read in HANSARD tomorrow—I did not want to go into detail about it—and this was not from anything said by Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but from what was said by the Leader of the Labour Party. Absolutely fair notice was given that the Bill would be fought Clause by Clause and line by line. I put that as a purely factual point. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is so.
Mr. Marsh: I accept the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes. But, as I am sure he will accept, this is perfectly legitimate. It does not mean that, the moment the Opposition announce their opposition to a particular Bill, the Government must impose the guillotine. This is the moment when the Opposition have done it. We are only just past the second day of the Committee stage. If it had happened at the end of a week, or two weeks, I could understand it. The Government could then say that it was clear that the Opposition were determined to prevent their getting the Bill through. Many of the speeches on the Bill so far have come from Government back benchers who have supported the Opposition. Yet, as soon as that happens, the rest of the proceedings are curtailed.
I do not want to take a long time, because I know that there are other hon. Members—
Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend can go on; he is doing very well.
Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for support from my hon. Friend, but, nevertheless, I still do not want to take long.
The issue is not whether one is in favour of or opposed to the London Government Bill. I happen to be violently opposed to it, and so are many hon. Members on both sides; but that is not the argument. It is not an argument about whether the Government are justified in introducing legislation of this kind, with or without a mandate. What
846
terrifies me is the speech of the Leader of the House in introducing the Motion. What he says, as I understand it, is that any Bill of this size which evokes strong feeling in the House cannot proceed without a timetable Motion, regardless of whether or not the debates are conducted in a perfectly reasonable fashion.
This, I suggest, has very serious implications. It means that the very issues which ought to be debated fully in the House can be debated only to the extent which the Government approves. At the moment, the Government can exercise their democratic responsibilities by ensuring that there is, at least, reasonable time given. If the time comes when a Government decide that they are the sole arbiters of the amount of criticism which can be directed at a Bill, the House will find itself on a very slippery slope indeed.
7.34 p.m.
Mr. Albert Evans: We are at a great disadvantage in conducting this debate because, until now, some four hours after the beginning of it, we have heard nothing whatever from the Government side, apart from the speech of the Leader of the House in introducing it, to explain why the Guillotine Motion is necessary. We cannot know what the Government's supporters think about it. Only two of them have given the House the benefit of their thoughts on the matter, and both those hon. Gentlemen spoke strongly against the Motion. There has been no support for the Motion that the guillotine be adopted.
It is a scandalous state of affairs when the Leader of the House can make a proposal of some constitutional importance without at least some measure of support from the House of Commons. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is the person mainly responsible for the Motion.
Mr. A. Lewis: I am reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I think that he has not got the facts quite right. Four hon. Members opposite have spoken, and each one of them opposed both the Bill and the Guillotine Motion.
Mr. Evans: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I heard only the speeches of two Government supporters, and both were opposed to the Motion. My hon. Friend tells me that there were two

847
speeches from Government supporters which I did not hear, and those also did not support the Motion. I repeat that it is a scandalous state of affairs when the Leader of the House—our Leader—
Mr. Mellish: Their leader.
Mr. Evans: No. I shall come to that in a moment when I discuss the role which the Leader of the House is supposed to play. It is a scandalous state of affairs when the Leader of the House of Commons can move a Motion which evokes no expression of support from any quarter of the House. All we have to go on is his own speech, and a very short and perfunctory performance I thought that was.
I suppose that the Minister guiding the Bill through is also partly responsible for the timetable Motion—his name is down to it—but he is only a secondary figure in this procedural device. The main responsibility is on the Leader of the House of Commons. He has failed the House of Commons on this occasion. He is in a very special position. It is not his sole job to get Government business through. He should know that by now. He has not been in his job very long, and he lacks the experience of his predecessor, but he should know by now that he has another duty apart from having to see that Government business proceeds. He has a duty to the House of Commons. It is his duty, as I understand it—I have been here a number of years—to feel the pulse of the House, to gather the voice of the House, to try to get the House to proceed with its business in as smooth a manner as possible. That is one of his duties, and on this occasion he has failed to perform it.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is his responsibility to see, as far as he can, that the rights of the Opposition are not violated. In his speech today, he made no mention of the rights of the Opposition to oppose the Government. It is part of his duty to ensure that Her Majesty's Opposition are able to perform their functions as an Opposition. He is not doing very well as Leader of the House. He has yet to gain the full confidence of the House as its Leader.
I put it to him that he can be too sure of himself and that, in this early stage of his career as Leader of the House, he
848
has yet to learn quite a lot. If he is to reach the high level of his predecessor as Leader of the House, he should have more consideration for that part of his duty which concerns the House as a whole and that part of it which concerns the rights of the Opposition. [Interruption.]I think I heard one of my hon. Friends say that the right hon. Gentleman who was Leader of the House before the present Leader of the House was no good. I beg to differ from him, because I think that the right hon. Gentleman who preceded the Leader of the House in that office had some measure of good will on both sides of the House. He did consider the general feeling and attitude of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman gave as his main reason for tabling this Motion the fact that, in his view, not enough progress had been made in the two days' debate which we have had in Committee on Clause 1 and the First Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman must have known that Clause 1 and the First Schedule were of great consequence to many people and to a very considerable number of hon. Members. I hazard the guess that as many as 60 to 70 Members of Parliament are affected by Clause 1 and the First Schedule in some way or another. It must have been because so many members were affected by them that the Government decided that they should be taken by a Committee of the whole House. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman knew in advance that the two days' debate on the First Schedule and Clause 1 would necessarily involve the interests of a very large number of hon. Members and that he could not expect that we should proceed on that Clause and on that Schedule with the expedition which we experience in Committees upstairs. Therefore, to base a judgment on our progress during those two days of dealing with the vital Clause 1 and the vital First Schedule was unfair.
The right hon. Gentleman had no basis on which to judge the progress which we made. He merely had the experience of those two days, when we were dealing with a special Clause and with a special Schedule.
Mr. Leslie Hale: There is one comparable precedent. The Vassall Tribunal has taken days discussing whether the fellow wore a nightshirt or pyjamas.
Mr. Evans: I will not pursue my hon. Friend's reference to nightshirts and pyjamas, but I am obliged to him for reminding me that the Vassall Tribunal is concerned with justice, and that in seeking justice time should become a secondary consideration. Today, in the House of Commons, however, the Leader of the House is concerned with speed and with rushing this Bill through. He is not concerned with the justice of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman had no guide as to how we would proceed in future. He should not have made a judgment on the progress which we made during those two days, but should have allowed us in Committee in discussing a subject involving the interests of many Members of Parliament, to take a reasonable time. I admit straight away that later in Committee it would probably have been necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to think about introducing a timetable Motion. That would have been a right course, it would have made plain his respect for the House of Commons and he would have been taking action, after the Standing Committee had met, in keeping with precedent. But to judge our progress on this complicated Bill by two days' debate on Clause 1 and the First Schedule was an unfair basis on which to come to a conclusion about how we should get along. The right hon. Gentleman made a mistake in being so quick to bring in this Motion and in not delaying his decision about it at least until the Standing Committee had begun its proceedings.
If the Leader of the House—it seems inevitable that I should address him because no hon. Member opposite has spoken in support of the Motion—had examined the Order Paper, and I suppose that he does look at it now and again, he would have seen that Amendments are tabled in the names of Members of all parties. The two days on which the right hon. Gentleman makes his judgment are claimed by the House of Commons as a House. This is not a party Order Paper. It does not contain predominantly party Amendments. A glance at it would show anyone that Members of all parties, even a Liberal Member, have tabled Amendments. Certainly hon. Members opposite have their share of the Order Paper. Their
850
names appear in equal numbers with those of members of the Opposition.
Looking at the Order Paper, one would have thought that the Leader of the House would have said, "The House as a House, and not a particular part of it, wishes to speak extensively on this First Schedule and Clause 1". It should have been obvious from the Order Paper, even to the Leader of the House, that the House as a House, irrespective of party, wanted to discuss Clause 1 and the First Schedule at length, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have decided that the House must have its way. After all, the House of Commons is of more importance than the Leader of the House. It is the final arbiter of all we do. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, on seeing that there were Amendments tabled in the names of Members of all parties and that the House of Commons was itching and ready to discuss Clause 1 and the First Schedule at length, would have said, "The House of Commons wishes to talk at length about this. It is not my business nor any part of my duty to prevent the House as a House from discussing this Clause and this Schedule at length."
But apparently the right hon. Gentleman decided that he must use his authority—it is an abuse of authority, as I conceive it—to subjugate the House of Commons to his own will. He is not merely limiting the speeches of hon. Members on this side of the House; he is limiting the speeches of the House of Commons as a whole.
If one examines the OFFICIAL REPORT for the two days we have spent on Clause 1 and the First Schedule, one can find nothing there to support the decision to introduce this Motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) went through the speeches, and it is clear that there was fair discussion by hon. Members on both sides of the House. This was possibly the House of Commons at its best, with cross-debating. That is different from today's situation. I suppose that the Leader of the House has put on the Whips to silence most of his back benchers. They will carry out his wish to silence the House on this Bill.

851
There is no ground for his contention that time was wasted last week and that there was obstruction, resulting in the Government's business being unfairly held up. The Minister of Housing and Local Government himself made three speeches, each lasting 20 minutes, and he also intervened quite frequently. He helped the Committee considerably. We all got along quite well and there was no waste of time. The Amendment which I moved, on which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was able to make a small concession, took only 12 minutes to dispose of. The Leader of the House's claim that progress has so far been inadequate on this Bill has no justification at all. His decision to limit free discussion is unjustified.
7.53 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, because I find that the question of the government of London is rather like Scottish business. If I had ventured before to speak on the Bill, no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) would have claimed that I was keeping him out.
Mr. A Lewis: My hon. Friend cannot keep the Tories out. They do not want to speak, anyway.
Mr. Pannell: What is dimly apparent to my hon. Friend is daylight clear to me.
Mr. Lewis: Not to the Government.
Sir Leslie Plummer: As my hon. Friend has mentioned me, perhaps I should make it clear that I was hoping that he would get into the debate because he is an expatriate cockney, and I felt that he would be able to add force to our arguments.
Mr. Pannell: I am an Essex-born man, not a Cockney, domiciled in Kent and representing a Yorkshire constituency. I can perhaps take a more urbane view of things than a Member who just represents Deptford.
Sir L. Plummer: I am not sure that I like that word "just".
Mr. Pannell: In my time I have sat on four local authorities which are covered by this Bill. For a long time
852
I was involved in local government in Kent. I notice that the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) has tabled an Amendment about her area. She does not want it to be contaminated in any way by the Borough of Erith, where I used to be mayor. She wishes to strike out everything which would interfere with her electoral chances at the next election.
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman were more closely aware of the representations made by the Borough of Erith and by the Urban District of Crayford he would know that they made representations in writing to the town clerks stating firmly that they had no affinity with my area and that they thought it wrong that Chislehurst and Sidcup should be joined to them. These representations were first brought forward by Erith, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his allegations.
Mr. Pannell: When I see the Parliamentary representation of Sidcup and Chislehurst, I do not blame Erith and Crayford. I can only consider that if the Borough of Erith, which is the banner town of Labour in Kent and has had a continuous Labour majority since 1938, were in any way mixed up with Chislehurst and Sidcup, undoubtedly there would be another Member of Parliament at the next election. It so happens that apparently the feelings of the Borough of Erith and the Urban District of Crayford now line up with the wishes of the right hon. Lady and her area. I am sorry if I misreported her.
I want to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) on a point of detail. He seems to think that the Leader of the House has something to do with leading the House. That is a curious doctrine. Most of the duties my hon. Friend ascribed to the Leader of the House are duties which fall on Mr. Speaker.
Mr. A. Evans: No doubt my hon. Friend is an authority on these matters, but surely a Leader of the House, to fulfil his office effectively, should, as far as possible, try to carry the whole House with him and have in mind the rights and duties of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Mr. Pannell: I have never known any Leader of the House to construe his job exactly in that way. The origin of the office goes back to the days when the Prime Minister used to sit in the House of Lords. Therefore, the person who led the Government in this House was known as the Leader of the House. He was always, and still is, a Government spokesman. The trouble lies in the fact that the present Leader's predecessor adopted a bipartisan tone and always tried to hold the House to the idea that somehow or other he represented this side as well as that.
My right hon. and hon. Friends "fell" for that kind of talk. I never did. I have always recognised that the Leader of the House is the Leader of the Government in the House, a man who tries to get the Government's way. That is all there is to it. The sooner we drop the idea that somehow the Leader of the House has cast upon him duties which are, in fact, discharged by Mr. Speaker, the better. We must recognise him as the enemy of this side that he is. He is no friend of ours and I do not want him to be.
The Leader of the House announces the business for the week and the Leader of the Opposition takes him up on it. Every time the Leader of the House wants to dull down the spirit of battle on this side, he says, "I think, on behalf of the whole House …". But the only occasions when he really does act on behalf of the whole House are ceremonial occasions, such as announcing the names of delegates to foreign parts.
The right hon. Gentleman represents one of the boroughs affected by the Bill. My right hon. and hon. Friends should recognise the political facts of life. It is undoubtedly true that, had things gone as planned and we had joined the Common Market, this Motion would not have been brought in. But the Government have been sold short. The Prime Minister, having sold General de Gaulle short when he connived at the Polaris settlement, has now been sold short himself by the present French Republic.
Everything has gone wrong for the Government. Unemployment has gone up and their arms programme has come to nothing. They are now on the horns of a dilemma about how soon they can
854
have a General Election. That is the reason for all this business. Until a week or two ago, I used to think that we would not have a General Election until 1964, because I thought that the Government had to have the time necessary to work out a story about going into the Common Market. I happen to be a European. On balance, I am in favour of our going into the Common Market, and I am personally disappointed that the President of the French Republic has behaved in a way—
Mr. A. Evans: Order.
Mr. Pannell: Who is calling me to order? Not the Leader of the House. When Mr. Speaker wants to tell me that I am out of order for explaining why this Guillotine Motion has been brought forward today, I shall be willing to bow to him, but my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West has made his speech and he must allow me to poodle on in my own way.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) tell the House precisely what he means when he says that he wants to poodle on in his own way?
Hon. Members: It is a French expression.
Mr. Pannell: It may be; I am using it in the context of Europe. I will use the expression "amble on" if hon. Members prefer.
The difficulty in which we now find ourselves arises because the Government are short of time. What was the business which was to have come before the House today? It was the Contracts of Employment Bill, a Bill with which the Leader of the House had something to do when he was running the Conservative Political Centre and before he knew anything about the Standing Orders of the House. It was a Bill which he "cooked up" at that time to bring about a classless society in Britain. The idea was to give everybody a contract of service so that the blue collar workers and the white collar workers should be of equal esteem.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): Order. The hon. Member is being very ingenious in keeping on

855
the fringe of order, but if he goes into the details of that Bill he will be definitely out of order.
Mr. Pannell: With the greatest respect, I should have thought that I could refer to the original business which was pushed aside in order to make way for this Motion, which is to shackle the free expression of Parliament. I find it very difficult to talk about a procedural Motion if I cannot refer to what the House has not been allowed to do today.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What I am pointing out to the hon. Member is that he can do that, but that he must not go into the details of the Bills which have been pushed aside. He can certainly refer to them, but he cannot go into them in great detail.
Mr. John McCann: On a point of order. Surely we are allowed to refer to the importance of the legislation which has been pushed on one side to allow this timetable Motion to be discussed.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly. That is what I am saying. The importance of those Bills can be mentioned, but to go further than that and to deal with their merits and demerits and details would be out of order.
Mr. McCann: How does one refer to their importance without going into their merits and demerits?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is for the hon. Member.
Mr. Pannell: I was referring to the Bill which should have come before the House today. Instead, we have had this procedural Motion. It is obvious that hon. Members opposite take no interest in it, or do not know what it is all about, for when I have come into the Chamber from time to time hon. Members have been castigating the Motion, and I can only assume that at the end of the debate the dumb, driven cattle will be taken through the Lobby to vote for it.
If hon. Members opposite do not know what the Motion is about, they do not know about the business which should have been taken today. That business has been waiting since 1947. It is the elementary duty of anyone, occupying, as I do, the position of the honorary secretary of
856
the trade union group of the Labour Party, to say what it is all about and the importance of the business which should have been considered and which we are not considering. That is the difficulty in which I find myself.
It would be an impertinence for anybody to tell you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, what was coming on today, because I am sure that you know all about it, but we are protesting that the very weighty business which should have come on today has not come on today and that instead we have had a Guillotine Motion which is designed to stop the free expression of the House.
The history of this guillotine procedure goes back into the mists of time when the House sat for I do not know how many hours during the old Irish trouble—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) can tell me—and Mr. Speaker Brand, without any Standing Orders to aid him, adjourned the House. The guillotine procedure had to be introduced, but it was never considered to be something which could be turned on and off as the majority thought fit. Everything has shown that the Government do not now command a majority in the country and yet, almost at their death gasp, they bring in a Motion whose object is the gerrymandering of London constituencies. This is a high constitutional matter.
There is no doubt that the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), was very much upset when, in 1949, the Conservatives only just missed winning a majority on the London County Council. He has always intended that he would get even for that, and the Government must not be surprised if we construe this Bill merely as an attempt by a discredited Government to rig constituencies for the next election. I have not seen anything quite like it since the last Boundary Commission Report, when all sorts of constituencies were fixed up in a most curious way. I still do not understand why it is that in Wimbledon we have a pocket borough at the disposal of the Conservatives in Surrey and, at the same time, we have the present boundaries of Mitcham. It is things of that sort which puzzle me extremely.
I do not know whether the Labour Party can win the election on this issue, but I believe that events are overtaking

857
the Government and that when the election comes, we shall undoubtedly be returned with a considerable majority. I have no doubt that the constituency of the Leader of the House, in Enfield, East, is as safe as safe can be. I know the area fairly well, for I spent a great deal of my boyhood days in the area. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is Enfield, West."] It is a pity that it is not Enfield, East, because people mostly turn their eyes to the East to see the glories of the salvation morning. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that Leeds, West votes in the right way and that I cannot understand why Enfield, West does not do so.
I always think that the House looks at its worst when bringing in these procedural Motions, and when the common sense of the House is not shown. In that way, our business is not given the importance which it deserves.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Pannell: That is the worst of this place. One can never make a speech in comfort and in the belief that anyone is listening to what one has to say, except the many impatient Members who are only waiting to leap to their feet and get into the debate. I will not hold up the House for very much longer, but I want to refer to the size of the Bill.
Bearing in mind its importance, no one can say that too much time has been spent on it. Of course it has not. I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst could dilate upon her Amendment and the necessity to keep her constituency as it is for the best part of half an hour and make an interesting case about a part of the country of which I am fond.
In constituency after constituency, not only Members of Parliament, but members of local authorities and officials have spent a lot of time in seeking to prove the case against the Bill. I speak not in a political sense, because many people who protest against the Bill are Conservatives in local authorities. Does the Minister contradict that? Any number of protestors against the Bill are Conservative local authorities. The Minister agrees with me that Conservative local authorities in the London area do not like the Bill. There can be no argument about it. Consequently, they want to protest about it.
858
One could not imagine more of a high priest of Conservatism than the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). I used to think that none of us was as good as the gospel we preached, but few of us are as black as the hon. Member for Wimbledon. On the other hand, the hon. Member made an impassioned speech with all the fervour of an ex-president of the Band of Hope Union. It was remarkable. He even went into the Lobby with us against the Bill.
We heard the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), who represents a highly marginal constituency, which he will not occupy after the next General Election. He made an impassioned speech against the Bill. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member really think that he will keep his seat after the next election?
Dr. Alan Glyn: The answer is, "Yes".
Mr. Pannell: Well, well. I have heard that a pessimist is a man who wears a belt as well as braces. What an optimist is, I should not like to say. Nobody except the hon. Member can believe that he will hold that seat after the next election.
All the Conservative local authorities, whose town clerks may find themselves without a job, are agitating against the Bill and saying that it is a bad Bill, a gerrymandering Bill and a Bill that will wreck not only the educational structure of London, but its town planning structure. Letters have been written to that Left-wing journal The Times on the subject. Nobody has had a good word to say about the Bill, and yet the Government—
Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to claim too much, but I think it is true to say that half the borough groups which have been proposed in the Bill have not provoked a single Amendment on the Order Paper; and a substantial number of the local authorities in the borough groups to which I refer come from each party.
Mr. Pannell: I have examined the Minister's position. He is an hon. Baronet by virtue of being the son of on ex-Lord Mayor of London and he brings a nice degree of objectivity from the City of Leeds. Both the right hon. Gentleman and I have served London

859
in our way and we have gone to Leeds and are both much better off. Nobody would represent a London constituency if a Leeds seat was available. That is common sense.
The right hon. Gentleman has a considerable majority in Leeds. He goes there and can look at London with a nice degree of objectivity. He surely cannot believe the statement which he has just made. It is not the boroughs who put down the Amendments, but hon. Members who represent the boroughs. Looking through the Notice Paper, one sees the names of all the hon. Members representing the London boroughs who have put down Amendments.
I have already referred to the hon. Member for Wimbledon. He has been chairman of the Surrey County Council. He is not exactly one of us—or I hope not. Other Amendments appear in the names not only of the hon. Member for Clapham, but of the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn)—I wonder what he has to do with London—the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), the hon. Member for Wimbledon and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). That is a fairly formidable lot of Conservative Members putting down their names to Amendments on the Bill.
Others include the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) and the hon. Member for "Tottenham Hotspur" (Mr. A. Brown), who finds himself on the other side of the House, but will find himself out on his neck at the next election. It is no use the Minister talking about the local authorities who put down the Amendments. They have got going on their Members, in exactly the way that the City of Leeds lets the Minister and me know of its discontent.
I can only assume that the Government want the Bill for their own gerrymandering purposes in the belief that somehow it will do for them the same as the Boundary Commission probably did for them in the 1950 election. I am sorry about all this. This massive Bill needed major consideration in Committee upstairs. In the old days, it would have been worth the whole of a
860
Session, three mornings a week, and at the end we might have done something which was for the good of London.
I do not want anybody to think that I am in favour of London growing bigger. One of the curses of London is that it is far too big and sprawling. The Government have allowed the North—the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, where goods are made right from the beginning—to be denuded of the traditional industries. The whole pattern of life in the North has been distorted. The Government have done nothing to guide London or canalise it into a proper size or proper administration. Then, somehow, they blame London for the sprawl that they themselves have created over the years.
When we say that this is a serious matter which we want time to consider, a procedural Motion is brought in, not on the merits of the Bill, but simply on the merits of how far the Government can last and whether they can last at all. I know that a number of other hon. Members on this side are bursting to get into the debate, but I hope that I have made my protest.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: It was said on one occasion that the then Government Front Bench was an extinct volcano and that is a very good description of the Administration at this stage. Now, however, it has suddenly erupted into feverish activity with the London Government Bill. Consideration of our proceedings today gives one cause to ponder over the Government's priorities, because there was on the Order Paper for today the Contracts of Employment Bill, which many of us looked forward to discussing, because it had been built up by the Government as an enormously important—indeed, almost revolutionary—social Measure which would affect the fate of our working people and improve their status. What has happened to it? It has gone through the window to make way for the Guillotine Motion.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) still in his place. During his speech, he took the view, which a number of his colleagues have shared, that broadly speaking he approved of the use of the guillotine as a constitutional measure provided that

861
it was used with discretion. As I understood the approach by hon. Members opposite to discretion, it was to, be exercised to enable them to put their point of view.
The difficulty about the guillotine is that it is not an instrument that is given to discreet use. Once it is decided to use it and the guillotine falls, there is an inevitable finality in its operation. The purpose of the operation is to truncate debate, to truncate discussion, and I could not help feeling that the hopes of the hon. Member for Clapham and other of his colleagues that nevertheless it would be possible to use this guillotine machine in conditions which would enable them to do their duty by their constituencies were somewhat optimistic.
This guillotine will fall when we reach the stage of discussion of the First Schedule. The only quarrel that I have with the otherwise devastating speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) is that in his view the allocation of time contemplated for the First Schedule is reasonable. I share the view taken by several of my hon. Friends that the First Schedule is the very essence of this Bill. It certainly is the essence of the Bill from the point of view of many hon. Members, because the effect of it is to achieve a guillotine of the most drastic type, in the case of the Borough of West Ham, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and I represent, it has the effect of achieving its death.
One feels that this Guillotine Motion will inevitably limit discussion of changes which will alter the whole pattern of government and of local loyalty, which in the case of West Ham have existed since 1889. But there are other areas and boroughs of great standing which have achieved their own traditions and established their own standards whose fate as individual boroughs is now in issue.
It is intolerable that in this situation the prospects are that those local authorities which have run upon the voluntary efforts of many men and women, and which are administered by devoted officers, should be placed in the position that when they ask us to represent their points of view we have to say to them—and I hope that hon. Gentlemen oppo-
862
site will say this to their local authorities—"We are very sorry. We cannot adequately put the point of view which you have asked us to represent in the House. The Tory Government do not give us the opportunity to do so". I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have so bravely spoken will take their courage in both feet and vote with us in the Lobby when the Motion is divided on tonight.
We have reached the stage of beginning the discussion on the first Amendment to the First Schedule. After we have traversed the separate claims of Paddington, Greenwich, Deptford, Bermondsey, Wandsworth, and the rest, by the time we reach the rarified air of East Ham and West Ham I suspect that the allocated time will have been consumed.
Mr. Walter Edwards: And Stepney.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I have not omitted Stepney by design. I agree with my hon. Friend. There are many other boroughs whose whole fate is in issue. Many loyalties are being challenged by this discussion. In fact the efficient administration of London is being challenged. This is not merely a question of loyalties. There is a deep division of opinion as to what is best for the community.
At an earlier stage my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) intervened and suggested that there should be full discussion in circumstances where the Bill departs from the terms of the Report of the Royal Commission. My hon. Friend referred expressly to West Ham, the continuing existence of which the Commission recommended. The Minister seemed to shake his head. Whether he was denying that statement of fact I know not, but that is indeed the case. The Commission made that recommendation about West Ham, and this is one of the many illustrations where this Measure has departed from what that distinguished body recommended.
Sir K. Joseph: I was shaking my head because it was about the possible borough groupings, or borough futures, that the Royal Commission was particularly tentative. It was the only part of its Report on which it was tentative. It said that it had not gone deeply into this question at all, and therefore it put forward suggestions on this subject very diffidently.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I follow that. There was not the full machinery of investigation by a boundary Commission into these proposals, nor was there before the Government produced this Bill which is equally tentative, but, unhappily, prejudiced politically in favour of the Government. This is the deep anxiety that we feel, and the accusation that we make against the Government, that the reason for this indecent haste is not purity of mind about the failure of public administration in London, but a desire to achieve a quick political advantage.
We are not impressed with this casting of a white sheet which the Leader of the House endeavoured unimpressively to impose on himself with a smile on his face at the beginning of this debate. It did not impress the House, and I do not believe that it really impressed him. He is too old a hand in this matter of the business of politics.
I do not think that it is much of an exaggeration to say that each of these Amendments goes to the root of a pattern of politics and life which call for the most serious and anxious deliberation. One of the features of the Bill is that the questions which are asked are by no means posed in a partisan way from one side of the House only. The Minister will be aware that not only in this debate, but during the Committee stage, his colleagues have been deeply anxious not only because of the hope of winning a few votes at the next General Election, but for reasons of persuasion by those who have informed them of the possible consequences of some of these provisions.
This is not a Bill where an alignment of political forces on one side of the House against the other is necessarily involved, although I cannot escape the fact that that is to some extent the case. It is not essentially a case where the subject matter of our discussion is purely on party level. There is real anxiety on both sides of the House about the alteration of a system of government which has stood in high standing for so long, and which has established the London County Council as one of the most efficient and distinguished of all local authorities, particularly in its achievements. There is real anxiety about what is admittedly a very difficult problem of reorganisation. The House should therefore ask itself whether this Motion is really called for in the circumstances.
864
One of the things that shocked me was the information given by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham at the beginning of the debate that there had been no approach from the Government to this side of the House for the imposition of a voluntary timetable. I attended the discussions in Committee. There was not hint from the Minister that we were taking too long. There was never a stage during the discussion in Committee when he said that we must get on, that we were wasting time. He listened with great courtesy to, and answered with great care, the arguments advanced during the debate, and at no time was there anything approaching repetition. I do not even mean repetition of the kind which would be noted by the Chair. But there was no time when there was anything other than a serious consideration of the merits of the important Amendments being discussed. Accordingly, it is deplorable that, without any kind of approach to the Opposition Front Bench, the House of Commons should be presented with this ultimatum.
I confess that I find the issue of whether, in order to make the Government work and achieve their programme, circumstances might arise which made a Guillotine Motion necessary not easy of solution. I can conceive of cases where such circumstances might well arise. But surely in such a Bill as this, which effects great constitutional changes an approach should be made to this side of the House regarding a voluntary timetable. I have little doubt that we could have achieved a reasonable compromise, giving enough time for reasonable discussion and enabling the Government to get through what legislation they deem necessary.
In this country we pride ourselves on having Government by consent and the basis of that is government by discussion. This kind of intrusion of the mailed fist into our debates can be justified only in circumstances of urgency, and in the most extreme cases, where it becomes obvious that there is a deliberate programme of obstructionism which is rendering the process of government impossible. No such accusation has been made against the Opposition on this occasion. The furthest that the Leader of the House went was to say that on this side of the House there was no enthusiasm to advance the progress of the Bill. Of course there is not.

865
This is a case where, first, the Government have got their priorities all wrong. We have reached the stage where the Government are almost totally discredited. Their foreign and economic policies are in ruins. Massive and urgent measures of change and planning need to be introduced. This is no occasion where the functions of the House of Commons should be distorted by the exercise of the guillotine.
I protest most strongly at the truncation of the debate. That should happen only in extreme circumstances, which do not exist save in the wish of the Government to rush through this Measure as soon as possible.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I am concerned not so much with the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the guillotine as with the overall position arising from the endeavours of the Government to curtail our discussions. These are vitally important matters. They concern the question of bringing people to live together in certain communities and the extent to which there may be a desire by people to live together. How far ought the Government to impose their will upon people who may desire to live together in a particular community? How far should the Government go to compel them, if they do not desire to do so? To what extent should the Government be the arbiters of fate for the individual, and to what extent should the Government interfere with the liberty of people in such matters as this?
It is not only a question of efficiency. The groups concerned could be larger or smaller, or composed in a different way without regard to the ultimate efficiency of the organisation from the point of view of local government. That does not come into the picture at all. The Government have decided on a formula to be applied, and because their majority has shrunk to such a small size in respect of this Bill they are determined to curtail the discussion so as to ensure that they do not suffer defeat at some stage—as they might well do in view of the recalcitrants among their supporters and the lack of interest on the part of others who are not particularly concerned.
In a matter which affects the lives and wellbeing of 8 million people one might
866
think it important that the fullest possible measure of discussion should be afforded in order to allow all points of view to be fully explored regarding the desirability of this Measure. What is it that the Government seek to achieve? Do they want government for the people by the people, or a community of interest in which people are happy with the relationship which has been established? Or are the Government seeking to impose by force majeure something they consider desirable for the people, irrespective of the desires of the people? This is not a question of party politics. It is a question of the interests of the people. That has been said by hon. Members opposite and it arouses considerable misgivings about whether the proposals of the Government are acceptable to the people. That is what really matters in a democracy.
The government of London has its place in the overall pattern of local government. But it also has a special meaning for the people of London. That is why the ordinary standards of the local government boundary commissions do not apply to London. Its problems have been considered separately, and a Royal Commission came to conclusions vastly different from those which the Government seek to impose on the people of London. But, presumably, the Government have decided that they must have their way. What lies beneath all this? What are the underlying principles? It cannot be a matter of overall efficiency, or that what is proposed will give London so much better government at a much lower cost. The chances are that it will cost more, anyway.
What were the Government's objectives? One can only assume that this was a political move to destroy the London County Council and, in the process, to destroy a number of other local units in order to achieve that. One can only assume that this is the basis. Whether that is so or not is not the issue at the moment. The question is whether all these things ought to be settled by free discussion in this House, whether or not we are the guardians of democracy in which the voice of the people is heard, or whether it is to be subject to the dictates from the Government Front Bench that this legislation has to go through in accordance with a certain timetable.

867
If the news from Brussels had been different today the Government would have gone ahead with a very difficult programme to assimilate Britain into the Common Market, or something of that kind. They would then have said that they must get this matter through urgently and that they were not prepared to let the matter of London government stand in the way because there were matters of greater urgency and more important to the State to be dealt with. They would have said, "Let us get this out of the way so that we can discuss these other major questions of importance to Britain and the Commonwealth as a whole". But that was not the case.
What is the degree of urgency which would require this matter to come back from the Committee in such a limited time? I am not concerned here with the particular structure of a borough. I am not concerned with whether a borough is to be composed of certain units or divided into certain units. This matter is important to the people immediately concerned. Looking at the overall pattern, we see matters of grave importance to discuss in regard to the social organisation of the services with which they are concerned, the importance of the human services, how they should be broken up, whether they ought to be broken up into units, and how far those units may become better as a result of breaking them up.
These are not matters to be settled in accordance with a preconceived timetable with a few hours for this particular Amendment and an hour or two for that and an intimation that if we want to discuss one we cannot discuss another. That is what it comes down to in the last analysis when we are forced into a decision in which vital matters of concern to millions of people will not be discussed at all. This is of grave concern to the people. It is of grave concern to us as a democracy. It is of grave concern to the good name of this House which, in the last analysis, is the guardian of the people. We are not here to obey the dictates of a Government who set themselves on a certain course, particularly in these matters of so much domestic concern.
I can understand it in great and important matters of overall State concern—not that 8 million people are to be ignored,
868
but assuming that we may partially ignore them in looking at the question of 50 million people, or the Commonwealth. These are things which affect the daily lives of large numbers of people. The Government have come out with a spurious device that their intention is to create locally better government. It is up to the Government to prove their case and to do so in free debate, not in a curtailed debate which will give advantage to Government Amendments and no advantage at all to Amendments which spring from bodies of people, from local authorities, boroughs and counties, from the people who know the problems with which they are faced in day-to-day administration. These people know the problems of divided loyalties and how those divided loyalties can be brought into a unity of purpose for the good of the community as a whole.
This is the most disgraceful and misguided use of the Guillotine Motion that has been devised since I became a Member, in 1945. I can understand that in the problem of steel a Government at some stage might say, on either nationalisation or denationalisation, that these are matters they have to get through in a particular time. They make an impact on the life of the people, but they have not the same impact on the life of the people as social services have. It is these things of which the House should be the most jealous guardian. We ought to be concerned that what we give to the people in this sort of matter they will feel is something which is useful and worth while to them.
Can we go to them and say, "We are very sorry, but the Amendments put down so that there can be a discussion on the particular merits of this or that form of structure in regard to a particular social service cannot because of the timetable, be discussed"? Could there be a more disgraceful or discreditable accusation made against any body claiming to speak in the name of the people? The fact is that the Government can no longer claim to speak in the name of the people, either nationally or locally. The sooner they move out of their position the better for all concerned. If all the rumours of a General Election in May turn out to be true we shall get rid of this Bill in the process of getting rid of the Government. That is the best we can hope for.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. David Weitzman: As well as being a Minister the Leader of the House is a servant of the House and, in that capacity, he must take careful account of the wishes of hon. Members. The Bill under discussion is not, or should not be considered, a political issue. It deals with the reform of London government and proposes very great changes. Indeed, each Schedule might in itself be described as a Bill and no one will dispute that this one piece of legislation involves tremendous problems of a social as well as an organisational type. It is all the more important, therefore, that we should probe every part of it.
Considering the complexity of the Bill and accepting for the moment that the Government have had proper regard to the matter, one must surely expect the Government to be anxious to see that such a wide, sweeping Measure is considered so thoroughly that no part of it is left untouched. I put it in that way because that describes how all hon. Members should approach the matter.
I have been an hon. Member for many years. I have seen a large number of Measures passed through the House and have taken part in many of the debates on them. I have always been under the impression that any Bill which affected my constituency required me to take part in its discussion, sometimes to put forward Amendments but always having ample opportunity of adducing my point of view. After all, what is the House of Commons for? Is it not a debating chamber which deals with many legislative Measures? Should not every opportunity be given to hon. Members to present their views on behalf of the people they represent?
Unless it can be shown that there are exceptional circumstances, ample time should be allowed for every Measure to be discussed on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. No obstruction should be put in the paths of hon. Members which would prevent them from taking part in such discussion. Why and in what circumstances should the guillotine be imposed? I appreciate that in certain circumstances—on the face of it they should be very few in number—the guillotine may be necessary.
870
It may be said, for instance, that it might be required if the Opposition were being obstructive—deliberately employing tactics to prevent a Measure going through—in such a way that the obstruction prevented serious debate taking place. No such accusation has been made against the Opposition on this Bill. I was present on the days devoted to the Committee stage when various Amendments were discussed in detail. It was never suggested that there had been anything wrong in the conduct of my hon. Friends in those debates. It cannot be said, therefore, that there is any suggestion of obstruction.
On the other hand, it might be said, "We want this Bill urgently. It is important and we do not have the time to get it through without limiting the opportunities for discussion". That might have been said, although even that is doubtful, had there not been a breakdown in the Common Market negotiations. It is obvious now that the Government have plenty of time in which to discuss the Bill. All the time which the Government proposed to devote to necessary Measures in connection with the Common Market is now available. Why is there such frantic urgency to put this Measure on to the Statute Book?
It would be patently dishonest for the Government to attempt to advance either of these arguments—first, that there has been any obstruction by the Opposition, and, secondly, that there is any urgency about the Bill. What is the Government's objection to the Bill being treated in proper form? I have dealt with the possible objections. I invite the Government to say how they can make any case in answer to my argument.
I said at the beginning that in a sense the Bill is not a political Measure. The Government say that it is not a political Measure. We on this side are very suspicious about that. We believe, and are right to believe, that the Government are anxious to do some gerrymandering here. They bring the Bill forward for political reasons. If the Government are right in saying that there is no question of this being a political Measure, that it is merely a Measure in which the Government seek to do what is best for the reform of local government in London, why not give the House the opportunity of debating the Bill properly, of going into every aspect of it in Committee, and

871
allowing a Bill to come forward finally as a result of everyone taking part in proper consultation?
I am very much impressed by one fact. I have heard it said—I suppose it must be accepted as true—that no approach has been made to the Opposition to agree a voluntary timetable. If the Government had said, "This is a very big Bill. There are many things in it. We want to give you ample time to deal with it. We think it should be discussed in detail. Let us try to work out a timetable between us", one could understand the Government's attitude if the Opposition had refused.
We are still in the early days. We have had only two days in Committee. This is the third day of discussion, but this debate is on the Guillotine Motion, not on the Bill. At this early stage the Government have the impertinence to introduce this Motion. The Leader of the House, with his casual and flippant manner, spoke about precedents and other Bills in connection with which Guillotine Motions had been imposed. Has a Guillotine Motion ever been imposed in such circumstances as this? Have any Government ever sought to impose a timetable on a Bill which they have said is meant to be for the good of London? Has this ever been done? What attitude will the Tories adopt, what few of them remain, when the Labour Party is restored to power at the next General Election and ventures on an important Bill on a proper occasion to introduce a Guillotine Motion?
It horrifies me that we are discussing this Measure with only four Tories present, apart from the two on the Front Bench. This demonstrates the enormous interest taken in this matter by supporters of the Government. What has happened is very simple. Hon. Members on the Government side are outside the Chamber, somewhere in the precincts of the House. They will come in and vote for the Government and they will not have the slightest idea what they are voting for. They have not heard a single argument and they do not know anything about the case for or against. It is disgraceful that our affairs should be dealt with in this manner. It is particularly disgraceful when it is remembered that we on this side of the House are not only pleading
872
our own case but are upholding the case of many hon. Members opposite. I doubt whether a single Member opposite who has spoken on the Bill supports this Motion for a moment. This is a disgraceful step on the Government's part. It is a step which shows the desperation they are now in. It is one of the last things they are doing before they have to go to the country and suffer the defeat which they thoroughly deserve.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Walter Edwards: I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House, because I believe that by now most of the points to be made in the debate have been made from these benches. But I do not feel that I should let this opportunity pass without saying a few words on this most important Motion.
I should like to reiterate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said about the interest taken in the Motion by Conservative Members. Judging from their attendance, there appears to be little support for the Motion, with so few even caring to listen to the debate at this time of day and, for that matter, almost throughout. I have been a Member of Parliament for twenty years and I have never before seen such an important matter before the House dealt with in the way that this has been dealt with by the Government, and in such a short time. Obviously, Conservative Members do not know much about the situation and it is for that reason that the Government have brought forward this Motion.
I was present during the Committee stage proceedings on the Bill last week when some Conservative Members, at least, were in their places and played their part in taking up time to discuss Clause 1. But even they now appear to be conspicuous by their absence. I wonder whether the Government Chief Whip has told them, "You dare speak tonight and you will see that something will happen to you between now and the next General Election." This is the sort of disrepute into which the House has been put, the sort of situation in which hon. Members opposite who had the courage to speak against the Government in Committee find themselves. I wish that they were now here to listen

873
to me. Perhaps they could then answer me.
I make the strongest possible protest against this shocking Motion being introduced so quickly. During my membership of the House I have never listened to a more proper discussion during the Committee stage of a Bill than we had on the Bill last week. No time was wasted. Very important matters affecting millions of people in London, including my constituents, have been under consideration. The time was shared equally between that side of the House and this. But I had a curious feeling last Thursday night when I saw the Leader of the House sitting in the corner seat of the Front Bench watching us with a twinkling eye as we were going into a Division at ten o'clock and thinking, "I will get you". That is the sort of Leader of the House we have now, a Leader who is prepared to bring in a Motion like this without any reason and without any complaint from either side about a waste of time.
For what purpose is the Motion being introduced? According to the Queen's speech, we take it that the Bill is the major item of legislation this Session. After two days in Committee on this major piece of legislation, we have the Guillotine thrust upon us. What sort of democracy is this? Is the Conservative Party becoming a Fascist party? It seems that the Tories are taking the same line as the Communists and the Fascists in denying the democratic rights of Members of the House to put the case of their constituents in a proper and dignified manner, without the Guillotine hanging over their heads.
The people of east London are gravely concerned about the Bill. One or two hon. Members opposite may giggle, but they, perhaps, have no connection with the subject matter of the Bill. It may please them to giggle, but they should come to the poorer parts of London and see what will be the effect of the Bill there and how worried people are about it. When we are denied the opportunity of expressing the opinions which our people want us to express, it is the very negation of democracy, and the Government ought to be ashamed of themselves.
In spite of what the Leader of the House said today, it cannot be denied that
874
no time has yet been wasted on the Bill. There is a lot of this Session left, and a reasonable amount of time could have gone to the Committee stage on the Floor of the House before ever the Government could accuse anybody of delaying the Bill by obstruction.
What is the reason behind it? Without doubt, it is political. The Tories are determined to ensure, as far as they possibly can, that London will not be governed by Labour again. They have tried their hardest since 1934. They failed with the electorate, but they are trying now, by Communist or Fascist methods, by use of the guillotine, to see that the government of London passes into Tory control and away from the democratically elected London County Council.
They want to put the government of London in the hands of the Tories, but for what purpose? They want to do it so that the Tory ratepayers' machine can grind the people of London as it did before 1934 but has never been able to do since.
It has been said optimistically by the Tories that they will win the next General Election. If they will, why rush the Bill through? They could introduce it again. Is it because they are afraid that they will lose the next election and that they will lose London electorally and parliamentarily and want to have control of London's local government? That appears to be the only reason why the Government should propose this Motion. Apart from the gigglers opposite, have they no sense of decency with regard to democracy? Perhaps one of the gigglers will get up and answer me. Perhaps they have not a sense of decency.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: There is no one on the benches opposite to answer my hon. Friend.
Mr. Edwards: There is a giggler there. Although some hon. Members opposite do not belong to London, they should take this matter seriously. London is taking it seriously and that is why we strongly object to the Government's action in denying London Members of Parliament the opportunity to put their constituents' case before the House in the proper way.
I have never seen anything as shameful as this action. I thought that the Government had reached the depths of

875
shame, but this takes their shame even lower. I doubt whether they could get any lower than this.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) was right in his concluding remarks, namely, that we have reached a new low. I have listened to the debate for five hours, and, like most hon. Members speaking at the tail-end of a long debate, I find difficulty in seeing how I can underline the arguments which already have been put forward.
One thing which surely must be a precedent in this House is that since the opening speech of the Leader of the House not one contribution from either side has defended the Motion. For five hours hon. Members on this side have had nothing to answer except the statement of the Leader of the House. That was thoroughly demolished and scattered to the four winds by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). Since then, we have had to plead and push in every possible way in order to try to make some indentation on the thick skulls of the occupants of the Front Bench opposite.
A second precedent must be that we have a Guillotine Motion after two days of debate in which all the speeches from both sides, except two small contributions at the end of the second day, opposed the Government's proposals. In the first two days of the Committee stage the only defence for the Bill came from the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. The Motion has been dealt with in a perfunctory way by the Leader of the House. There was never any serious charge of obstruction and yet the Guillotine Motion will be passed when the Whips get hon. Members opposite to vote.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that those of us who jumped to our feet when he was called were not impatient. We listen to his contributions with a great deal of pleasure. Whenever he gives us information about the procedure of the House, we always enjoy what he says. I welcomed his description of the duties of the Leader of the House. He referred to the job of the right hon. Gentleman to announce delegations to foreign parts.
876
Having heard the contribution of the Leader of the House today, the sooner he announces his own delegation to foreign parts the happier I shall be.
I wish to take up the point raised by a number of hon. Members about the constituency nature of the debate which we are having as a result of the Motion. The number of times when hon. Members are able to represent their constituents' point of view in this House are few and far between. We talk about great international matters and matters of national import, but there are few occasions when we have a specific and immediate duty and responsibility which keenly affects every one of our constituents. This is one of those occasions.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) pointed out that more than a hundred Members are affected and have been subjected to pressures on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) told of the 500 letters he has received. We are all in much the same position. In our local papers there are leaders and correspondence week after week. How can we justify our position to our constituents, because this Motion will not permit us to put the arguments we would wish to put on their behalf?
I have two Amendments on the Order Paper which are to be lumped together with 11 others. There will thus be an omnibus discussion with all of us keeping one eye on the guillotine. Consequently it will be impossible to make an effective contribution to try to secure the changes we wish to see made to this Bill in Committee.
The Minister himself has made the point that a number of hon. Members representing constituencies affected have not put down Amendments seeking to bring about changes in the boundaries proposed in the First Schedule. That, however, is merely a self-denying ordinance on their part. Hon. Members on both sides have sought all the time to be constructive and helpful, realising that if the Bill goes through we shall have to face its consequences in our constituencies. There has been no attempt at any stage to move frivolous Amendments.
Considering that more than a hundred hon. Members are directly affected, the number of Amendments has been

877
kept remarkably low. The nature of the Bill is extremely wide. The Seventeenth Schedule alone covers 22 pages dealing with 165 parts of Acts of which some Sections are to be repealed or altered. However, this Motion means that we shall not be able to safeguard our constituencies from the consequences of these repeals.
A few years ago another Measure was forced through the House. It was the occasion of deep division between the two parties. This time, however, there is no great division between the back benches on both sides of the House. The division is mainly between these benches and the back benches opposite and the Government. In 1957 the Rent Act was forced through, but before the ink was dry the Government had to introduce the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act to safeguard the position for the following three years.
The proposals in this Bill are so far-reaching that we may well have to come back for some temporary arrangement, once it is passed, in order to be able effectively to deal with the points we wished to make during its passage but where we will now be ineffective because of this Motion.
My own area of Willesden dates back at least to the Domesday Book. It has taken 1,000 years to reach its present position. Now the Government want to rush through drastic alterations in a few weeks. To hold only 21 sittings of the Standing Committee is thoroughly unfair, and the short time in which they must conclude is unfair to those of us who have other duties to perform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe) has also been sitting here for five hours, waiting to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I will therefore close my remarks although I wanted to make several more points, because I hope he will have the good fortune to be called. Most of the contributions made in this debate have come from people with the interest of Parliament at heart, concerned not only about the guillotine on this occasion but also with our institution and the way in which it is organised.
I hope that those who did not have the pleasure of hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw
878
Vale (Mr. M. Foot) will read it tomorrow and see the logic he advanced. If we take this to its conclusion, then the House will become just a rubber stamp for whatever the Government want to do.
The way in which the House is becoming lowered in the estimation of the public was well put in the Guardian this morning. One of the shrewdest political commentators of our day is Norman Shrapnel, who wrote
"This rather old-world idea that the Government's actions are controlled by the House of Commons seemed to intrigue many members and attract a great deal of sympathy …"
It is knowledgeable criticism of that kind giving a general impression of our standing which underlines the importance of this Guillotine Motion. Those who are utterly opposed to the way in which the Government ignore every decent precedent of the House and the way in which they seek to be entirely autocratic in their approach must bring the maximum pressure to bear in the Lobbies when the matter is taken to a Division.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Michael Cliffe: Notwithstanding the amusement of some hon. Members opposite, the guillotining of this Bill is something which we ought all to feel to be extremely dangerous to any parliamentary democracy. We could have appreciated the Bill being pushed through if general conditions in London were so appalling that it became necessary to protect not only the people of London, but those hundreds of thousands if not millions who come into the City during the course of the year, if the administration had been in such a state of chaos that public services were breaking down.
But Ministers themselves and those who have spoken in favour of some parts of the Bill have admitted that the facts are that although there is ground for an examination and even improvement in some aspects of London local government, a certain amount of time is required for the smooth transfer of responsibility for functions like children's welfare, old people's welfare, the rehabilitation services and so on from London County Council to the Greater London authority and the enlarged borough councils. But the Government have insisted all along the line that there must be a deadline.

879
I am sure that they hoped that the two-day Second Reading debate would be an occasion for filibustering and frivolous speeches, so that they would have some justification for a guillotine. But what happened was that every hon. Member who spoke, from either side of the House, made serious submissions and expressed the overwhelming views of his constituency. How many hon. Members took part in that debate? I had one opportunity to explain what had happened to my constituency, how, in 1952, Shoreditch and Finsbury had been amalgamated so that the two areas lost one Parliamentary seat and three seats on the London County Council, how within a period of less than 10 years it was now confronted with a major surgical operation so that one part of the area would go to Islington and the other to Hackney and Stoke Newington. Is it seriously believed that we can continue to operate a democratic society—administratively, not politically—if situations like this are to arise every 10 years or so?
It has been said that the justification for the Bill is that nothing has happened for the past 60 years concerning the review area although there have been fundamental changes and movements of people from central London and other areas and the perimeter of London has been built up and, therefore, it is necessary to introduce the Bill and to get something done as quickly as possible. What has happened, and what, surely, concerns any hon. Member with a sense of decency, is that whilst all these alterations have taken place within London—and we admit some of them—there is need for examination, although not of the kind that the Government have presented.
The City of London, with its population of less than 5,000, is being left entirely alone. This, surely, must represent to everybody that there is something political about the Bill. A wonderful institution like the London County Council, which performs duties in practically all spheres of welfare work and education, which has been admired and envied by people from all parts of the world, is to disappear, while nothing is to happen to the City of London.
The Government are accused of political gerrymandering and that is what people are entitled to think. For
880
my part, I have made the accusation right from the start. They are now trying to force the Bill through because nobody has been able to defend it. When it was first introduced, the Minister of Education fumbled for words but could find nothing to say in defence of the educational policies proposed by the Government, who have since climbed down slightly. Nobody on the Government side has been able to present a case for the Bill. Of course, the Government want to get it out of the way.
I know that time must be allowed for other speakers, but at least I have had the opportunity of getting this off my chest. Whatever has happened is to the discredit of the Government. Despite the fact that they have said that the Bill is necessary, there is no reason to believe that they are any more right in this matter than they have been about their economic policies, their foreign policy, their defence policy and their Common Market policy. This is just another of their failures which can be added to all the others which they have had so far.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. George Brown: I am sure that everybody in the House will agree especially with the last few words of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Cliffe). An interesting part of the debate to those who heard it was the extreme difference between the half-hearted, ill-prepared and weakly argued speech of the Leader of the House and the quite devastating speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).
Nobody could feel that the Leader of the House had even thought that there was the slightest chance of making a case for the Guillotine Motion and, therefore, he made no real attempt to do so. He seemed to take the line—it was the only point he made—that since there had been timetable Motions dating back to 1887 and since the Government of the day had always moved them and the Opposition had always opposed them, they were, therefore, to be regarded as a piece of what he called shadow boxing on every occasion and were not to be taken seriously.
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman told us that since, when in Opposition,

881
he had made the same sort of speech which he thought my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham would make today—but which my hon. Friend did not, in fact, make—and he expected us on this side to behave similarly, is too juvenile a form of debate to be worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. There may well be some Guillotine Motions of which that can be true, there might well have been some in the past of which it was true, but each Guillotine Motion, like every other Motion which is offered to the House, must be dealt with on its merits.
The Minister tried to refer to precedents, but surely the great point about all precedents of timetable Motions is that there must be some reason for the Government resorting to them, and, above all, some evidence that the majority was being obstructed in getting its will by unreasonable behaviour on the part of the minority. There has been no attempt to show that here. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham pointed out, there could not be. That is no doubt why the Minister did not attempt to do so.
What is happening is very different. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) when he referred to something which has been mentioned several times recently in the debates on these timetable Motions. This Conservative majority in the House has become just about the laziest majority there has been in the House for a very long time. No attempt is now made to get controversial Measures through by allowing time for debate. We never sit late any more. The Government do not want to sit late. The old fierce debates which went on into the early hours of the morning never take place now.
As the Minister said in a revealing phrase, once it becomes apparent that the Opposition have deep feelings about a Bill, one can be sure that the Government will resort to the timetable Motion to get it through. The terrible thing about it is that they really believe this. They really believe that time should be allowed for debate provided it is not a fiercely contested Bill, in which case a lot of time will not be needed for debate, but if it is a fiercely contested Bill on which there would be debate, time should not be allowed to discuss it.
882
One would have thought it impossible for the Minister to adopt a more ridiculous posture from a democratic point of view, yet this is what the Government are doing. If the Government wanted the Bill through by Easter, they should have set about trying to get it. If it had then become apparent that we were holding it up by filibustering, or any of the time-honoured practices, they could then have come along with a Motion such as this, but they never even tried. They fixed upon their timetable. They decided on Easter. They looked at the number of days available between now and Easter and said, "Very well, we shall resort to the guillotine."
The tragedy is that the Members who make up the Government's majority are supposed to be sitting on the benches opposite, but they are not, though no doubt when the Division bells ring they will come dashing in to vote for something about which they know nothing. The majority are prepared supinely to support this kind of approach by the Leader of the House, in their dying days. One would have thought that some would go to their inevitable defeat with some of the flags flying.
I know of no precedents, except the Motions which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced since he took over the office of Leader of the House, where there has been no evidence offered or required of obstruction before the timetable Motion was introduced.
The second point with which the right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to deal with the question whether this was an appropriate Bill for the guillotine. This Measure differs from all others. It is designed not only to alter irrevocably and on a drastic scale local democratic government for more than 8 million people, but to redraw political constituencies. Surely, if the form of democratic practice and procedure is to be observed, if such a Bill does not go through with agreement between the two sides, it must go through only after the minority affected have had the right to examine it?
This is a gerrymandering Bill. It is all very well for the Leader of the House to try to deal with this as a frivolous joke. He said that it was somehow absurd of us to accuse the Government of playing politics. I thought that he

883
felt that we would play politics. That is not much of a point, but it gives us the case. He is saying that we cannot accuse the Government of playing politics, even though they are doing so. That is not much of a defence. A murderer can hardly say to the judge, "I am not sure that you would not have done the same thing had you been in my place", and expect to get off.
The point is that the right hon. Gentleman is playing politics, and chairmen of Conservative associations have attacked him for doing so. It is true that the chairman of the Bromley Conservative Association—whom I have quoted before—made a public statement to the effect that by the Bill the Conservative Party was trying, through legislation, to get what it could not get through the ballot box. When the Government are redrawing the shape of constituencies in a manner which will affect our Parliamentary life and in due course will affect Parliamentary elections as well as local elections, to resort to the use of a timetable Motion becomes indefensible. To do it before we have started on the process of debate seems to me utterly indefensible.
The Minister mentioned the background to the Bill. He tried to show that the Measure was very respectable, and came from a highly respectable Royal Commission. Some town clerks had been involved somewhere in the picture. I got the idea that the right hon. Gentleman thought that if he could find a town clerk to support what was being done, the Government were home and dry. I feel bound to tell him that that is not normally regarded as the height of democratic procedure. The Minister did not deal with the point about the background of the Bill which is that there is practically no democratically elected authority in the whole of the area concerned, whether Conservative, Labour or independent in its political alignment, which is not opposed to the Bill, in whole or in substantial part.
Many people want the Bill to be properly debated, and, if possible, they want it to be amended, if they do not want to see it wholly rejected. When faced with such a situation, surely it becomes totally indefensible for the Government to resort to a time-table Motion to prevent any of
884
that from happening. Conservative authorities and other local authorities have written to hon. Members on this side of the House asking us to put down Amendments to the Bill for them. Obviously, these authorities feel that the Conservative Members of Parliament who represent them might be a little unreliable in this matter. I had an approach from the distinguished town of Barnet, where I once lived. Apparently Barnet felt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might somehow be unreliable in this connection. They asked that we put down Amendments and argue their case. I am not referring to Socialist authorities. This timetable Motion will prevent that from happening. The attempts of the Minister to deal with the issues surrounding the Bill were of a most shabby kind.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to deal with the question of a mandate. As I listened to him, I thought of the political events which might occur during the year. I thought that his speech was one for which we may be grateful later. I do not propose to subject it now to any close analysis, the better to be able to make use of it later. If the Government are pushing through a Measure which did not appear in their election manifesto, it makes the use of the guillotine procedure highly indefensible. The effects of this Bill will be greater than any Measure which the party opposite ever indicated that it would introduce. Putting aside all questions of party, I cannot feel that anybody who heard the Minister's speech could think that he made any case at all for introducing a timetable Motion at this point in our proceedings.
Let us look at the Motion itself, and since I do not wish to repeat what has been said already in the debate, I will come straight to a point made by my hon. Friend regarding the fact that two days are to be allowed for Report and Third Reading. It will not take very many important Amendments by the Government to mean that there will be no effective discussion on Report in the House at all. The Minister cannot say that there will not be substantial Amendments on Report. The opportunities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government for doing the necessary work in Committee have been so limited that he will be bound to use the Report stage for purposes for which otherwise the

885
Committee stage would be used. Obviously, two days for Report and Third Reading will be an absolute mockery.
There has been some discussion about whether my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham was right or wrong to say that he would have settled for four days for the Committee stage in the House on Clause 1 and the First Schedule. The fact that he said he would have asked for five days had he been approached and that he was thinking of settling for four days shows that we were not obstructing or holding up procedure. As he has pointed out, we are faced with no more than 21 sitting days to deal with the rest of the Bill. Has anyone on the other side of the House had a look at what is involved in the rest of the Bill? Almost any part of this Bill could be regarded as a major Bill in itself.
Of the 80 or more Clauses, 70 are major Clauses, and there are 17 Schedules What the majority are forcing the House to do is deal with the rest of the Bill virtually at the rate of four Clauses and one Schedule per sitting. This is a gross affront to democratic government. This is indefensible unless we start from the assumption that talking in Parliament is a nuisance and the only purpose of Parliament is to allow the majority to get the business they decide they want.
If hon. Members opposite are in any mood to be reasonable, and to approach their Parliamentary duties practically, let them look at Part VII of the Bill. There are local government functions as to health and welfare services, local health authorities, old persons, welfare, children authorities and the whole list of others. To say that they should be taken at the gallop, even if the Business Committee makes the best arrangement it can, at the rate of four Clauses and a Schedule per sitting, is something I should not have thought any hon. Member opposite would want to defend.
We want to hear whether the Minister can make any case for this proposal. I have allowed him all the time for which he asked and a little bit more so that he can have no ground for saying that he was not able to make his case. So far, there has been no case except that hon. Members opposite do not want to sit late, that Ministers find argument in
886
the House a bore and that they want to get the Bill through for some reason connected with their own political timetable, whether it be clearing the decks for an early General Election or to push the gerrymandering of the local government and constituencies forward as soon as possible.
It is for only these shabby—and, in a democratic sense, indecent—reasons that the House is asked to agree to this Motion today. Even at this late hour I ask some hon. Members opposite to stand up for Parliamentary democracy and to come with us into the Lobby against this Motion.
9.39 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I mean no disrespect at all to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) when I say that I think he has picked out some of the arguments which were introduced first by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and has emphasised them graphically and vividly. I therefore have to answer in general the case which was made by the hon. Member for Fulham in reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who moved the Motion, supplemented to some extent by the speeches of hon. Members in the debate.
The hon. Member for Fulham developed, as he can be relied upon to do, a powerful argument on a chosen sector of the front. I shall try to deal with all the points he raised. He accepted that the Government have a right to get their legislation provided there is due consideration of the views of the minorities. I do not think that he will dissent from the way I have worded his remarks. He then said that to justify a timetable Motion the Government had to show either that there had been obstruction or faction or that there was strong urgency or that there was strong popular demand.
I suggest that we consider those three points. Is there urgency in this case? My hon. Friends and I believe that there is, but let me put it in a way which might appeal to the House. Is it not urgent that the uncertainty which is hanging over the Measure and which has hung over London government—not just since this party returned to power but since hon. Members opposite first approached the

887
subject of London local government reform—should be brought to an end? Hon. Members opposite may say that we cannot adduce popular demand, but popular need is not always reflected in popular demand. My hon. Friends and I believe that there is the strongest need, for the sake of the people of London, to put the Bill on to the Statute Book.
I turn to the point which hon. Members opposite have most emphasised; namely that the Government have not been able to point clearly to any evidence of obstruction and faction. There has, in fact, been every evidence that there was going to be an attempt to delay the passage of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] Hon Members opposite have brought this out in their speeches, I recall the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Certainly the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), in one of his usual attractive speeches, went so far as to say that he would stop at nothing, save actually shooting me personally. If that is not evidence, what is? I recall also the speeches of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher).
Then the right hon. Member for Belper said that the Bill is particularly unsuitable for a timetable Motion. Having read most of the debates on timetable Motions in the last few years, I must say that it is obvious that each side distinguishes its own precedents. The right hon. Member for Belper said that the Bill was particularly unsuitable because it alters borough groupings. He did not realise the trap into which he had marched, because it was the hon. Member for Fulham who said that the one point on which he had no complaint was that enough time was being given to discuss this matter of borough groupings. So that cock will not fight.
Mr. G. Brown: The Minister is using a word which has two meanings. I was not discussing borough groupings. I did not mention them. I said that ultimately the Bill would redraw constituencies, Parliamentary constituencies, and that, therefore, it was not a suitable measure to be forced through under the guillotine.
Sir K. Joseph: It has only an implication for constituencies, because it affects
888
boroughs and their boundaries now. The hon. Member for Fulham said that we should have taken the Bill to a Standing Committee upstairs in the normal way to have seen how things went. I confirm that he reported accurately the exchanges between us. But obviously no Government can plan its business on the basis of a hypothetical answer which might be given at a hypothetical time to a hypothetical question.
If we are told that it is a novelty to put a timetable Motion before the Committee has got into its stride, I must quote what my right hon. Friend quoted earlier—some remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison when he was an hon. Member of this House. He said:
"…I am dealing with the new chapter in our island story…whereby an Allocation of Time Order is being imposed from the beginning of the Committee stage, and not after the Commitee stage has been operating for some time".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458 c. 1428.]
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), in a speech which it was a pleasure to listen to and which it will be an education to read, said that the House was not taking timetable Motions sufficiently seriously. All he said applies equally to the reception of timetable Motions under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman said that there were very few timetable Motions under the Labour Government. I do not know whether that reflects on the co-operative attitude of the then Opposition. All I know is that it was not all the Government's virtue. The right hon. Member for South Shields when Home Secretary said this:
"My experience of the House has been that under no Government of modern times has legislation been too swift. The danger to Parliamentary democracy in this country is not from the speed but the slowness of the forms that were used…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 125.]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said when he was Home Secretary, but as Leader of the House he brought in no Guillotine Motions. We are asked to believe that this was a virtue. That is what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would claim, but the right hon. Gentleman himself blew the gaff. He said that he did not bring in a Guillotine Motion because he had a majority of only six behind him and his own head would have tumbled. I think that there should be

889
less claim of virtue on one side and vice on the other.
I come now to the point which all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have failed to take into account. It is that obviously the Government recognise that they are entitled to get their business only if they pay due heed to the views of minorities. Nobody challenges this. I emphasise that the Government have the obligation to foresee whether they will get the business that they count as of major importance for the country. That is the consideration which has been absent from the arguments of hon. Gentlemen. Owing to the evidence that was before the Government from speeches outside the House and inside the House, owing to the evidence which has been confirmed by speeches by at least five Opposition Members today, the Government could clearly foresee that unless they took some such steps openly and candidly at this stage there would be grave danger of not getting the Bill on the Statute Book by the summer. The Government's majorities on the White Paper and on Second Reading entitled them to claim that they should have the Bill on the Statute Book.
I turn now to the arguments of detail. I will first deal with the First Schedule. A number of hon. Members—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty), my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), and Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) and the right hon. Member for South Shields—have all shown natural anxiety that there should be full opportunity to discuss borough groupings. The hon. Member for Bermondsey said that it was not possible for the Business Committee so to arrange affairs that when we reach the First Schedule each group of Amendments affecting a group of boroughs can be given an allocation of time so that things will not be skimped. I am glad to be able to assure the House that this is not true and that, so far as I am advised and subject always to the ruling of the Chair, it is possible so to divide the two days, each with an extra hour, which are to be allocated so as to ensure that a group of Amendments dealing with each group of boroughs will in each case have time allotted to it, so that one lot
890
of discussions cannot exclude a series of other discussions.
Mr. George Lawson: I listened very carefully to this point when it was made and the Minister has not answered it. The point was that, although it may be easy to allocate a given amount of time to a given borough or group of boroughs, one cannot determine who shall speak or for how long any hon. Member may speak. One hon. Member might utilise virtually all the time in that allocation.
Sir K. Joseph: That is a question for the Chair. I think that only in two cases are there Amendments mutually conflicting dealing with one lot of boroughs. In every other case all the Amendments tend towards the same objective.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington asked whether hon. Members would be placed in the awkward position of having either to be in Standing Committee or in the Committee of the whole House. I can assure the House that arrangements will be made which will prevent the Standing Committee and the Committee of the whole House clashing at the same time. [An HON. MEMBER:"A genius."] The Leader of the House referred to seven weeks being available for Standing Committee. He said that if three sittings were decided upon for each week that would add up to 21 sittings, equal in total time, including those days we are spending on the Floor of the House in Committee, to about 33 sessions of Committee, which does not compare unfavourably with the average of 25 to 36 sittings of Committee during the Socialist guillotines.
We had thought to start the Committee this Thursday, but obviously this will not be convenient, and therefore we propose to start the Standing Committee next Tuesday, and the seven weeks mentioned by my hon. Friend will run from that day. Naturally, it is for the Business Committee to decide whether there shall be three sittings per week, or more, or less, and it is open to the Business Committee to change the number of sittings each week by bringing a new Motion before the House if it so desires.
I accept that there is an obligation upon the Government, because of the timetable

891
Motion, to put down their own Amendments as soon as they possibly can. I am glad to relieve the fears of the hon. Member for Bermondsey that the House will be presented on Report with a massive group of transport Amendments. I am assured that those Amendments will be put down before we reach that part of the Bill in Committee.
I am sure that for all we may differ on the Motion we can on all sides accept that we are more likely, because of it, in view of the controversial nature of the Bill to have an orderly debate. I remind the House that on the three major Bills for which the Socialists put down a timetable Motion, about 40 per cent. of the Clauses and Schedules were not even discussed.
Evidence has been dragged in by hon. Members to suggest that there is some sinister motive in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) came nearer to it when, talking about events in Brussels, he said that this country was in need of massive reforms and policies. But this is one of the massive reforms. Let me claim the support of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) when he acknowledged that bringing in the Bill needed some courage. Here we are with boundaries being altered to meet our view that metropolitan purposes need to be served by a Metropolitan authority and the remainder put in the hands of regrouped boroughs. There were bound to be some groupings emerging which would be unpopular.
Do hon. Members opposite think that if we were really seeking votes we would go about it in this way? Let them see that some of my hon. Friends do not altogether approve of some of the groupings we are suggesting. It would be easy enough, if we were gerrymandering, to please them instead of displeasing them. The right hon. Member for Belper teased us for asking town clerks to help us. We would have been far more open to teasing if the Government had come to all these decisions, with the implications on the boundaries, entirely on their own without outside and objective advice.
How do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that we stand to gain politically when a number of our own supporters have objections? They are
892
not objections to the purpose of the Bill as a whole. I know of only one of my hon. Friends who is solidly against the Bill as a whole. But how do hon. Members opposite think we stand to gain when a number of our supporters disapprove strongly of some parts of the Bill? How do they think we stand to gain politically when they keep on telling us that the Bill is so massively unpopular outside and is out to achieve the wrong object in the wrong way and will gravely injure London? How do they then at the same time accuse us of doing this for motives of gain?
The fact is that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are so backward-looking and so retrograde that they do not recognise that there is any need for reform. How is it that all the allegations about London government are always quoted about the L.C.C. and never about Middlesex or about Greater London as a whole? They have not realised that 8½million people live in the Metropolis not just 3 million.
No one on this side—that is going too far—no Member of the Government and very few hon. Members on this side wish to point any finger of discredit or blame in any way at the London County Council or the existing boroughs. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] That is true. I pay a public tribute to what the authorities are doing. But it is only sensible to recognise that the powers given to local authorities in the Greater London area are either inadequate or wrongly distributed.
It cannot be said that a Government who are willing to take their courage in their hands and embark upon a Measure which hon. Members opposite recognise needs courage, that a Government who are willing to affront—only temporarily, I hope—some of their own supporters, that a Government who are willing to follow at record speed a Royal Commission Report and to take up the vast majority of its recommendations, that a Government who are willing to give four days on the Floor of the House, which the hon. Member for Fulham says he would have found satisfactory, for the discussion of the borough groupings, are doing anything but trying to serve the interests of the public.
I am, alas, not free to discuss merits at this stage. But if it is open to the

893
hon. Member for Bermondsey, whom everyone in the House, I think, respects, to make momentarily an impassioned appeal and say that he regards the Bill as evil, it is, I hope, equally open to me to say that I believe profoundly that the Bill will bring the very greatest benefit to Londoners and it is the duty of the Government to obtain orderly debate on it and get it on the Statute Book as quickly as possible.
We have the support of the bulk of our hon. Friends on every part of the Bill. We have the support of all our hon.
Friends, except, I think, for one, on the principles of the Bill as a whole. We have had massive majorities on the White Paper and on Second Reading. That is why, in order to make sure that we have both orderly debate and a due consideration of the Amendments and in order to get the Bill on the Statute Book by the summer, I hope that the House will approve the timetable Motion by a massive majority.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 188.

Division No. 34.]

AYES

[9.58 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Iremonger, T. L.

Aitken, W. T.

Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Digby, Simond Wingfield

James, David

Allason, James

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Arbuthnot, John

Drayson, G. B.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Ashton, Sir Hubert

du Cann, Edward

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Atkins, Humphrey

Duncan, Sir James

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)

Eden, John

Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith

Balniel, Lord

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Barber, Anthony

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

Kershaw, Anthony

Barter, John

Emery, Peter

Kimball, Marcus

Batsford, Brian

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Leavey, J. A.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Leburn, Gilmour

Bell, Ronald

Farr, John

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

Fell, Anthony

Lilley, F. J. P.

Berkeley, Humphry

Fisher, Nigel

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Litchfield, Capt. John

Bidgood, John C.

Forrest, George

Longbottom, Charles

Biggs-Davison, John

Foster, John

Loveys, Walter H.

Bingham, R. M.

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Freeth, Denzil

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Bishop, F. P.

Gammans, Lady

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Bossom, Hon. Clive

Gardner, Edward

MacArthur, Ian

Bourne-Arton, A.

George, Sir John (Pollok)

McLaren, Martin

Box, Donald

Gibson-Watt, David

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)

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

Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Glover, Sir Douglas

McMaster, Stanley R.

Braine, Bernard

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Macpherson, Rt.Hn. Niall (Dumfries)

Brewis, John

Goodhew, Victor

Maddan, Martin

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Gower, Raymond

Maginnis, John E.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Grant-Ferris, R.

Maitland, Sir John

Brooman-White, R.

Green, Alan

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Gresham Gooke, R.

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Bryan, Paul

Gurden, Harold

Marshall, Douglas

Bullard, Denys

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Marten, Neil

Burden, F. A.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Campbell, Rt. Hn.Sir D. (Belfast, S.)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Mawby, Ray

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Mills, Stratton

Cary, Sir Robert

Hay, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Channon, H. P. G.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Montgomery, Fergus

Chataway, Christopher

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hendry, Forbes

Morrison, John

Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

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

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Cleaver, Leonard

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Cole, Norman

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

Neave, Airey

Cooke, Robert

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Cooper, A. E.

Hobson, Sir John

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hocking, Philip N.

Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael

Corfield, F. V.

Holland, Philip

Nugent, Rt Hon. Sir Richard

Coulson, Michael

Hollingworth, John

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hopkins, Alan

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Crawley, Aidan

Hornby, R. P.

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Crowder, F. P.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Cunningham, Knox

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Curran, Charles

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Currie, G. B. H.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Peel, John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Percival, Ian

Peyton, John

Seymour, Leslie

Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Sharples, Richard

Turner, Colin

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Shaw, M.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Pitman, Sir James

Shepherd, William

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Pitt, Dame Edith

Skeet, T. H. H.

Vane, W. M. F.

Pott, Percivall

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

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Smithers, Peter

Vickers, Miss Joan

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Speir, Rupert

Wakefield, Sir Wavell

Prior, J. M. L.

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Walder, David

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Walker, Peter

Stodart, J. A.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Wall, Patrick

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Studholme, Sir Henry

Ward, Dame Irene

Pym, Francis

Summers, Sir Spencer

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Talbot, John E.

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Ramsden, James

Tapsell, Peter

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Rawlinson, Sir Peter

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Rees, Hugh

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

Wise, A. R.

Renton, Rt. Hon. David

Teeling, Sir William

Woodhouse, C. M.

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Temple, John M.

Woodnutt, Mark

Ridsdale, Jullan

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Woollam, John

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

Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

Roots, William

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)

Mr. Chichester-Clark and

St. Clair, M.

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Mr. Graeme Finlay.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

NOES

Ainsley, William

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Albu, Austen

Forman, J. C.

Manuel, Archie

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mapp, Charles

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Galpern, Sir Myer

Marsh, Richard

Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Mason, Roy

Bacon, Mlss Alice

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mellish, R. J.

Baird, John

Gourlay, Harry

Millan, Bruce

Barnett, Guy

Greenwood, Anthony

Milne, Edward

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Grey, Charles

Mitchison, G. R.

Beaney, Alan

Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

Moody, A. S.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Gunter, Ray

Moyle, Arthur

Bence, Cyril

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Neal, Harold

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Blackburn, F.

Hannan, William

Oram, A. E.

Blyton, William

Harper, Joseph

Oswald, Thomas

Boardman, H.

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Hayman, F. H.

Pargiter, G. A.

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

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Parker, John

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Parkin, B. T.

Bowles, Frank

Hilton, A. V.

Pavitt, Laurence

Boyden, James

Holman, Percy

Peart, Frederick

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Holt, Arthur

Pentland, Norman

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hooson, H. E.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Houghton, Douglas

Popplewell, Ernest

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hoy, James H.

Prentice, R. E.

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Cliffe, Michael

Hunter, A. E.

Probert, Arthur

Collick, Percy

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Crosland, Anthony

Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

Rankin, John

Crossman, R. H. S.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Redhead, E. C.

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Reid, William

Dalyell, Tam

Jeger, George

Reynolds, G. W.

Darling, George

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

Rhodes, H.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Kelley, Richard

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Robinson. Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Deer, George

King, Dr. Horace

Ross, William

Delargy, Hugh

Lawson, George

Russell, Ronald

Dodds, Norman

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Short, Edward

Donnelly, Desmond

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Doughty, Charles

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

Lipton, Marcus

Skeffington, Arthur

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Loughlin, Charles

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lubbock, Eric

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Small, William

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

MacColl, James

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Evans, Albert

MacDermot, Niall

Snow, Julian

Fernyhough, E.

McInnes, James

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Finch, Harold

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Spriggs, Leslie

Fitch, Alan

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Steele, Thomas

Fletcher, Eric

McLeavy, Frank

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

MacPhereon, Malcolm (Stirling)

Stones, William

896

897

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Thorpe, Jeremy

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

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

Wade, Donald

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Wainwright, Edwin

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

Swingler, Stephen

Warbey, William

Winterbottom, R. E.

Symonds, J. B.

Watkins, Tudor

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Taverne, D.

Weitzman, David

Woof, Robert

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Whitlock, William

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Willey, Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Thornton, Ernest

Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

Mr. Charles A. Howell and

Mr. McCann

EMPLOYMENT, WEST CUMBERLAND
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peel.]
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Peart: I want to raise tonight a very important matter, concern about which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds)—the problem of unemployment in West Cumberland.
West Cumberland seems a long way from Westminster, but it is a very important area with great traditions and we are anxious about its future. We raise this matter now so that we may hear from the Government what they intend to do about unemployment in the area. Recently, the Government asked Viscount Hailsham to assume responsibility for dealing with unemployment in the North-East. When I heard of this, I immediately wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him what were the intentions of the Government in relation to West Cumberland. West Cumberland has been associated with the Northern Region and we were anxious to know what our position was.
In my letter to the Prime Minister, I asked what was the Government's policy for this area, which had as high an incidence of unemployment as the North-East. Were we to be a separate development district, or to be included with the North-East; were Viscount Hailsham's duties to cover not only the North-East, but West Cumberland, which is in the Northern Region; or were we to have to wait for a separate scheme for North-West England? I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister's reply on 23rd January was not satisfactory. He said:
"Dear Peart,
Thank you for your letter of January 10 about West Cumberland.
The problems arising from the industrial structure in the North-East and the number
898
of the unemployed in the area create a special problem which is not reproduced in a comparable scale in West Cumberland or indeed in other areas of high unemployment.
This does not mean that nothing will be done for these other areas. The facilities of the Local Employment Act will continue to be available where appropriate in the development districts in these areas, and in their steering of new industry the Board of Trade will continue to take account of local unemployment rates. I hope, moreover, that West Cumberland, in common with other areas, will benefit from the measures taken in recent months by the Government to stimulate the economy generally.
Yours sincerely,
Harold Macmillan."
I regard that letter as a shockingly complacent approach to our problems, because we are still left in a state of uncertainty.
We are anxious partly because we are in the Northern Region and partly because our administrative regional offices have been concentrated in Newcastle. What is to be the Government's policy towards West Cumberland? Only yesterday figures were revealed by the President of the Board of Trade and by the Minister of Labour which showed percentages of unemployment in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven will be able to indicate the seriousness of the position in his area.
The figures given yesterday by the Minister of Labour were that in Workington there were 8·5 per cent. unemployed; in Aspatria, 8·5; per cent.—that is in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour—in Cockermouth, 8·5;per cent. and in Maryport, 8·5;per cent. Those figures indicate a seriousness of unemployment in the area comparable with that of any other area. Although the area is relatively small, it is an old development area, and the percentages if not the numbers compare with areas in the North-East and on Merseyside.
I do not disagree with the Government's approach to the North-East in appointing Viscount Hailsham. They had

899
to take dramatic action and I hope that something will be forthcoming, although I suspect that this is a gimmick. If it is not a gimmick, I should like to know what is to be done and whether the area will receive comparable treatment. So far, I have not had an answer from official quarters.
The Prime Minister spoke of the need to stimulate the economy generally. Why do we have this situation in West Cumberland? We have a special problem, but it is partly because of Government policy over the years. The Prime Minister cannot escape responsibility for it.
In Liverpool the other day, the Prime Minister made a speech in which he dealt with unemployment. To quote from the Liverpool Daily Post of Monday, 21st January, the Prime Minister said:
"Among the reasons why employment in this country has become less buoyant of late, one of the most important is the slow-down in the growth of world production and trade. Another is the fall in private industrial investment due to uncertainty about world trade, the United States economy and the Common Market. And then, let us face it, unemployment can be traced to uncertainty about the outcome of the next General Election."
What a terrible approach to unemployment.
I say to the Government and to the Prime Minister that my people are patriotic. They are anxious to give of their best. They believe that industrialists are not affected by such things as the uncertainty of the General Election and that there are patriotic industrialists who would invest in the area if given encouragement and if we could accept the broad policy of a progressive Government. I do not accept the Prime Minister's approach.
My constituents have given of their best to develop the country's resources. In a crisis during the war, they also gave of their best. They are anxious to have the tools to do the job. We have good labour conditions and a fine area and fine people. If given opportunities, they could deliver the goods. They did so in the post-war period, when West Cumberland was scheduled as a development area under the stimulating leadership of men like the late Lord Adams and under policies that were created partly by the diligent work of my right hon. Friend the Member for
900
Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), when at the Board of Trade. We were able to have a buoyant economy in the area and to see that it developed and that people were given work.
I want to see a reversal of the existing policy. The figures are known to the Board of Trade and I will not give details of each constituency. I have a letter from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade dated 5th March, 1962. After representations were made to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and myself, the Minister promised to let us know how many new jobs there were in each of our areas. He mentioned
"the 600 new jobs which we estimate to be in prospect in the Workington group of employment exchange areas".
He went on to say:
"The best I can say is that we would expect about 275 of the total number to accrue within the next' two years. Out of this total of 600 new jobs the number we estimate to be in prospect in the Maryport area is, as I said, about 400, arising mainly from three projects for which approval in principle has recently been given for Government factories. Of this 400 we would expect only a comparatively small proportion—say, 150—to accrue within the next two years."
Are those jobs accruing? This is where there is uncertainty. The situation has deteriorated. I am not thinking merely in terms of loss of employment because of seasonal difficulties. The whole situation in the area has gone from bad to worse. That is why I want action. Either, as I said in my letter to the Prime Minister, the area should be scheduled as a development district, or we should be included with the North-East or given treatment similar to Merseyside.
The situation cannot be left as it is. The area must be treated as a whole. We are, however, prepared to fight for limited objectives. For example, I should like Workington and district to be removed from the stop list. The Parliamentary Secretary could make that announcement this evening. I hope that something will be forthcoming, because the situation is serious.
I cannot go into details in a short speech, but there are many capital projects which could be helped by the Government. I think of the supply of water, which is now the responsibility of the West Cumberland Water Board.

901
I hope that the Board will be enabled by the Government to proceed with the Third Crummock supply scheme, which is estimated to cost about £750,000. We need water for industry. We also need new capital development schemes in the County of Cumberland which will provide work for many constructional workers who are now unemployed.
I mention only one project, but there are many others which I could stress. There is a need to improve road communications. These capital projects are vital both in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven. I do not want to allow my enthusiasm and passion for this subject to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven from making his contribution to the debate.
We have submitted many projects to the Board of Trade. I hope that the Board of Trade will inject new life into those Government Departments which could do so much to help the area. I have in mind the communications to which I have referred, and the building of new factories. I also have in mind the giving of assistance to industries which are already there.
Local authorities in the area are anxious to improve their amenities, and, contrary to what the Sunday Times said the other day, this area is not derelict. Workington and district is a very good area in many ways. We have plenty to offer. There is the wonderful Lakeland. There is the area of Cockermouth and the whole of Wordsworth country. All this is on the fringe of some of the most beautiful scenery in the world. This area has been much maligned by recent publicity, and I am glad that my local authority has protested strongly about this.
The executives of many firms which have moved to the area—firms manufacturing such things as fabrics and chemicals—enjoy not only the amenities, but the social life of the area. They have developed their industries and attracted the good will of the people in the area. We are not begging. We are merely asking to be given a priority similar to that given to the North-East and Mersey-side, and I hope that this evening the Minister will give us some information on this point.
902
We know that there are problems in the area with industries like coal and steel, but I am certain that if the area were treated as a whole the problems of these older industries, together with the problem of extensions for new industries, could be solved, and I ask that West Cumberland be given some priority in dealing with its problems. We have taken the unprecedented step of raising this matter after a major debate on unemployment, but I am sure that my colleagues in the North-East and on Mersey-side agree that something must be done for this area, and that the Government tonight should announce a positive policy for dealing with our problems.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. J. B. Symonds: I take the opportunity of joining my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in speaking on behalf of the people of West Cumberland, who feel that they have been completely neglected. This is because of the strain of signing on at the employment exchange and suffering the degradation of having to say that they have to exist on unemployment benefit.
They ask why it is that we are not classified as part of the Northern Region where, for administrative purposes, we have the Northern Regional Hospital Board and the Northern Regional Board for Industry. The people of West Cumberland were surprised when Lord Hailsham was appointed to deal with the North-East only. Why? Surely we in West Cumberland have a problem equal to that in the North-East.
My hon. Friend has given the figures for his constituency. The figure for the Whitehaven and Cleator Moore area is 4·9; per cent. During the last month or five weeks it has risen by over 1 per cent. and there is a prospect that 1,000 men who work at the atomic energy station will be paid off within the next day or two.
This time last year the President of the Board of Trade promised that there would be 200 or 250 jobs in the Whitehaven division within two years. I had hardly reported that to my constituents when 60 men had to sign on at the employment exchange. They feel sore because nothing is being done for them. The rising tide of unemployment makes it difficult for men to keep their tempers when they

903
have only the unemployment benefit on which to depend. They ask what is being done for them. But local authorities have been told to help themselves.
I suggest that the road between Whitehaven and Millom, in West Cumberland, be put into proper order. I have received a letter from a local authority in my area drawing attention to the urgent need to improve the West Cumberland coast road
"to assist the area's industries and ease the unemployment situation."
It would also be an advantage if an alternative road route could be provided. While there have been road blockages caused by ice and snow in other parts of the country the west coast road has been open. The route over Shap has been blocked—
Mr. W. M. F. Vane: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the question of priorities is meaningless so long as the communications to West Cumberland by road and rail are so bad, and that the basic need is to improve the road and rail communications to the South?
Mr. Symonds: It may be that the hon. Member is correct to a degree—
Mr. Vane: To a high degree.
Mr. Symonds: —but I hope that he is not speaking for the Government, who have neglected West Cumberland, particularly over the last two years. I maintain that the improvement of the West Cumberland route would result in the opening up of that part of the country and would provide an alternative route to the route over Shap.
There is something else which might be done immediately. I understand that a new fast breeder reactor has been promised for Capenhurst. We have the facilities and we demand that a fast breeder reactor be provided at Windscale, so that the jobs of 1,000 men may be saved. That is a matter of importance to West Cumberland. Were a fast breeder reactor provided at Sellafield, or at Windscale, men who would normally be paid off would be able to continue in work.
There are other things which I could say, but I want to hear what the Minister has to say in reply to my hon. Friend
904
and to me and, therefore, I will now give him an opportunity of at least five minutes to answer.
10.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I think that I shall have to cut short my remarks a bit. If I leave out certain points I am sure the House will forgive me. I think that in many ways this debate is the sequel to the meeting which I had last Wednesday with a deputation from Cumberland County Council which the two hon. Members were good enough to bring to see me.
I must be frank with the House and say that I am afraid I shall not be able to add a great deal tonight to what I said to the deputation last Wednesday. I do not think that, despite what he said, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) expects more of me tonight. One thing I can assure him of is that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are studying very carefully the proposals which he and his colleagues on the County Council made to me last week, including the proposals about the Board of Trade regional organisation.
I should like to have given the hon. Members fuller details of the present unemployment position, but in the short time available to me I think they will forgive me if I do not give them tonight. I wanted to make the point which I made to the County Council, that it is at the trend that one must look rather than the figures from month to month, but the trend is not one, certainly in the case of Workington, which gives any room for complacency at all.
What is the remedy for West Cumberland's problems? In the first instance, as the hon. Member himself indicated, we must look to a general expansion in the economy. The House will be familiar with the measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken to expand the economy and it is to these, along with any other measures which in due course he may deem it wise to take, that West Cumberland must look to produce the necessary economic climate in which the particular problems of the county may be tackled.
Secondly, we have to see whether there are any structural problems in the economy of West Cumberland which

905
require special attention. As the hon. Member has said. West Cumberland has been experiencing difficulties in its traditional heavy industries, coal mining, iron ore mining and the highly specialised section of the steel industry.
As the trend in the unemployment figures shows, these difficulties in the traditional industries of West Cumberland have affected the Workington and Aspatria areas most of all. As the hon. Member will know from our meeting last Wednesday, we in the Board of Trade are fully seized of these problems. As I told his deputation, we are considering very carefully whether the time has not come to restore to the Workington area the full facilities of assistance under the Local Employment Act. As the House will know, Workington was placed on the so-called stop list some time back because the situation had then improved.
Mr. Peart: Take it off.
Mr. Price: I would remind the House that Workington is still a development district. I know that the hon. Member will know that I cannot say more tonight on this particular matter.
Mr. Peart: Name the date.
Mr. Price: Further south, in Whitehaven, unemployment although above the national average is not as high as in Workington. Nor does Whitehaven depend so greatly upon the traditional heavy industries. In that part of Cumberland two major new industries have been established, chemicals at Whitehaven and nuclear energy at Sellafield. Today, nuclear energy provides employment for over 5,000 people in West Cumberland and is thus a larger employer than the traditional basic industry of coal mining. I know that the hon. Member is anxious for as much assurance as I can give him about the future level of employment at the Atomic Energy Authority's establishments. I understand from the Authority that changes in the military programme will cause a small reduction in staff required at Windscale and Calder, and this will mean there will be little local recruitment over the next two years except to replace wastage among such people as typists, junior clerks and canteen assistants, but the intake of apprentices will not be reduced. There is no question in present circumstances of changes on the scale of those at
906
Capenhurst. Although redundancies in operational staff are not likely, the same cannot be said about constructional workers, many of whom may be discharged in the near future. How many of these will be local men we cannot at present say. Nor can we foretell how many will be able to find other jobs locally, but I can assure the hon. Member we shall continue to keep the most careful watch over the next few months over the trend of employment in his area of West Cumberland.
The hon. Member said that the Board of Trade had been over-optimistic in its estimate of jobs in prospect. These estimates are based, and must necessarily be based, on what we are told about employment prospects by the firms to which we issue industrial development certificates for new factories or extensions. Changes in the economic climate may cause these firms to postpone or even to abandon previous plans. However, I can assure the hon. Member that we still expect forthcoming expansions in West Cumberland to produce over 600 jobs in the next three or four years. Be that as it may, I am mindful that more jobs are still needed, particularly for men.
There have been closures of Service establishments in West Cumberland in recent years. There may be others. Closures of this kind are inevitable. I can only say that we keep ourselves closely informed of the likely effect on employment of such closures. The disposal of the premises is a matter for the departments which own them. If we are asked to help in their disposal to industrial tenants we do so gladly.
Furthermore, we in the Board of Trade for many years have been making a continuing contribution to employment in West Cumberland through the Board of Trade factories. These total some 1,378,000 sq. ft. of factory space and give employment to 5,500 workpeople, of whom 2,400 are men.
This takes me to a question which I am sure the hon. Member would have raised, if he had had time, because the county council did, the question of the rentals charged for our factories in Cumberland. As I think the hon. Member knows, we are able to let Board of Trade factories in active development districts at preferential rates. But if we agree to

907
extend any of our factories in areas elsewhere, that is in areas not listed as development districts or areas on the so-called stop list—development districts for which we are no longer accepting applications under the Local Employment Act—our current policy is to charge an annual rent equal to 10 per cent. of the building cost.
We have no wish to discourage firms outside the development districts from expanding and we are normally willing to build extensions for our tenants, but there is no justification for charging an uneconomic rent. Such firms have already had a considerable amount of Government assistance in one form or another. When they expand it is perfectly right that they should pay a fair commercial rent. However, if Workington came off the stop list, the Board of Trade would be able to charge preferential rents.
I am aware that West Cumberland is inclined to think of itself as somewhat remote, tucked away in a corner of the
908
country, but is it all that remote? After all, one can reach Carlisle by train from London in less than five-and-a-half hours. The industrial areas of Workington and Whitehaven are not then far away. Nevertheless, I recognise that distance from London and the Midlands is a factor, if only one, in the minds of Southern and Midlands industrialists in determining where to locate their new projects. However, West Cumberland has the inestimable advantage of being on the edge of the Lake District, which is not unimportant when considering social problems. Few industrial areas have such a glorious hinterland. Nor does it suffer from over crowding. The hell of the rush hour does not affect West Cumberland greatly. Nevertheless, I recognise the hon. Member's concern.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Smoke Control Orders
  Smoke Control Orders
  Cotswolds
  Cotswolds
HOUSING
  Rural Areas
  Rural Areas
  Ex-Service Men
  Ex-Service Men
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax (Furniture)
  Purchase Tax (Furniture)
  Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency
  Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency
  Rents
  Rents
  Taxation
  Taxation
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  British Industrial Development Office, New York
  British Industrial Development Office, New York
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
  Coatbridge and Airdrie
  Hirwaun Trading Estate, Aberdare
  Hirwaun Trading Estate, Aberdare
  Aberdare and Mountain Ash
  Aberdare and Mountain Ash
  Linoleum (Exports to Commonwealth Countries)
  Linoleum (Exports to Commonwealth Countries)
KENYA
  Regional Assemblies (Elections)
  Regional Assemblies (Elections)
MALTA
  Messrs. Bailey (Inquiry)
  Messrs. Bailey (Inquiry)
SARAWAK
  Flood Relief
  Flood Relief
BAHAMAS
  Constitution
  Constitution
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Shipbuilding Industry (Inquiry)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Inquiry)
  Building Trade Operatives, Hull
  Building Trade Operatives, Hull
POST OFFICE
  Savings Certificate Division
  Savings Certificate Division
  Inland Parcels (Weight Limit)
  Inland Parcels (Weight Limit)
SCIENCE
  Medical Research Council
  Medical Research Council
  Atomic Energy Reactor
  Atomic Energy Reactor
TRANSPORT
  Firth of Clyde (Barrage)
  Firth of Clyde (Barrage)
ROADS
  Classified Roads (Maintenance)
  Classified Roads (Maintenance)
  By-Pass Road, Welshpool
  By-Pass Road, Welshpool
EDUCATION
  Science Apparatus (Purchase)
  Science Apparatus (Purchase)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Public Health Inspectors
  Public Health Inspectors
  MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (SPEECH)
  MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (SPEECH)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Price Review
  Price Review
ROYAL NAVY
  Royal Marines (Flag Officers and General Officers)
  Royal Marines (Flag Officers and General Officers)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Senior Officers (Joint Services Staff College and Imperial Defence College)
  Senior Officers (Joint Services Staff College and Imperial Defence College)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Electronics Industry, North-East
  Electronics Industry, North-East
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Pacifist Literature
  Pacifist Literature
  Services (Co-operation)
  Services (Co-operation)
  Staff Colleges (Inter-Service Studies)
  Staff Colleges (Inter-Service Studies)
EMPLOYMENT
  Lanarkshire
  Lanarkshire
  Joint Services Staff College and Imperial Defence College
  Joint Services Staff College and Imperial Defence College
SCOTLAND
  Monkland Canal, Coatbridge
  Monkland Canal, Coatbridge
  New Hospital, Coatbridge-Airdrie District
  New Hospital, Coatbridge-Airdrie District
  Local Planning Authorities (Factory Building)
  Local Planning Authorities (Factory Building)
  Bronchitis
  Bronchitis
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  University Staff (Secondment)
  University Staff (Secondment)
  Nursing Profession
  Nursing Profession
BRITISH ARMY
  Rifles
  Rifles
  Senior Officers (Joint Services Staff College and Imperial Defence College)
  Senior Officers (Joint Services Staff College and Imperial Defence College)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester
The Viscount Cobham—Took the Oath

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD HANKEY
2.35 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, before we proceed with the Business of the day, I am sure the House would wish that we should pay tribute to a great public servant who has only recently passed away. I refer to Lord Hankey, who brought his immense experience of the central direction of government in the First World War to the service of the country in the Second World War, when, as a Member of this House, he was called to the Cabinet in 1939 as Minister without Portfolio. It is by virtue of this tenure of office as Cabinet Minister while a Member of your Lordships' House that he comes within the Rules of the House on this occasion.
Perhaps I may be forgiven if, before I proceed, I say to the House, and to noble Lords opposite in particular, how very sorry I was not to be in my place last week to pay my tribute to the late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell. On that occasion we created a new precedent by adjourning as a mark of respect to a man of commanding stature in public life. Except that I must record my own sense of loss at the death of one with whom I had been on personal and friendly terms for quite a large number of years, and who only about this time last year shared with me membership of an all-Party delegation sent to Bermuda, I should not wish to add to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition called the just and moving testimony of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. But I will say now how grateful I am to my noble friend for having then deputised for me as Leader
240
of the House, and for having said, in words which I cannot hope to match, what so many of us on this side felt about the late Mr. Hugh Gaitskell.
My Lords, I think it is remarkable that, but for the death of Lord Hankey, we should have had in the House at the same time former Secretaries to the Cabinet covering the entire period from the middle of the First World War to the present day. Lord Hankey, the first to hold that highly important office, was succeeded by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and he, in turn, was succeeded by Sir Norman Brook, who has just retired and will, I hope, shortly be introduced into your Lordships' House under his recently gazetted title. Here is a great chain of public servants of the highest quality, men to whom the country owes far more than it knows, or can know, because the position which they have held is essentially confidential, not only in respect of matters of fact but also in respect of the conduct of Cabinet affairs and in the direction of government by public personalities who are the Ministers of the Crown.
Lord Hankey was a man whom Sir Winston Churchill is reported to have described as one "who knew everything and said nothing." It is for that reason that his contribution to the public is so little known to those outside the machinery of government, but the greatest testimony to his value to the country is surely that he served continuously throughout the long period between the year 1916 and the year 1939, for every Administration from that of the late Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor to that of Mr. Chamberlain, during which time he was indispensable to whatever colour or complexion of Government might from lime to time have been in office.
This is not the time to recall in detail his great career, but I think we should mention in passing that he was one of the most distinguished of those who have entered the public service, as it were, adventitiously. Each great war has seen the influx of talent to the public service from other walks of life. Some have stayed on in the service of the State; others, like Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, have gone on into public life itself; others again, like Lord Franks, have made great contributions to industry or commerce. This is a process which might well be encouraged in peace

241
time as in time of war. Lord Hankey was one whom the uninstructed might have regarded as the typical civil servant, but I think he thought of himself rather as an officer of the Royal Marines on secondment. It was perhaps this attitude which enabled him to be of such service to successive Prime Ministers and Cabinets, since he never took the narrow view.
Some of your Lordships will remember Lord Hankey in the days of his great service to the State, but perhaps most of us willl think of him as we knew him in the House since the war, when he spoke, not often but always with authority, from the Cross Benches, either in Service and Defence debates, on which subjects he could give to the House the benefit of his vast experience, or on a more restricted subject, such as, for instance, the composition of flour and bread, when he characteristically marshalled his facts and presented them to the House with scrupulous clarity.
My Lords, on all these grounds, and because he was a trusted friend and colleague of my father, and because I personally had ground to be grateful to him over many years for much kindness, I am glad that it has fallen to my lot to-day to bid him farewell on behalf of the House. He was a great public servant. We can look back on his life with thankfulness and pride: thankfulness at the service he was able to render to our country and pride that his membership of this House added to its lustre and will adorn its history.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to be associated with the Leader of the House in the tribute we are paying to-day. May I intervene first of all, however, to say how grateful I am for the tribute which he could not, because of his other duties, pay earlier to my great friend Hugh Gaitskell? I am very much obliged to him.
Lord Hankey will always be to me what he was familiarly called at all times by Ministers, Maurice Hankey. He was a very great person and truly, as the Leader of the House says, a great public servant. As to the entry of this great public servant into his duties, I think the Leader of the House was right when he referred to his proud association with the Royal Marines. He was never more
242
proud than when he liked to support something I said on the basis of the Royal Marines being the smallest yet the greatest corps in the world. He was particularly proud of having been what was sometimes referred to in those days as a Royal Marine of the Blues—he was a gunner, and had a very expert knowledge of the subject so far as it went up to that day. But he was not afloat for all that number of years. He went to the Admiralty on staff duty as far back as 1902, and in that very good training school among the staff officers he acquired much of the qualities and character necessary for the vast public duties he was afterwards to undertake in the Civil Service.
I have personal recollections of him as Secretary to the Cabinet which go back a very long way. While I was First Lord, from 1929 to 1931, he was, of course, Secretary of the Imperial Defence Committee, and it was amazing what a source of information he was to me, a comparatively junior member of the Cabinet, when I wanted information to help me to make up my mind on subjects which came before the Imperial Defence Committee. He was the Secretary of the London Naval Conference in 1930 when we came to the agreement with the United States of America and Japan upon the categories to be held, and their strengths, from cruisers down to the smallest types of ships. Again, his interest in the Navy and his knowledge of international fleets, which emanated from his previous Secretaryship of the Washington Naval Conference in 1921, were of vast assistance to us at that time. But when one sat with the Cabinet, how true it was that he rarely said anything unless he was asked a question by the Prime Minister! But again and again he was appointed with confidence to secretary-ships in world affairs in which we were concerned as a country, and to Imperial Conferences as well.
It was wonderful to be able to talk to him in after years. I remember talking to him in 1940, during the time of Dunkirk, and I recall his admiration for the system which had been set up in order to get all the small craft into service. I remember talking to him on the other matters to which he was transferred in 1941 and 1942, and how devoted he was to his country. Nations like ours must in the long run depend for the stability

243
of their expansion, in the best sense of the term, on the character of these people: they have to depend upon the leadership of Ministers and Services but also, to a very large extent—and this is so in the history of the great countries of the world—on loyal, devoted public service by those who are specially enlisted in that public service.
Maurice Hankey was to me always a personal friend. I mourn his departure, but I praise the great record he set and the example he has left for the others who follow him. May I add that we all sympathise very much with his family? I should like to feel that we, as a House, from our knowledge of him here, of his gentleness, his courtesy, his absolutely impeccable courtesy, look back upon that and we hope that in their sorrow his family will find some solace and be comforted by the record that we applaud.
2.50 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to associate noble Lords on these Benches with the tributes so eloquently paid to-day. Lord Hankey, whose death is a personal loss to many Members of your Lordships' House, has recently been referred to in the Press as the greatest back-room figure in our political history. The word "back-room" has in recent years come to carry a connotation of high praise and admiration, and brings to mind a number of vitally important activities upon which the welfare and even the survival of the State depend. To give to our old friend Lord Hankey a pre-eminent place in this honourable field is a very high tribute which I feel he would have appreciated, in the honest realisation, of course, that he indeed deserved it.
As a man of almost clinical clarity of vision, and deeply versed, as he was, in the appraisal of the valuable against the less valuable, he must well have realised that, even apart from other positions of great trust and importance which he held for a number of years, a member of the War Cabinet with such gifts and experience as he had is most certainly a front-room figure, whatever great service he may also be giving in the background. But as a modest and quiet man whose ambitions, I am sure, were objective and altruistically patriotic, I think he may prefer to be thought of as a sort of distillation of reliability and efficiency upon
244
which progress and success depended. That is certainly what he was. We have lost a gentle and friendly colleague who gave great service to his country. He has left us full of years and full of honour, and we shall very greatly miss his presence among us.

THE BERLINER ENSEMBLE
2.52 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 overall social or political ends are served by a visa policy which prevents the Berliner Ensemble appearing in London.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Ensemble has not in fact applied for the necessary travel documents for such a visit. But it is the general policy of NATO at present not to grant travel facilities to East German applicants in this category. This policy is to draw attention to the inhuman nature of the Berlin Wall which the East German authorities erected in August, 1961. We and our Allies decided that we could not simply acquiesce in the building of the Wall without expressing our revulsion in some practical form. The building of the Wall was a direct challenge to the Allied position in Berlin. It violated international agreements and divided many thousands of Berlin families by preventing freedom of movement between East and West Berlin. We know the Berliner Ensemble is a great company, and we regret that the theatre-going public here should not have a chance to see its performance. But we have upheld the joint Allied decision that a Government which continues the brutal inhumanity of firing on all men, women and children who try to cross this Wall in a city for which we have a definite responsibility is not one with whom we can allow the free exchange of civilised amenities.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, do the Government really think it a suitable answer to the inhumanity of the Wall that we ourselves should erect little counter-walls against theatre companies from the

245
other side? Could we not leave that sort of nonsense to the Communists themselves?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that our restrictions on this category of applicants for visas does have some effect in East Berlin, and if we were to withdraw these restrictions it would most assuredly be represented by the East German propaganda machine as British acquiescence in the cruelties of their policy in Berlin.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, are the Government not aware that this company is one of the most famous companies in the world, and that they are people who are suffering from the Wall? Is it not an extraordinary action on the Government's part to prohibit us from extending to this remarkable company our friendship and bringing them through the Wall, on one occasion at all events, to our great advantage?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, visitors from East Germany here are very severely restricted by the East German Government. That Government allows its own nationals to apply for visas only if it considers that it will thereby acquire some propaganda advantage, and I do not think there is any chance of our reconsidering our policy in this matter until the East German Government reconsider its own.
LORD REA: My Lords, are we supporting that Government in its very rigid attitude to its own nationals?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we are supporting our two Allies, the French and the Americans, with whom we have jointly arrived at this decision.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl twice referred to the category of applicants into which the Ensemble falls. What is this category of applicants?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The category of applicants which is referred to in the Question. We do allow visas to certain applicants from East Germany.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, are we not responsible as part of the Kommandatura of Berlin, for the interests of all inhabitants of Berlin? Is it not our
246
case that the Wall should never have been erected, for one reason because we are jointly responsible for what happens in East Berlin? If this is the case, why cannot we permit this company, which is already handicapped by the Wall to come in if the East Berlin authorities will allow them to do so?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is not the point this, that, if Her Majesty's Government were to change their policy, a tyrannical Government would be allowed to pick and choose for its own purposes which of its subjects could and which could not leave their country, and is that not an exercise of tyranny which the Allies are very properly determined to fight?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly right. The East German Government does pick and choose, and will not allow its nationals to travel abroad unless it believes that a propaganda advantage will thereby be acquired. The reason why the Allies, ourselves, the French and the Americans, have agreed on this policy is that we take the view that we cannot allow these cultural exchanges to go on with a Government as long as it pursues this frightful policy of opening machine gun fire on people whenever they approach the Berlin Wall.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if the Wall is the reason for this policy, how can the noble Earl reconcile the fact that Mr. Khrushchev fully approves the Wall and everything that is done, but nevertheless we welcome one company after another who come from the U.S.S.R.?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Russian Government may approve this Wall, and we have certainly expressed our views very strongly to the Russian Government, but it is not the executive Government which is applying this policy. I would remind your Lordships that in Berlin it is we and the French and the Americans who are jointly responsible for the administration of affairs in the city. It is not a question of merely expressing our revulsion of some atrocity taking place in a foreign country; we are concerned here with a city for which we have the right and duty and responsibility of administration.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl referred me back to the original Question when I asked about the category to which this applies. There is no category mentioned in the original Question; there is a single group of cultural people. Does this policy apply, for example, also to delegations of doctors form East Germany, who, I think, have been allowed in to a recent Conference?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it does not apply to certain trade visitors. There is no question of economic sanctions, which in our view would not be particularly effective; not nearly so effective as these personal and cultural restrictions in regard to which we believe the East German Government does feel and does understand. On the question of doctors, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would put down a Question if he wants to know the answer about any particular doctor or group of doctors who may have applied for a visa.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the noble Earl has not quite said what the category is to which admission is refused.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The category of musical performers.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised a most important point. He has said that Mr. Khrushchev and the Russians have no responsibility for this Wall—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No.
LORD OGMORE: That is what I gathered the noble Earl to say. He said that it was the responsibility—
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I did not say that we had no responsibility. I said that we have responsibility for Berlin.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, surely in answer to a question by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, it was implied that the Russians had no responsibility, but that it was the responsibility of the East German Government. Surely Berlin is under a Kommandatura. Is it not a fact that the whole of Berlin is under a Kommandatura of which we and the Russians are part, and in which the Russians cannot absolve themselves for responsibility for the Wall?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to argue that we ought to restrict all Russian artistes, perhaps he would put down a Question to that effect.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that trade unionists are allowed in from East Germany for some exhibitions? Can he say whether musical performers or actors would be excluded if they were trade unionists?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that sounds a hypothetical question. I have already told your Lordships that the Berliner Ensemble have not applied for a visa, and in order to satisfy the desire for information of the noble Lord who put down the Question, I have made it plain that if they did apply for a visa it would not be granted.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, are we to understand from some of the questions put by the Opposition that they are unaware of the fact that we recognise the Russian Government de jure and de facto, and that we do not recognise the East German Government?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I suggest that perhaps Ministers would examine carefully the Record of the questions and answers to-day and see how far we can say that we are being strictly impartial in these matters between various countries. I listened, listened and listened, but I could find no great difference in the positions which were referred to. I beg the Government to have another look at this question, and to take into careful consideration the questions and the answers given to-day.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, we always carefully examine the questions which are asked in your Lordships' House, and I hope that the answers are examined with equal care; and of course we are always ready to take practical account of any serious arguments which are put forward.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, lastly, if the visas were refused by the Government in the belief that the Berliner Ensemble were musical performers, could they perhaps be granted in the correct view that they are actors?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, there is no reason why an actor should

249
not have a good ear for music, nor why he should not have musical talent. But what I want the noble Lord to understand is that we do not intend to grant a visa. They have not applied for any visas; but if they were to apply for visas at present the application would not be granted, for the reasons which I have given.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government not agree that encouragement of cultural relations is one of the better, and possibly more successful, methods of re-establishing relations?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is our policy in general to encourage more cultural interchanges with all countries behind the Iron Curtain, and we are making great progress in that. The noble Lord does not seem to have understood the peculiar character of the situation in Berlin—that here is a city for whose administration we are one of the responsible Governments; and that in view of the abominable cruelties which are being continuously practised by the East German Government, as I have stated, we do not feel we can permit these civilised amenities to be exchanged.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that the culture at present exposed in East Berlin is a type of culture we want more of in this country? Those who do not like it had better try to improve the cultural outlook of East Berlin.
LORD REA: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl, if he looks into this matter further, to bear in mind that noble Lords on this side of the House condemn and dislike the Wall quite as much as anybody on the Government Benches?

CHANNEL TUNNEL OR BRIDGE
3.6 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: 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 departmental committee examining the practicability of a Channel Tunnel or Channel Bridge,
250
has yet completed its investigations and reported to the Government; what delay they expect will arise between the receipt of the report and the announcement of Government policy; and whether, in view of the fact that whether or not Great Britain enters the Common Market it is of vital importance to provide better facilities for the transport of goods, vehicles and passengers between Great Britain and Europe, they will ensure that the earliest possible decision is given.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM):My Lords, the joint Anglo-French official study is not yet complete but it is making good progress. Until my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has the official findings no forecast can be made of how long Governments will take to consider them. Decisions must await consultation with the French Government, but I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend is very conscious of the importance of reaching an early decision.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the full reply he has given. I wonder whether he could give me any idea at all as to when he will be in a position to state more definitely than he has done now when the report will be available?
LORD CHESHAM: No: cannot help the noble Lord in that regard. I can simply say again that meetings of officials are continuing. I understand that the latest meeting between the chairmen of the two sides was on January 11. The noble Lord knows that the issues in this matter are far-reaching and complex, but I repeat that as soon as there is some news to give the House it shall be given.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us whether, if the Channel Tunnel is built to link this country with Europe, the French will then regard this country as part of Europe?
LORD CHESHAM: The brief I was reading this morning said that any such questions should be referred to the Foreign Secretary. It seemed to me unfair, even to him.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? In the first place, are the Government aware of the increasing support which the Bridge is enjoying in important industrial circles in this country? The second question is: do the Government agree that it would be better not to arrive at any final decision in regard to either a Bridge or a Tunnel until we have had the benefit of the freely expressed opinion of both Houses of Parliament?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will remain content with the same answers that I gave him to the same questions on the last occasion on which he asked them, which was not long ago, I think that I can save myself some time.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, might it not also save the Committee time if the Government found out whether President de Gaulle is going to torpedo its conclusions as he has done the Common Market ones?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, how does one torpedo a tunnel?
LORD OGMORE: Is it not important to find out what General de Gaulle's intentions are before we go much further?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, most important; and I would refer the noble Lord to my last answer but one.
LORD OGMORE: May I say that in this House questions are asked of the Government and not of specific Ministers?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, yes, but they also ought not to go much wider than the original Question.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend whether the practicability of a Bridge is being studied just as assiduously as the practicability of a Tunnel?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, my information is that the Joint Study Group are examining all aspects of the propositions that have been put forward.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, with regard to what is, to me, the preposterous
252
scheme for building a Channel bridge, quite apart from the extra expense involved over that of a tunnel, would my noble friend not agree that anyone who could seriously contemplate deliberately planting a hazard of this nature in the middle of one of the busiest and most important waterways in the world should have his mental equipment minutely examined?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if anyone is of the same view as my noble friend that may well be so; but I doubt whether in fact that particular aspect, all-embracing as it is on the subject, comes within the purview of the appointed committee.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, are the Government aware that what the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, has just said about the nonsensical project for a bridge is not a view shared by important interests in France and by highly qualified French engineers, and, indeed, even by shipping interests on the Continent of Europe, whatever may be thought about it here by people who have never studied the question at all?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I have said before, there are many shades of opinion on this matter; pro, con and purely "Don't know." I think it would be true to say that the majority of them have been fairly freely offered to the Government.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before writing of what the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, said, might it not be worthwhile to consult the Admiralty, before proceeding?
LORD GLADWYN: I have.

PURCHASE TAX BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to purchase tax. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

COUNTY COURTS (JURISDICTION) BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A); read 1a.
COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 19 [Assessors for recorder in appeals and committals from juvenile courts]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "be" to insert
"where it would be contrary to the child's interests to delay the hearing,".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 19 provides that where a court of quarter sessions for a borough deals with a case on appeal from a juvenile court, or one referred to it by a juvenile court, there shall sit with the recorder as assessors two magistrates with juvenile court experience. The clause provides that where possible they shall be drawn from the borough juvenile court panel, and that, again where possible, one should be a man and the other a woman. It is perfectly obvious that that is an extremely valuable provision, and one which we fully support. But subsection (2) provides that in certain cases the recorder shall sit with only one assessor, or indeed with none at all. If the recorder sits with no assessor from a juvenile court panel, then, of course, the whole value of the clause is lost in those particular cases.
Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage I moved an Amendment to provide that the recorder should not consider a case if no member of the juvenile court panel was there to advise him as an assessor. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, replying to the Amendment, put forward what I regarded as a
254
very substantial objection to it—and I think he will agree that it was the only objection of substance he did raise; namely, that it might mean that a child's case would be held up for a period of several weeks, which would be wholly undesirable. I agree that that would be so, and this Amendment, which proposes merely to add the words
"where it would be contrary to the child's interests to delay the hearing ",
does, I submit, fully meet that point. It would ensure, so far as humanly possible, that the purposes of this clause are fulfilled in all cases. We are dealing with borough quarter sessions, and it would seem to me very unlikely, in view of the rules which the Lord Chancellor will draw up, that there would be no member of the juvenile court panel available to assist with the case; but if such circumstances did arise, and if the recorder then felt that because of the possible delay it would be injurious to the interest of the child, then he should act alone.
I think that this is a matter of some importance. I have discussed it with one or two recorders of my acquaintance, and I was rather shocked at the attitude which they took on this particular point. They virtually pooh-poohed the idea, taking the view, "We are well able to take care of these cases," and I have no doubt at all that on points of law the recorder is better fitted to deal with them than a lay assessor. Nevertheless, I submit—and the whole purpose of this clause emphasises this point—that in matters of this kind he should have the advice of the magistrate members of a juvenile court court panel, who may well have had many years' experience. I think that the point is quite clear. I hope the noble 'Marquess will agree that the Amendment meets his previous objections, and that the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 12, after ("be") insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, to recapitulate a little, subsection (2) of Clause 19 provides that in a case where subsection (1) requires a recorder sitting at quarter sessions on an appeal to be assisted by juvenile court justices as assessors the recorder may sit with one assessor if two are not available, and that if no assessors are available he may

255
sit alone. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has pointed out in moving this Amendment that, if the Amendment is passed, it would allow the recorder to sit alone only when it would be contrary to the child's interest to delay the hearing. As the House will remember, on the Committee stage the noble Lord moved an Amendment which would have prevented the recorder from sitting alone in any circumstances whatsoever. On that occasion, as he has pointed out, I made the following point [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 245 (No. 20), Vol. 470]:
"… the hardship caused by delay outweighs the disadvantage of allowing an appellant or an offender to be dealt with by the recorder without the assistance of a juvenile court magistrate."
I had specifically in mind at that time the possible hardship to the child; but it is of course true that delay might cause hardship and difficulties in other ways as well.
For example, in a case where the appeal was against a finding of guilt as well as an order of the juvenile court, and so entailed a rehearing of the whole case, it is possible that the principal witness for the prosecution might have to come a long distance, or that the children's parents might have to travel a long way to be present, with a certain amount of inconvenience and expense. I do not want to suggest that these considerations should take precedence over the child's interests, but only that they should be taken into account and that any conflict between the interests of the child and those of others persons should be resolved in the fairest way to all concerned.
At the same time, the Government appreciate the motives behind the noble Lord's Amendment. It might, I think, be possible at any rate to go some way towards meeting his wishes by borrowing some words from paragraph 17 of Schedule 2, which relates to the constitution of juvenile courts in the metropolitan area. To take an example, it might be possible to state expressly in Clause 19 (2) that the recorder (like a stipendiary magistrate in a juvenile court) may sit alone only where it appears to him that "an adjournment would not be in the interests of justice". A similar provision in paragraph (2) 2 of Schedule 2 to the principal Act and (as regards juvenile courts outside London) in Rule
256
12 of the Juvenile Courts (Constitution) Rules, 1954, has, I believe, been in operation for some years, and it does not seem to have been contrary to the interests of children appearing before juvenile courts. There is one other small point—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Marquess allow me to interrupt him? I am not clear whether he is now suggesting, in order to meet at least part of my point, that there should be an Amendment to Schedule 2 of the present Bill, or to another Bill. Could he make that clear?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am sorry, my Lords. I had not quite finished. What I was going to say, having finished what I have said, is that I understand the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands is defective, in so far as it would not indicate who is to decide whether delay would be contrary to the children's interests. What I am authorised to say to him is that, if he would be agreeable to withdrawing his Amendment, I can give an undertaking that the Government are prepared to move at a later stage in the Bill an Amendment on the lines that I have outlined already. I cannot be more specific at this stage as the noble Lord will realise, because it does require some more thought. But I hope that with that undertaking he will be prepared to withdraw.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, does that mean that the noble Marquess is envisaging an Amendment something on the lines of
"where it seems to the recorder that it would be contrary to the child's interests to delay the hearing…"?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, without being absolutely specific, I would say that that is what is in the mind of the Government at the moment. I should not like to be absolutely specific, because we should like a little more time to think about the precise wording.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
My Lords, I am very glad to learn from the noble Marquess that, in principle, my noble friend's Amendment commends itself. But I hope that, in arriving at the final form of words, the noble Marquess will not pay too much heed to the type of example that he gave; for instance, that a prosecution witness might have to come a long distance. This happens

257
every day in the courts, not only in cases concerning children, and an enormous amount of time is constantly—perhaps unavoidably; perhaps sometimes avoidably—wasted on the part of witnesses. I think it would be very unfortunate if in the case of juveniles, where the overriding considerations must be the welfare of the child or young person and the interests of justice, these considerations were allowed to prevail when they are disregarded every day in the case of adults.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before we leave the matter of these assessors, I should like to ask the Minister what he envisages as the precise function of these assessors. It may well be that he explained this at an earlier stage when I was not able to be here, and if so I apologise to him; but I imagine he will agree with me that the assessors are not part of the court, and that the recorder is not in any sort of way bound by any expression of opinion that may be given to him by these assessors. That is the normal position of assessors, at any rate in connection with legal proceedings, and I should like to have the opinion of the noble Marquess whether that general rule would apply in this particular case.
While I appreciate that this is perhaps going a little wide, does the noble Marquess not think that it would really be very much better if there was applied in these recorders' courts the normal rule for quarter sessions, where, while the chairman is a professional lawyer, not only is he assisted by lay magistrates but the lay magistrates have just as much part in the decision as does the chairman himself? The magistrates brought in from the juvenile courts would then have just as much weight in regard to what should be done with the child as would the recorder himself, who, as my noble friend pointed out, is really just there as a professional lawyer.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as I understand the noble Marquess, the main defect of the Amendment which I have now moved is that it does not indicate who is to take the decision, and I agree that it has that defect. I hope that the noble Marquess will bear in mind that, a few Amendments later, he or his noble friend will be moving on behalf of the Government an Amendment to another clause which has precisely the same de-
258
fect. No doubt they will correct it in due course. But I do admit that point, and I understand the noble Marquess to say that, although there is another difficulty—the question of witnesses having to attend on another occasion—the Government regard that as of less importance than the interests of the child. It is in the spirit of those two things, and because the noble Marquess has given an undertaking that he will take the point away and come back with a better Amendment than mine, one which does not have the defect and at the same time covers the point, that I would express my gratitude for the Government's offer and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Clause 24 [Age limits for children sent to special reception centres]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I think I can assure you that this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("or commits for trial or sentence").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Attendance at court of parents of child or young person brought before court]:
3.30 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (1) to omit the proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b), and to substitute:
"any person who is a parent or guardian of his may".
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I should like, with permission, to discuss Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 together. As it stands, Clause 25 provides that a court, before which a child under 17 appears, is to require both his parents to attend at all stages of the proceedings, unless satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require either or both of them to do so. Noble Lords will remember that when this clause was considered in Committee the noble Lady, Baroness Wootton of Abinger, drew attention to the practical difficulty that the court has no opportunity of considering before the proceedings start whether it is reasonable to require both the child's parents to attend; and she

259
added, I think, that in her view it was unnecessary for both parents to be summoned as a matter of routine in more or less every case.
We appreciate that there is a real difficulty here, though I understand that it is equally inherent in Section 34 of the principal Act, which has nevertheless been made to work for the past 30 years. That section, like the clause in its present form, contemplates a decision by the court in every case whether the child's parent or guardian is to be required to attend throughout the proceedings. Where the proceedings are instituted by summons, the justice issuing the summons has an opportunity to consider the matter then—although, as the noble Lady quite rightly pointed out, the information available to him at that stage may not be adequate. But where the child is arrested without warrant and released on bail at the police station, or, in "care or protection" proceedings, is removed to a place of safety, there is no opportunity for a court or justice to consider the question before the child first appears in court. Whether the child is then accompanied by two parents, by one parent or by no parent at all, their attendance cannot in any real sense of the words be said to have been required by the court.
These Amendments, my Lords, are designed to take account of this practical difficulty, while safeguarding the main object of the clause, which is as recommended in the Ingleby Committee's Report, paragraph 200—that is:
"… to make it clear that the court has power to order the attendance of both parents".
With Amendments Nos. 29 and 30, the proposed new subsection (1) of Section 34 of the principal Act would read as follows:
"Where a child or young person is charged with any offence or is for any other reason brought before a court, any person who is a parent or guardian of his may be required to attend at the court before which the case is heard or determined during all the stages of the proceedings, and any such person shall be so required at any stage where the court thinks it desirable, unless the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require his attendance".
As the noble Lady will see, this goes somewhat further than she suggested, in so far as it allows the court to dispense with both parents' attendance. I realise
260
that this may seem rather wide, but the reason for it, as I hope noble Lords will appreciate, is that we feel that from time to time cases will arise—I think, for instance, of a case of a boy aged 16 accused of bicycling without a light—in which the court might reasonably think it unnecessary to compel either the father or the mother to attend.
Where proceedings are instituted by summons, the justice issuing the process would in practice, I think, be guided by the age of the child and the nature of the charge or other allegation. I have already given an example of a case where neither parent might be required to attend. But if, for example, the charge were one of larcency, which might prove either a grave offence or a fairly minor one, the court would probably require only one parent, in the first instance, to attend. If the charge were obviously a serious one, the court might prefer to have both there from the start. Where proceedings start with the arrest of a child, or his removal to a place of safety, it is obvious that there is no room for the exercise of the court's discretion until after the proceedings have begun, and if one or both of the child's parents did appear at the outset of the proceedings it must have been either because of their own interest in the child's welfare or because they had been warned previously that the court would expect them to do so.
Subsection (2) of the new version of Section 34, as amended by the third Amendment—that is, Amendment No. 31—would provide for such steps as are practicable to be taken to inform at least one parent or guardian. It is not possible, I think, to stipulate to the parent or guardian about the desirability of his attendance, because this, as I hope the noble Lady will agree, is dependent on the age of the child, the nature of the charge or other allegation and, to some extent, I have no doubt, the practice in such a case of the court before which the child will appear. If, in either event, when the case comes on for hearing, neither parent, or possibly only one, is present, it will be for the court to consider at this stage whether it is desirable that, either then or at a later stage, any parent who is not at that time present should be required to attend, and, if so, to summon him or her unless satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so. For

261
example, it may be sufficient for one parent to be present to watch the child's interest while the charge is being tried but desirable that both should attend a later hearing at which the court decides how to deal with the child.
I hope that the noble Lady will feel that, as amended in this way, the clause will provide a workable means of securing so far as possible that a court dealing with a child under 17 should have before it at any stage that it wishes both the child's parents, or his guardian, whether it is desirable in the child's own interests or in the interest of justice. It is possible that different courts will take different views on the desirability of having both parents, but the clause as amended will direct their attention to the need to consider the point, and it goes as far as practicable, I submit, to meet the Ingleby Committee's wishes that both parents should attend the court unless the court is satisfied that the attendance of one can be dispensed with. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert ("any person who is a parent or guardian of his may")—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it is a very unusual experience to find the Government not merely accepting the sense of Amendments moved from this side of the House but even going rather further, and I should like to express appreciation of the way in which the Government have recognised both the practical difficulties and what might be in some cases the practical absurdities of requiring both parents to be present. In a number of cases that come before juvenile courts the de facto parents are not always the legal parents. Very often there has been a break-up in the home and the child may be living with his natural mother and with a stepfather who is acting as the de facto guardian, and it would be quite absurd to bring along the natural father, who may have had nothing to do with the child for a very long time. There are all kinds of cases in which absurdity would arise if the attendance of both parents were required.
I would entirely agree with the noble Marquess that in minor cases it is often quite satisfactory if one parent alone attends, but I felt a little uneasy that he
262
had gone quite so far as he had in making it possible for cases to be heard with neither parent present. In my experience, this happens quite often, and especially in the type of case which he has instanced—perhaps a young man of 16, who is wage-earning on his own and who has committed a minor offence. But it has been the practice in the courts that I know not to proceed with the case unless the defendant himself agrees that it should be heard in the absence of his parent or guardian. That seems to me to be a rather important safeguard, and I do not know whether the noble Marquess would be able to work that into the Bill at a later stage.
Apart from that, these very complicated Amendments appear to me to be in their practical result very much in accord with justice, with a reasonable view of parental responsibilities, and with common sense. There is a fundamental philosophical difficulty in Amendment No. 30, but I would not propose to pursue that. I notice that Amendment No. 30 contemplates that a court may think an action is simultaneously desirable and unreasonable. I might challenge the philosophy implied there, but I think your Lordships would be satisfied if the practical result were what was desired.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger has said about Amendments 29 and 30, but, as I understand it, the noble Marquess is also intending to couple with those two Amendments in this discussion Amendment No. 31, and I cannot recall that he referred specifically to Amendment No. 31 which is on a different and separate point. I appreciate his modesty in not referring to it, for it is the very one that contains the defect that my Amendment had previously. Subsection (2) now says:
"Where a child or a young person is arrested or taken to a place of safety, the constable by whom he is arrested or the officer of the police in charge of the police station … or the person by whom he is taken to the place of safety as the case may be shall cause each of the parents of the child or young person who can be found and any guardian of his to be warned to attend at the court …"
In other words, the subsection now specifically places the responsibility for warning or informing the parents or guardian on one of three classes of person.

263
The Government propose in Amendment 31 to delete all those words and merely to say that where the child or young person is arrested or taken to a place of safety,
"such steps shall be taken as may be practicable to inform at least one person whose attendance may be required under this section."
Who is going to take the steps? If we accept this Amendment, no one will have a clue whose duty it is to inform the parent or guardian. Some unknown people, not specified in the Bill, are to say what they think are practicable steps. There are all sorts of steps open to a police constable or to the officer in charge of the police station or to the person conveying the child to a place of safety. There is a different practicality as to the steps that each can take. Suppose the parents are difficult to find. Then I should have thought that the police, at least as the subsection originally stands, would through their enquiries be the people most likely to be able to get word to the parents. I do not want to pursue the matter any further now that the noble Earl is in his place, because he may give me a very simple answer to get over the point, but I think he will agree that if Amendment 31 is to be accepted he must be able to show me that somewhere in the Bill it is indicated who is to take the steps to inform the parent or guardian and what kind of criteria would cover the term "as may be practicable". As it stands at present, subject to any enlightenment he may give, I would say this is a wholly objectionable Amendment.
3.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, while respectfully concurring in what has fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in relation to Amendment No. 31—I entirely agree that if we are going to lay down a duty in the Amendment it should be made perfectly clear upon whom it rests that that duty shall be performed; and the Amendment fails in that respect to make it clear—I should like your Lordships to return to the point of principle with which Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are concerned. If your Lordships were to ask me, as I think I have been asked more than once in interviews with the Press or on radio, what were the main principles upon which the
264
Ingleby Committee founded its Report, I think I should say first and foremost, that one of our objects was to emphasise the importance of parental responsibility and to bring home to parents the duty and the burden which lies upon them. This duty a number, at any rate, of parents at the present time seem to ignore; they are anxious to escape from it and to place elsewhere a responsibility which is truly theirs.
One of the ways in which we wished to emphasise parental responsibility was by making it an obligation that both parents should, in the ordinary way, be summoned to court when the child had to appear; and indeed in regard to the younger children under 12, for whom we propounded the new procedure which we were debating the other day, we suggested that the summons itself should go to both parents and should place them under an obligation to bring the child to court with them. That part of the Ingleby scheme has been jettisoned by the Government, but here there seems to me to be a further whittling away of the emphasis we sought to place on parental responsibility. My noble friend, Lord Feversham, who is President of the Association of Probation Officers and who is unable, for personal reasons, to be present here this afternoon, has told me of the deep concern which the probation officers feel at the Amendments which they now see on the Order Paper and which we are now discussing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, herself admitted that the Amendments seemed to go further than anything she had asked the Government to do in the Committee stage. When I read them I think that that probably is the case, because the law at present is contained in Section 34 of the Act of 1933, whose terms are set out almost verbatim in paragraph 199 of our Report. The law at present is that
"when a child is charged with any offence or is for any other reason brought before a court his parent may in any case and shall if he can be found and lives within a reasonable distance be required to attend court …"
There is therefore a clear obligation here upon the court to require the attendance of at least one parent. And, of course, there is the power to summon the other parent if the parent having the actual possession and control of the child is the mother; in that case the

265
father of the child can be summoned as well. The words of the existing Section 34 are:
"… if that person"—
having the actual possession and control of the child—
"is not the father, the attendance of the father may also be required."
What is now proposed in the Amendments would make the clause read as follows:
"and any person who is a parent or guardian of the child may be required to attend at the court before which the case is heard or determined during all the stages of the proceedings and any such person shall be so required"—
that is to say, to attend—
"at any stage where the court thinks it desirable, unless the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require his attendance."
Therefore, with these Amendments incorporated in the clause, there is now a power to dispense with the attendance of either parent and surely that goes back beyond the position which has existed since 1933. I understand the difficulty which the Government find and which my Committee also found. The difficulty is in distinguishing a perfectly trivial case from a case of some substance.
The case which has been cited by the noble Marquess in moving the Amendment, of a boy riding a bicycle without lights after lighting-up time, is what appears to be a pretty trivial thing and in the ordinary way one would be inclined to say that it was not necessary to summon both the parents to the court in a case of that kind. But there is the practical difficulty of ascertaining in advance which are these trivial cases. It certainly would not be a satisfactory dividing line, in my opinion, to say that in the case of an indictable offence both parents must be summoned and that in the case of an offence which can be dealt with summarily only one parent need be summoned. I do not think that that would be at all a satisfactory dividing line and I hope that the noble Baroness, with her experience of juvenile courts, will agree with my view on that point. From my point of view, it would be better in a small number of cases for some parents to be unnecessarily summoned than for us to revert to the position as it has been in most courts since 1933, in which the
266
normal practice is for only one parent to be required to attend.
Therefore, I think that this Amendment goes beyond anything that can be reconciled in any way with the recommendation of the Ingleby Committee. It also, I think, goes beyond what the noble Baroness was asking for when she moved her Amendment at Committee stage. I earnestly ask the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, when he comes to reply, to say that this may be looked at again in the light of the observations made in this debate and that possibly some other form of words may be introduced into the Bill in another place at a later stage.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what has been said by the noble Baroness, by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and by my noble friend. I should like to deal with two difficulties which noble Lords have mentioned. The first is the difficulty of this Amendment's going beyond what the noble Baroness suggested on Committee stage. As my noble friend Lord Lothian said, in a sense it does and in a sense it does not. In so far as it does, we have done so because we thought that to place an absolute obligation upon both parents to attend in certain circumstances would not work. There is not only the trivial case which my noble friend alluded to, but also the case where one parent may be a seaman and abroad and the mother may be sick. In that case, it would be impossible to impose a definite obligation on both parents to attend.
What I should like to suggest on this point, bearing in mind the specific suggestion the noble Baroness made and what my noble friend has said, is that I should have an opportunity of looking at this comparatively detailed point between now and when this Bill goes to another place. I am reasonably satisfied that the clause, as amended by the first two Amendments, is broadly speaking right, but I should like a chance of looking at the difficulty to which noble Lords have alluded. By the same token, I should like a chance, between now and when the Bill goes to another place, to look at the difficulty in the third Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, alluded. It is my understanding that there are so many possible circumstances that it is probably unnecessary to try to lay a particular obligation upon

267
the police or any other person, and probably Clause 34 as drafted is wrong in that respect and so was the original clause which we are now seeking to amend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 21 at end insert ("and any such person shall be so required at any stage where the court thinks it desirable, unless the court is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require his attendance").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 23, leave out from ("safety") to end of line 30 and insert ("such steps shall he taken as may be practicable to inform at least one person whose attendance may be required under this section").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is it the intention to move this Amendment under the circumstances explained? Will the noble Earl amend his Amendment at a later stage?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that my suggestion was that the Amendment would be moved, and I hope approved by your Lordships, subject to the assurance which I gave just now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.58 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "under the age of thirteen" and to insert:
"who has not attained the upper limit of the compulsory school age".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we all approve the purpose of Clause 27, which deals with the evidence of children in proceedings for sexual offences. The clause as it now stands has the object of saving children under 13 from the embarrassment of appearing personally in court and giving evidence for the prosecution. There is provision for them to give evidence in writing. In this Amendment, I desire to extend the exemption to children of compulsory school age.
I submit to your Lordships that all the strong arguments in favour of protecting children under 13 from this sort
268
of embarrassment, something which can affect their whole lives, which indeed can warp and distort their whole lives, apply with equal force to children of compulsory school age. It is highly undesirable that children of 14 or 15 should be subjected to this sort of thing, then perhaps go back to school and be questioned about it, because the subject may well have appeared in the newspapers. It would be regarded as wrong for that to happen to children under 13. If children of school age, who have the misfortune to be caught up in a case of this kind, are able to make a statement in writing, in the same way as children under 13, I think that that would be a very satisfactory improvement to the Bill as it now stands. I hope that the noble Earl will agree. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 3, leave out from ("child") to ("shall") and insert ("who has not attained the upper limit of the compulsory school age").—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I listened not without sympathy to the noble Lord's remarks, but I am still not really clear why the age under this clause should be linked in any way with the upper limit of compulsory school age. I can see no real connection between these two possible limits. It seems to us better to specify an age in years, basing that on the stage of development that a child of that age may normally be expected to have attained. Guided by that principle, we have suggested 13 as the right age. That age was not chosen without careful thought. I think we should all agree that the age of sexual maturity is tending to fall these days, and I would suggest that, by and large, and in this day and age, 13 seems about as reasonable a dividing line as can be found. It coincides with the age up to which Parliament in legislation dating back to the last century has thought it right to provide for much heavier penalties for a sexual offence against a child. Moreover, I think we must remember that many girls (I am not really wishing to discriminate between the sexes here) of school age have nowadays attained a degree of sexual maturity, and in some cases of sexual experience, and they may be in no special need of protection in this particular context.

269
We are suggesting in Clause 27 a rather unusual arid exceptional procedure. Its object is to protect the young child. For the very reason that this procedure is exceptional, and that it limits the power of the defence to get witnesses to give evidence at the first opportunity, we should, I suggest, be careful not to extend it beyond its primary purpose.
There is a further consideration, and it is this. I think we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that some young people, at least, will have reached a degree of sophistication by the age of 13 or thereabouts, and for them it may well be advisable that their evidence on such matters should be tested by cross-examination at the earliest opportunity. For this reason, if the age limit in the clause were raised to take in children up to 16, it is likely that in most cases the defence would object to the application of the new procedure for a young person of that age. To extend the provisions of the clause, designed primarily for the protection of the young and immature, to a range of cases where such protection is perhaps unnecessary, and possibly even undesirable, would, I suggest, only tend to obscure its purpose and to reduce the proportion of cases in which the new procedure is likely to be applied. For those reasons, although I do not think there is anything particularly sacrosanct in this context about the age of 13, I suggest to your Lordships that the clause is best left unamended.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Earl has some difficulty in deciding where to draw his line, and that, with regard to my noble friend's Amendment, the school leaving age may be rising and you may get young people with a considerable degree of experience still at school. But even so, I wish the noble Earl would think again, and particularly if he cannot bring himself to go as far as my cable friend's Amendment, ask himself, if only because of the additional complications that this involves: why 13? We draw a line for a great many purposes in dealing with young people in the courts at 14. This is the line between the child and the young person. That line regulates, for instance, the operation of the rule of doli incapax. It is an important watershed in the methods of dealing with the problems of children
270
and young persons who come before the courts. I hope the noble Earl will consider whether it is necessary now to make yet another dividing line of 13, and whether, even if he cannot go as far as the Amendment suggests, he will not bring it into line with the distinction between the child and the young person.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I echo the point that has been put by my noble friend. It is natural that many cases affecting children are not reported, and even at an age much higher than 13 their names are not allowed to be used. While agreeing with the noble Earl that nowadays girls and boys are reaching physical maturity at an earlier age (at least two years earlier, I would say, than in my generation), and that a number of girls have sexual experiences at a much earlier age, I should have thought that that was an argument for my Amendment; not for the Bill as it stands. What we are talking about is, not whether these young people have had sexual experiences, but whether they are involved in a case which has sexual implications and, indeed, in which they may have been victims or willing participators. In any case, by law they must have been victims, and they must have had a crime committed against them. I am considering, not that physical fact of a crime which has been committed, but the whole salacious, nasty, filthy business which has to be talked over, with the child, as it were, as one of the leading proponents in the limelight, being questioned by adults, when possibly she is scared stiff but is nevertheless acting the grown-up, case hardened woman. I thing this is wholly bad, whether the child is 13, 14, 15 or 16.
Here is an opportunity, not to stop the sexual offence but greatly to curtail the advertising of it—the glorification of it, if you like, the blazening of it; to curtail creating out of something wholly undesirable a special person being made of the child who had to go up and talk to the "beak" about it and then go back to her school friends and tell them all the details, with all the embellishments. If she merely had to write a letter (even that would be an imposition) putting it down in black and white, which could be used in court, then I think it would be very much better.
I would therefore ask the noble Earl to re-examine what he said and then try to think: is not all this an argument against the Bill as it stands and for the

271
Amendment? If his particular difficulty is adopting the maximum limit of compulsory school-leaving age, which in certain circumstances may be extended, and if there is a great merit in having a particular age—such as 13, as it is in the Bill—I would be satisfied to have it fixed at 15, although it would be better still if it were 16. I therefore ask the noble Earl (I know, in view of what he said, that he cannot give an undertaking) at least to say that he will have a look at this point again so that we may deal with it in the final stage of the Bill.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I may speak again only with the leave of the House, but in view of what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said I hope that I may have that leave. The noble Lord asked me if I would have a look at what I have just said and, in the light of that, whether I would not be convinced by what he has said. I will accept his painful invitation and will look at what I have said. But having done so I think I am more likely to be convinced by my own arguments than I am by his, because I still feel that it would be a mistake to link these two possible age limits with the school-leaving age. I am more attracted by the idea of considering the possibility of whether the age of 13, which we have suggested, is the right age.
The noble Baroness asked me to ask myself whether 13 was and must be the law of the Medes and Persians in this matter. I asked myself that question before the noble Lord moved his Amendment, and my answer was contained in what I said. I also said that we did not regard the age of 13 in this context as necessarily being sacrosanct. I took the point about uniformity which the noble Baroness made. If there is a general desire that this age should be raised, I am very willing to give the noble Lord an assurance that we will consider that possibility at a later stage of the Bill, but, of course, quite without commitment. In view of the time factor, I do not think it could be while this House is considering the Bill.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, on that assurance by the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Street trading]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is best described as a drafting Amendment. The purpose of subsection (2) of the clause is to exempt street trading by young persons in established markets from the restrictions imposed by the principal Acts on street trading generally by young persons. Because the proposed provision is at present expressed in terms of Sections 20 (1) of the principal Act and 30 (1) of the Scottish Act, it has the effect of exempting such young persons trading in established markets from the minimum age limit imposed by subsection (1) of those sections, but it is defective in that it does not exempt such young persons from the provisions of subsection (2) of those sections which enable local authorities to make by-laws prohibiting or regulating such street trading by persons under 18. This Amendment is designed to regulate that position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("restrict") in line 20 and insert—
("(2) Nothing in the said section 20 or section 30 of the principal Scottish Act or in any byelaw made under either of those sections shall").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Restriction on persons under 16 taking part in public performances, etc.]:
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDLESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDLESLEIGH had given notice of his intention to move, after subsection (4) to insert:
"( ) In the case of a person over the age of 15, the local authority may, subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Secretary of State may by regulation prescribe, grant a special licence for such person to take part in any performance or series of performances to which subsection (2) of this section applies, at any time during the period before which such person attains the age of 16:
Provided that—

(i) the local authority is satisfied that the person is fit to take part in performances during the said period; and

(ii) the local authority is notified in advance in the prescribed manner before the person takes part in any performance or series of performances."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I set down this Amendment with the intention of assisting theatrical managers who are in the position of having to get hold in

273
a great hurry of an actor capable of impersonating a child. The process of obtaining a licence for a child actor involves a good deal of documentation and a good many consents. While some local authorities, notably the London County Council, are extremely quick and efficient in granting these licences under suitable conditions, other local authorities, perhaps through their distance from London, perhaps for other reasons, take a good deal longer over the job. If a licensed child actor falls sicks during the run of a play, it is obviously necessary to obtain a substitute as quickly as possible. Under the present law, theatrical managers overcome the difficulty by finding a young person of between 15 and 16 years of age—an age group which is not at present subject to licensing, but which will be when this Bill is passed. Among that age group they may be fortunate enough to find a young person small enough and slight enough able, with the help of a little stage illusion, to impersonate a younger child.
This Bill raises the licensing age to 16, and the people fear they may be in a considerable dilemma. I have had the advantage of putting that point to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and his advisers, and with the courtesy and efficiency which the noble Earl has shown throughout his conduct of this Bill, for which we are all most grateful, he has promised to give the matter further consideration. I do not expect that anything can be done during the passage of the Bill through this House, but I have some hopes that the really strong case which I have presented to him may bear fruits in another place. In those circumstances, I do not propose to move my Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, regulations under this section may prescribe, among the conditions subject to which a licence may be granted. a condition requiring sums earned by the person in respect of whom the licence is granted in taking part in a performance to which the licence relates to be paid into the county court (or, in Scotland, consigned in the sheriff court) or dealt with in a manner approved by the local authority."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, asked for some express provision to enable local authorities to super
274
vise the disposal of the earnings of child performers. Your Lordships may recall that his original proposal would have required the local authority to be satisfied—I emphasise that word; and I am going back to his previous wording—that adequate and proper provision has been made for the management and investment of his earnings before any licence could be granted. As I pointed out then, a local authority could not discharge that responsibility without looking with a much more inquisitorial eye at the family affairs of the child in question than many people would consider right or reasonable. For this and other reasons, I was not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I said that I should like the chance of further considering this not unimportant matter.
The Amendment which I am now moving has three purposes. In the first place, as the last two lines of it, I hope, show, it is intended to make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations for the supervision by the local authorities of a child's earnings, and that the local authority, for their part, may concern themselves with the protection of earnings in determining the conditions to be attached to a licence. In Committee I said that the local authority's responsibilities and powers in this respect would be spelled out in the regulations which would follow this Bill when it is enacted, and the noble Lord asked for a specific assurance on that point. I think that this Amendment gives him that assurance.
In the same way, this Amendment would enable regulations to be made for continuing the existing practice which commended itself to the Bateson Committee whereby some local authorities have insisted, by a condition attached to the licence, that a proportion of the child's or young person's earnings should be banked. Thirdly, it would enable the local authority, in cases where a more permanent and effective control might be thought better—and this, I suppose, might apply to cases where the child or young person is earning a really large sum—to attach a condition requiring earnings to be paid into the county court or, in the case of Scotland, consigned in the sheriff court, for administration as a trust fund on behalf of the child or young person. This was, in fact, a suggestion made by

275
the Bateson Committee after discussion with the Lord Chancellor's Office.
At this stage I do not think I could indicate in any detail what precise provisions would be included in the regulations when they were made. However, the general aim will be to avoid undue rigidity and prescribe conditions which will allow the licensing authority to match the degree of control which it seeks to impose to the needs of the individual case. As the Bateson Committee indicated, there would probably be few cases in which the comprehensive protection of county court administration would be needed; and I should perhaps mention that under the new provision the local authority would also be able, where they judge this best, to approve other arrangements for protection—for example, a private trust, where this is judged to be appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 23, at end insert—
("(6) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsection, regulations under this section may prescribe, among the conditions subject to which a licence may be granted, a condition requiring sums earned by the person in respect of whom the licence is granted in taking part in a performance to which the licence relates to be paid into the county court (or, in Scotland, consigned in the sheriff court) or dealt with in a manner approved by the local authority.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl and those who have advised him on this matter, because I feel that the Amendment with which lie has now come forward not only provides for meeting, as it were, the case that I put, but on the whole leaves greater flexibility. Providing the essential requisites are understood in the way he has put them, I am quite sure that what we both have in mind will be met.
I think that it was going a little too far to try to regulate the investment of the child's earnings as distinct from the management of the child's earnings, and, so far as smaller sums of, say, £500 a year are concerned, if an appropriate proportion of them is paid into a banking account, as some licensing authorities insist (perhaps at least a third of it) I think that is quite satisfactory. But for larger sums I feel that a trust fund of
276
the kind the noble Earl mentioned is the sort of thing we should like to see for the protection of these children, who may have large earnings only while children and whose future, therefore, should be assured. These are the kind of points I have in mind. I am quite sure they can be dealt with by the machinery that would be provided by the Amendment and I would wholly support it and thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, you will recall that during the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an Amendment designed to enable a local authority to exercise some control over a person's employment during the period of reaching the age of 16 and the actual time of leaving school. The noble Earl accepted the Amendment in principle and undertook to assist me in the drafting of a revised Amendment giving effect to this point. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his help in the matter. This Amendment, if accepted, will bring this Bill into line with the provisions of the Education Act, 1962. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section, a person who has attained the age of sixteen shall be deemed not to have attained it if:—

(a) he is deemed by virtue of section 9 of the Education Act, 1962, not to have attained that age; or

(b) he is deemed by virtue of section 33 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962, to be of school age.")—(Lord Stonham.)

EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, on this point at Committee, as the noble Lord has mentioned, I assured him that I was quite happy in principle with the Amendment which he then moved. I merely wish to confirm that I entirely agree with the Amendment he has now proposed and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this defect in the Bill to our attention.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I intervene before the noble Earl sits down to ask whether it might not be possible to put the wording in a slightly different way? It is a little confusing to say,
"… a person who has attained the age of sixteen shall be deemed not to have attained it if:—

(a) he is deemed by virtue of section 9 of the Education Act, 1962, not to have attained that age…"

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Restriction on licences for performances by children under 13]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "it" and insert "(a) the licence". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it would be helpful if we could take this Amendment and No. 38 together. Taken together they would make Clause 36 (1) read as follows:
"A licence under the preceding section in respect of a person under 13 shall not be granted unless—

(a) the licence is for acting and the application therefore is accompanied by a declaration that the part he is to act cannot be taken except by a person of his age; or

(b) the nature of the performance and of his part in it is wholly or mainly musical."

The background to this Amendment is as follows. Your Lordships will recall that at present the minimum age of employment for young persons is, with one or two exceptions, 13. One exception is that children of 12 and over may be employed in entertainment, subject to safeguards but at present no children under 12 may be so employed. The Bateson Committee recommended in paragraph 111 of their Report that this absolute ban should be raised, since, to quote their words:
"… there is a strong case for the use of children to take parts written for child performers."
The Government agree with this view; hence Clause 36. However, when we discussed this clause in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, criticised the clause as it was then drafted as being too restrictive. I gave him an assurance that if we could find a formula which would include the artistic performance and at the same time exclude troupe work, in the sense employed by the Bateson Committee in their Report, we should be glad to do so; and that is the origin of these two Amendments.
I think it might be easiest to explain the Amendments by citing the sort of performance which Clause 36, as amended, is intended to permit and the sort of performance it is intended to exclude. For example, we think it will permit a child to act in a play or in a part which only a child can take, such as those children who take the parts of Mamillius, in The Winter's Tale, which Ellen Terry, so Bateson tells us, played when she was seven; or of young Mac-Duff or the little girls in Toad of Toad
278
Hall, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred. It would also include a child taking the speaking Hart in pantomime or a Christmas play. And, of course if we include the Wendys of this world we do not see how we can possibly exclude the child taking an individual part which only a child can act in television commercials. These parts would, we think, be included. It would include the child singer or singers—for example, Lough, or the Vienna Boys' Choir. It would equally permit a child singer to perform in opera, even if he were not taking a part which required a child qua actor. It would include the brilliant young instrumentalist, the young Menuhin, and the talented young conductor, the young Mozart—in so far as anybody conducted an orchestra when Mozart was a young man. But it would exclude a young dancer under 13 whether for troupe work or for the individual parts.
Finally, we must remember that there is a complete exemption for those taking part in certain exempted performances under subsection (3) of Clause 35. I think it was generally agreed in Committee that the clause as drafted was not entirely satisfactory, and in redrafting it we have proceeded as follows. We felt that a special case could be made for permitting boy singers to be employed under the age of 13 because the quality of a boy's voice cannot be produced by adults and the boy is therefore not doing something which could equally well he done by an adult. To this extent the new category eligible for licence is akin to the existing category of child actor. To that extent we are still, of course pursuing the pure machinery of Bateson. But if the employment of the boy singer is to be allowed, it is difficult to justify excluding the girl singer or the child instrumentalist. Those are the main reasons why we have drawn the clause as we have done now. I could expatiate longer on the point, but I hope that it will not be necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 37, leave out ("it") and insert ("(a) the licence").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, again I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his work on this matter. He has succeeded in finding the formula which

279
eluded him in our discussions in the Committee stage and, I think, has made a first-class job of it. I think these two Amendments will not only remove a lot of doubt but avoid a great deal of trouble and difficulty and evasion which would have occurred had the clause gone through in its original form. I think I am right in saying that every kind of performance by a child of which most people, generally speaking, would approve will now be permitted under the clause as amended—subject to licence of course—but excepting the child troupe work, the child dancer. I think that is a very satisfactory conclusion to have reached. I think I am also right in saying that I made one error in talking about the boy Lough and "Oh for the Wings of a Dove!". In any case, making a record for sale in the ordinary way is not a performance, and therefore would not have been regarded as necessitating a licence, so that it was outside the terms of this particular discussion. But I agree with the very satisfactory conclusion we have reached, and I congratulate the noble Earl upon it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 40, at end insert ("or
(b) the nature of the performance and of his part in it is wholly or mainly musical").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 36, to insert the following new clause:
Employment of children for modelling and advertising purposes
"For paragraph (a) (i) of subsection (2) of section 18 of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph:—
'(i) the employment of children, before they attain the age at which employment ceases to be prohibited under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection, for modelling or photographic purposes connected with children's fashion or by their parents or guardians in light agricultural or horticultural work;'".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause would be an enlargement of the position as it now stands. When I discussed something similar in Committee, the Government took the view, I believe, that I was seeking an enlarge-
280
ment of what is well known to be the present position. The fact is, however, that the employments referred to in my Amendment are common: they are going on all the time and are virtually unregulated. The law as it stands at present is being disregarded, and it is very difficult to enforce its provisions. For example, quite a number of children are being employed as models to display children's clothing. Others are being employed as photographic models taking part in television films for advertising purposes, and in some cases—as those of us who have visited some of the studios which are used for this purpose know—in undesirable conditions.
I appreciate that there are undoubtedly legitimate trade interests which require that children should be employed for these purposes. If on the stage it is impossible in many cases for an adult to play a child's part, it is certainly still more impossible for an adult, or even a young person, to model children's clothing. We all appreciate that. Moreover, there is no real objection to that class of work being undertaken by children provided that it is carefully regulated. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable a local authortiy to make such by-laws as would effect the necessary control. In fact it would make modelling by children legal but subject to safeguards. At present it is not untrue to say that this work is illegal but goes on with no safeguards. Therefore, the Amendment is not an enlargement of this field of work; it is an acknowledgment that the work exists, that it is not undesirable work and that there is no need to prevent children from doing it—we cannot do it in any case—but that it should be regulated.
During the discussions on the Committee stage the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, asked why the particular forms of employment which I had mentioned should be singled out for special treatment. I hope I have now made it clear that there is no reason at all, except that at present this kind of employment is widespread but uncontrolled. I feel strongly and so do a number of licensing authorities, that so far as children are concerned this illegal form of employment constitutes the greater part of the ways that they are employed. That is the argument for the Amendment. We say "Right, it is going on. Let us see that local authorities can make by-laws

281
so that it is properly controlled, and then there will be no great harm in it because it will be properly regulated". I hope that on this occasion I have made my purpose clear and that the Amendment will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 36, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)
4.40 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I know that child models are difficult to find. I have had a case of that, and also a case of people complaining bitterly that they have stuck to the rules but that other people have not. If there are safeguards, there seems to be little trouble in having younger children taking their proper part. I hope this point will be considered. We need the safeguards and with reputable firms, et cetera, they are there: the children are well chaperoned and the hours are not difficult. I think this would be of great advantage. I beg to support the Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, straight away that he has made his point perfectly clear. Nevertheless, this is a difficult matter and I see great difficulties with this Amendment. May I point out the least of the difficulties straight away?—a purely technical one. I notice that his Amendment as drafted would extend only to England and Wales. Section 28 of the principal Scottish Act covers the same ground as Section 18 of the principal Act, and I should have thought that if we were to have a clause of this sort it should presumably cover Scotland as well as England and Wales.
Now to turn to matters of greater substance. I would, of course, agree that this is something which we all know is going on. My noble friend Lord Grenfell has pointed this out. A glance at any collection of advertisements for children's clothing it quite enough to establish that children under 13 commonly act as photographers' models. It is also common knowledge that children of that age sometimes act as mannequins in mannequin parades, and indeed on television. One can assume that many, if not most, of those children are employed, in the legal sense, to do so. In other
282
words, as I think the noble Lord made clear, the law is not being observed, and is probably not being enforced by prosecution of the offenders.
I think there are in fact great difficulties here in enforcing the law. Employment as a child mannequin is likely to be casual and only occasional for those who take part in it; and there may be other features that complicate enforcement. But at least mannequin parades are held in public, so enforcement should be possible. Nevertheless, it is fairly clear that local authorities—on whom the main responsibility for enforcement must rest—do not, or do not all, try to enforce the law in this respect. This is not a criticism of local authorities; it is just a statement of fact.
Employment as a photographer's model is, again, casual and only occasional. Here there must be much greater difficulty in the way of enforcing the prohibition, or indeed, conditions on the grant of a licence. The employment takes place in a great many private studios or in private houses or even out of doors; and there is no way of telling from the finished photograph whether the child was employed, or whether the photograph was taken in this country, or whether the offence—if there was one—took place recently enough for a prosecution to be brought. For these and other reasons, I find it hard to see how the law here could be consistently enforced.
I would straightaway grant that it is bad to have on the Statute Book a law that cannot be fully enforced. I would equally suggest that it would be worse to enact another that was no better in that respect. As I see it, that might well be the result if we adopted the noble Lord's suggested Amendments. He proposes that local authorities, in making by-laws governing the employment of children, should be able to authorise, where they adjudge it fit, the employment of children under 13 as mannequins or models. This may be a perfectly harmless form of child employment, subject to the safeguards that those by-laws include.
As I see it, the proposal is open to three main objections. First, if it is right to allow children of that age to be so employed—I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong—it must be right everywhere and not merely in those areas where the local authority choose to make the

283
appropriate by-law. Second, if it is impracticable to enforce a complete prohibition—and I suggest that it is impracticable, or at least extremely difficult—it would be even more difficult to enforce the conditions that are found in this sort of by-law: for example, a condition that a child may be employed only at specified times of the day or for a specified period. Third, conditions of the kind that are usually prescribed by these by-laws are, in the nature of things, useful only in relation to regular employment: they are seldom appropriate where the employer's need to employ children is sporadic and the child is employed casually, at irregular intervals and often by different employers.
For these reasons, though we are open to persuasion on the point, we are not so far persuaded that, if anything is to be done, this is the way to do it. Moreover, if modelling is to be allowed, why only for "purposes connected with children's fashion", as the noble Lord's Amendment reads? If for advertising clothes, why not for advertising other goods? Why not for advertising spring cars as well as Easter bonnets? Why should that family picnic scene with a new car on the South Downs with a child in the party be ruled out? And if a child may pose for a photographer, why not for a painter? And if this sort of employment is to be exempted, are there not others that ought also to be exempted? Those are some of the difficulties that I foresee here.
The noble Lord's real criticism, if I have got it right—and if I have I would concede that it has some validity—is that the present section, Section 18 of the principal Act, prohibits more than is needed, or, at least, what is prohibited is done and it is absurd to prohibit something which we know to be going on. I would concede that there is validity in that point.
But what is the alternative? I would suggest that there are formidable difficulties in the way of making the provisions fit all possible situations. What sorts of casual employment should be permitted and what prohibited? What do we mean by casual employment? And at what stage, for any particular child, does an accumulation of casual employment become regular employment? Any provision exempting new employments might have to be fairly elaborate, as will be seen from the pro-
284
visions of the Bill dealing with employment in entertainment.
I think it is optimistic to suppose that we should ever be able to get a new provision that fitted exactly, and we must be sure that any change we make is a change for the better. For the reasons I have sought to outline. I do not consider that the noble Lord's suggestions would improve matters. We shall gladly consider any others that may be made but, on the information that I have before me at present—and I have of course noted what my noble friend Lord Grenfell said—it seems better here to leave well alone and trust to the good sense of the administering authorities. For those reasons, I cannot advise noble Lords to accept Lord Stonham's Amendment.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that most careful reply, with a great deal of which I agree, but I think I could sum up his remarks by saying that the Government are aware that the present position is unsatisfactory. They do not know how to put it right. The only thing they are certain of is that my Amendment is no good. With all of those three provisions I would agree, but I am still most dissatisfied to leave it as it is.
The noble Earl said that we ought to leave the position to the good sense of the local authorities. But it is the leading licensing authorities who are so dissatisfied with the present position that they have asked me to help them by putting down this Amendment, in order that the Government could help them get over the difficulty. The licensing authorities feel that they have a great deal of good sense, but with the Act as it stands at the present time, as the noble Earl is aware, every kind of employment is prohibited except that they are authorised to permit licensed employment in light agricultural and horticultural work. At the stage when that Bill was passed we were presumably in the position where only certain classes of children in certain areas of the country undertook light agricultural and horticultural work, and therefore we had to authorise that. The farmers and horticulturists could not have got their potato harvest in without the help of school children, or something of that kind; therefore we had that authorisation in the Act.

285
We have now reached the position where there is an enormously enlarged scope of quite proper and legitimate employment for children, but which, nevertheless, is wholly and completely illegal. The Government, in effect, say "Yes, we know that, but we do not know how to get over it. Therefore, let us leave it to the good sense of the licensing authorities". The licensing authorities say, "We have got plenty of good sense, but no power." I think that that is a quite fair summary. The noble Earl complained that the Amendment as drafted would apply only to England and Wales and that I have left out Scotland entirely. With great temerity, and only because there was no native Scot on these Benches at the time, I have intervened in a number of Scottish matters, to the tolerant amusement of native Scots on the other side of the House. That is as far as I am going with Scotland. But if the noble Earl in his further consideration of this matter includes Scotland then I think everyone will approve.
My Lords, in a moment I am going to ask your leave to withdraw the Amendment because of its obvious deficiencies, but in my submission they are deficiencies only of drafting, not of principle. I think we must tackle the principle. The noble Earl said it is no good having a law which will not work, or which it is impossible to implement. He instanced the photographer's child model who might be photographed in a back room or on the Sussex Downs, in which case one would not know whether it was professional or otherwise. Some escape the net of every law, but I feel that it is possible, if not in your Lordships' House then certainly in another place, to find another way of getting over this difficulty, a difficulty which we see and want to cure.
The provision in the existing Act is wholly wrong and quite untenable because it shuts its eyes to a whole field of illegal employment. Every one of us sees evidence of its going on, day after day. Since this is a Bill to protect the interests of children, we ought to say: "This is desirable employment; it is perfectly all right provided that we ensure that children who are engaged in such employment are not being exploited, and provided we ensure that their health and working conditions are properly looked after." I think it should be possible for
286
Parliament to find a form of words which achieves that objective. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.55 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, after Clause 39 to insert the following new clause
Central licensing authority
".—(1) A central licensing authority shall be appointed by the Secretary of State which shall be responsible for licensing

(a) all children under 13 years of age;

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

(c) all children taking part in television broadcasts.

(2) The central licensing authority shall be responsible for supervising the application by the local authorities of the regulations governing the licensing of children between the ages of 13 and 16."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 40, and, if your Lordships will agree, I feel that No. 42 might well be discussed with it because it is associated with the same general principle. We discussed the general principle during the Committee stage. I make no apology for returning to it again on the Report stage because, to me and to my colleagues, it is quite an important point.
Part II of the Bill is largely based on the Bateson Report, which was published in August, 1950. Now, some twelve years afterwards, the conditions in which the recommendations of the Bateson Committee were made in regard to the entertainment world have been very largely altered by the development of television—particularly commercial television and the employment of children in that field. The Bateson Committee made a recommendation, which I entirely support, that there should be one central licensing committee covering the employment in the entertainment world of children in this country as well as children wanting to go abroad and those abroad wanting to come into this country for employment.
In brief, the recommendation suggested that there should be a simple administrative system in place of the present rather complicated arrangement in which three Government Departments, and Bow Street Magistrates' Court, are involved. The recommendation by the Bateson Committee, and the general principle of this

287
Amendment, is supported by the theatrical managers and also by the trade union movement. In regard to Amendment No. 42, my attention has been called to the fact that reference to "police magistrates" might lead one to believe that police and magistrates are allies against the citizen. In fact, of course, this was a reference to the functions performed by Bow Street Magistrates' Court which now licenses children in this country who wish to go abroad.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39, insert the said clause.—(Lord Lindgren.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we discussed this matter during Committee, when I gave my reasons at some length for resisting this Amendment. I naturally have been interested to hear a fuller exposition of it this afternoon, but, having heard it, I am still unable to recommend that your Lordships should accept the Amendment. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said, that the Bateson Committee some twelve years ago recommended something along these lines. They felt that a central licensing authority in all cases would be too cumbersome. Therefore, they recommended something not far from what the noble Lord is now suggesting.
As he has observed, their recommendation for a central authority to deal with the groups mentioned in his Amendment was based on their view that generally more uniform administration was required here, and that these particular groups presented particular problems. I still find it hard myself to see how uniformity would be improved or administration as a whole made more effective by adding, for special categories of children, a new body to the existing licensing authorities who would continue to deal with the other categories. We must remember, I think, that a central licensing body would not be in a position to carry out its responsibilities alone. As the Bateson Committee themselves recognised in paragraph 255 of their Report, from which I quote:
"a licence would be granted centrally only after consultation with the local licensing authority of the area in which the child lives."
The Bateson Committee also recognised that the authority of the area in which
288
the performance in question was going to be held must be responsible for the enforcement, and also must have power to vary the conditions attached to the licence when it is granted. I think that Bateson were perfectly right here, and that if such a central licensing authority were established it would necessarily have to work in some such way. I do not think anything the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has said has contradicted that. But in these circumstances I find it hard to see what would really be left for the central authority to do. Decisions would have to be based on the views of the local authorities, and in that event it seems much better to us that they should have full responsibility in the first place to issue, to enforce and to vary, if necessary, the licence.
May I now turn briefly to the three groups singled out for special centralised attention in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause? First, there are the children under 13 years old. I still cannot sec why we need a different machinery for children under 13 from that for children betwen 13 and 16. As I have just said, at least one local authority would probably have to be consulted by the central licensing body in every event. In these circumstances it surely is better to devolve full responsibility on them straight away, with their full knowledge of local circumstances and of local opinion. If, for example, a brilliant young cellist wishes to present a series of concerts in the Free Trade Hall at Manchester, it seems to me much better, much less cumbersome, quicker and more efficient—in short, more sensible—for the right person in Manchester (and this is on the assumption that the young cellist in question lives in Manchester and is going to give the performance in Manchester) to decide the conditions of a licence rather than the right person—however right—in Whitehall.
Then there is the second category, the children appearing on television. The reason why Bateson, as I understand it, recommended central licensing for them was that in 1950 television was largely experimental. This is hardly the case now. Again, television is to a very large extent regionalised. If a child is to appear or to be auditioned in that new principality to the North—Granadaland—it would seem both irksome and unnecessary for permission to be obtained

289
in Whitehall. Furthermore, we are not recommending, and noble Lords are not recommending—and I think they are quite right not to do so—central licensing for films and for sound broadcasting. That was not recommended by Bateson. But if we are not recommending it for those categories, what real justification is there for recommending it for television?
Thirdly, there are the children coming from or going abroad. So far as children going abroad are concerned, there is already a degree of centralisation under the system by which licences are issued separately by the Bow Street Magistrate. As I have said before, this system seems to work perfectly well, and as at present advised I cart see no real reason to change it. As for children coming to this country from abroad, they are very few in number—something like 40 a year. I understand that the numbers going abroad are only something like 60 a year, and a central licensing authority for them alone would hardly be justified.
Then we come to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. This new clause suggests that its movers think that local licensing authorities, in exercising the powers vested in them by law, need to be controlled or supervised in some way by the proposed central licensing authority. As I explained during Committee, the Government do not accept this. There may in our view be a case for central licensing; there is certainly in our view a case for local licensing; but I would suggest that there is really no case at all for the hybrid system proposed by noble Lords, which, as I see it, falls between the two stools. I recognise that perhaps I do them an injustice, and that at least for some noble Lords opposite a combination of centralisation and licensing may be almost irresistible. But I would suggest to the House as a whole that this Amendment should be resisted.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his very detailed reply. I do not agree with him, particularly as I think there is a special case for youngsters under 13 years of age. There is, of course, the question of the Ministry of Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour being involved, and the central licensing authority could be associated with just one Government Department rather than with three. But in view of
290
the detailed study which the noble Earl and his Department have obviously given to the Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Licences for children and young persons performing abroad]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 12, after ("section)") insert ("and section 26 of that Act (which imposes penalties for contraventions)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.8 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 45, to insert the following new clause:
Retrospective contribution orders
".—(1) Where a child or young person has been committed to the care of a lit person or to an approved school or has been received into the care of a local authority under the provisions of section 1 of the Children Act, 1948, an application for a contribution order in respect of him may be made notwithstanding that the parent has ceased to be liable to make contributions in respect of him, and in such case, the provisions of the principal Act relating to contribution orders shall apply as if the application had been made when the parent was so liable.
(2) Where an application for a contribution order is made to a court of summary jurisdiction after a child or young person is committed to the care of a fit person or to an approved school, or is received into the care of a local authority under the provisions of section 1 of the Children Act, 1948, the Court hearing the application may, if it thinks fit, direct that any order for weekly payments shall have effect from a date not earlier than the date when the child or young person was so committed or received into care but in no case prior to a date six months before the first hearing of the application."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new clause of particular concern and interest to local authorities, and I would apologise that on this Amendment I shall have to go into the matter in some little detail. The position, as your Lordships will know, is that under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the Children Act, 1948, the father and the mother of a child or young person committed to the care of a fit person or to an approved school, or received into care, is liable to make contributions in respect of their child. Under the 1933 Act the juvenile magistrates' court at the time of the child's committal, or any magistrates'

291
court for the area of the parents' residence, may subsequently make contribution orders for the payment of weekly sums in accordance with the parents' means. Contribution orders are enforceable as affiliation orders, and this appears to indicate that they are effective only from the date on which they are made.
Most children's authorities, of course, try to secure parents' contributions under voluntary contribution arrangements, and they do not forthwith apply for contribution orders unless parents have said pretty firmly and categorically, "I am not going to pay". Most of these parents do not use that kind of language, but they manage to convey their views on the subject. But the normal procedure is to obtain from a liable parent details of income or other family circumstances; to assess provisionally in accordance with a scale; to verify earnings with employers—because parents seem to have a habit of understating their earnings in these cases—and to confirm or amend the assessment. With the co-operation of the parent, this process takes only about two or three weeks, and unless by that time the parent has said that he will not pay, he must be given a few weeks more to start paying voluntarily.
It is therefore, perhaps, a total of six weeks or more before a decision can be taken to apply to a court for a contribution order. Then, of course, in the case of many petty sessions, certainly London, it is probably four weeks more before the case can be heard; and very often it can be delayed still further if the parent is unco-operative, because he can delay it by non-attendance. It is seldom, therefore, adding all that up, that a contribution order can be secured by a local authority in less than three months. Of course, by that time, in most cases, fortunately, the child has been to the approved school and has come home again, because the period will be for just about two months.
Now there are various devices whereby, theoretically at least, a local authority can improve this situation. First of all, where children are committed to the care of the local authority by juvenile courts application for a contribution order may be made at the same hearing, but this is frequently not feasible as the father, who is usually the person who has to contri-
292
bute, is not at the court at the time. The local authority is seldom able to anticipate the court's decision or to obtain beforehand the necessary information as to means and to verify it. So, generally speaking, they cannot get a contribution order at the time of the committal of the child. Then, it is possible for local authorities to enter into stamped agreements with the parents which can be enforced in county courts, but this procedure, naturally, is always frustrated by unco-operative parents—and they are the very ones in respect of whom a contribution order has to be made. They simply refuse to sign; so, of course, stamped agreements are not therefore a satisfactory answer to the problem.
Despite this Amendment, local authorities consider that the policy of encouraging parents to contribute voluntarily is the only practicable one in view of staff resources and court facilities. It is found in practice that over half the parents who have been adjudged capable of contributing will not do so without the sanction of a court order—in other words, "I can pay for little Johnnie, but I am not going to unless you make me". A particular difficulty arises concerning children who are received into care for very short periods, perhaps during the illness of a parent, and these short-stay cases comprise half of all the cases of children received into care in this way. As I think I have said before, experience shows that over half the children leave the local authority's care before there is any chance of getting a contribution order.
Of course, many parents pay willingly and without a contribution order, and it is felt that it is unfair to them and to the other ratepayers if parents who can pay financially (if they cannot, no order is made) nevertheless evade this obligation by various means. Over one single year nearly £20,000 had to be written off by the L.C.C. for no other reason but that parents who had been assessed to pay did not pay and refused to pay voluntarily—and afterwards, of course, it was impossible to recover. If it may be considered undesirable that, as my Amendment suggests, payments should be ordered after the children have returned home, it is as well to note that under existing arrangements the majority of parents are in arrears of court order payments, and that it is normal practice for

293
these arrears to be discharged after the actual liability has ceased. I submit that, if enforcement action becomes necessary, it can be safely left to the child care authority or to the magistrates, as they do now, to see that arrears are discharged at a rate which places no undue burden on the family.
My Lords, that is the case for this Amendment. I would point out that a Working Party of officers from local authority associations first recommended in 1954 legislation along the same lines as I am suggesting in this Amendment, and that the Ingleby Committee, in paragraphs 379 and 380 of their Report, arrived at the same conclusions. They pointed out that a precedent exists under the National Assistance Act for exactly the same kind of thing that my Amendment is designed to provide. I would also mention that some week or so after my Amendment was tabled I received a letter from the Secretary of the Association of Municipal Corporations. He referred to the Amendment and to the fact that it would have the effect of implementing the recommendations of paragraphs 379 and 380 of the Ingleby Committee Report, and he said this:
"This Association, which includes in its membership all the county boroughs in England and Wales, fully supports the new clause which you are to move."
So I really can say that the whole body of responsible local authority opinion throughout England and Wales supports this Amendment; that it is a recommendation of the Ingleby Committee, which went into the question very carefully; that it has been a recommendation by child officers who have thoroughly investigated it for the last nine years; and that the opportunity has now come to deal with it in this Bill.
Perhaps it would appear superficially that I am asking for money to be ground out of poor people by local authorities. Nothing of the kind. I am asking that local authorities be given reasonable power to ensure that people who, by definition, can afford to make a contribution to their children's support are made to do so if they will not do so voluntarily. I think, therefore, that at least in principle this long Amendment, which in detail may not wholly commend itself to the noble Earl,
294
should be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 45, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Stonham.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment which has been so admirably and fully explained by my noble friend Lord Stonham. As he mentioned, this Amendment has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations and, while it might seem on the face of it to be of very little importance, it is, from an administrative point of view, of very great importance to local authorities who will be responsible under the Bill when it becomes an Act. This Bill will have failed in its purpose if more children are not received into care of local authorities. I think everyone will agree, as Lord Stonham has quite rightly said, that parents who can reasonably afford to make some contribution towards the care and upkeep of their children should do so.
Speaking out of my own experience, not in connection with orders so far as children are concerned but in another branch of the service, I can support what my noble friend Lord Stonham has said, that local authorities always try to work by consent. They feel it far better to get the agreement of a parent or parents to any order made as that helps to maintain good will between parent and local authority. But there are always a number of people who will not pay. I regret to say it, but I know from my own experience that there are parents who will seek to avoid making any contribution to the cost of the care of their children. I could tell of many of the shifts and evasive actions which have been taken by parents.
Unless some administrative provision of this kind is given to local authorities, they will lose a considerable sum of money every year—money which ought not to be lost by them—because of the difficulties which my noble friend has explained, in getting the details necessary for making an order, and also because of the action taken by the parents. Therefore, it seems to me that some elbow room, if I may put it that way, some administrative elbow room, should be

295
given to the local authorities as proposed in this Amendment. Unless they are to lose a lot of money, they will have to make an assessment at the earliest possible moment, perhaps without the relevant information before them, and then apply to the courts for a justices' order to be made. If that procedure is forced on to the local authority it will impose a very heavy load of work on the official staff, the children's welfare department, and, in addition, will unnecessarily clutter up the courts. As I know, and as my noble friend Lord Stonham has said, the local authority goes to court for a justices' order only in the last resort: rather do they administer the law with a desire to work by consent. I think it is very unfair, and quite wrong, that the local ratepayers should be penalised by the loss of substantial sums which ought to flow into their treasury, substantial sums which should be contributed by a number of parents, simply because the local authorities have not the appropriate means of dealing with these people. I hope that, even if this Amendment, backed as it is by people in the field who know the problems and the difficulties, and who also know what, I regret to say, human nature is to some degree, is not acceptable, the noble Earl will be able to give us some assurance that he will help us to find some solution to this very difficult problem.
5.27 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for their lucid exposition of the purposes of this Amendment. I should like to make two points plain straight away. First, I appreciate the arguments in favour of the proposals as set forward in the Ingleby Committee Report and as deployed, very lucidly, by both noble Lords. Second, I recognise the importance of this matter. I know from my own contacts with the children's departments of local authorities that keeping parents up to the mark with their contributions can be a very troublesome business for them.
I was, if I may say so parenthetically, impressed by that sum of £20,000 which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham mentioned. At the same time, I think it only right that we should look at both sides of the coin here. There are, I think,
296
arguments on the other side not stated in the Ingleby Committee Report which perhaps were not brought to their notice. Thus, this proposal might remove an incentive to the prompt institution of proceedings for a contribution order in a case where a local authority should bring such proceedings early, and where it might be particularly undesirable that the parents concerned should get behind with their contributions. It could remove an incentive there. Again, there are the possible practical results.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? I hope the noble Earl appreciates that no local authority will take proceedings for a contribution order until the parents have made it quite apparent that they will not pay. It is the parents' fault if they get behind.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, my point was that if a local authority knows it has this stand-by retrospective power (we are talking about this hypothetical local authority, which we know never exists—the not-so-good local authority) it may not be as quick in exhausting both the voluntary method and then making the contributions order as it might be if it did not have this retrospective power. That was my point.
May I just mention a couple of possible practical difficulties, too? A parent saddled with sizeable arrears from the start might be less likely to keep up his current payments. In any event, a contribution order must take account of a parent's arrears and income. Since the cost of keeping a child in a children's home runs at about £10 a week, the parent's weekly contribution is hardly ever likely to meet the current cost of maintaining that child. Any addition to cover liabilities already incurred, or held to be incurred, by parents may thus be more notional than real; and once the arrears are paid off the amount the parent continues to pay towards current costs may be less in the last resort than if the weekly sum originally fixed by the court had not had to be divided between current payments and arrears. I would suggest, therefore, that all the arguments may not point the same way.
I personally incline to the view that the pros may have it in favour of this Amendment. But I think this is a question

297
which requires more consideration than your Lordships have yet been able to give it. The Government would like to give it that consideration. Meanwhile, I do not think I could advise noble Lords to accept this new clause in the Bill in its present form. This is for two main reasons. In the first place, we are inclined to feel that, if we are to have retrospection here, the period of six months specified in subsection (2) would be better reduced to three months. The six-months period admittedly found favour with the Ingleby Committee. Nevertheless, we feel that three months would allow a local authority reasonable time in which to press the parent and test his willingness to fulfil a voluntary agreement. Secondly, there is a technical difficulty in the clause. It does not specifically exclude a contribution order made so as to require a child aged 16 or over to contribute to his own maintenance, if engaged in full-time remunerative work, a case in which the Ingleby Committee's recommendation, I think, was not meant to apply.
Having ventilated what I would grant is a point which certainly merits closer examination, I trust that the noble Lord will be content with ray assurance and not press his Amendment at this stage.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl is aware that I never hesitate to agree with him if he has pointed out difficulties in an Amendment that I have moved, and I agree with him on the two points he made at the end of his speech. I agree that three months would be better than six—indeed, that was the actual time I myself gave as the normal time these things should take. Secondly, the omission with regard to a young person who is in full-time employment and earning might well be repaired. Having said that, however, I must add that this is the first time on this Report stage, on either clay, in which the noble Earl's main arguments against an Amendment seem to cut no ice or hold no water, whichever is the appropriate metaphor—and I think that they did not convince him either. In those circumstances, if he could devise a better Amendment, incorporating the two points he mentioned, I think that it would meet with the satisfaction of all, with the possible exception of those parents who do not want to pay anyway; and, of course, it is no part of our object to satisfy
298
them. With that, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Citation, construction, commencement and extent]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment and the next are both technical matters of drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 39, leave out first ("and").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 39, at end insert ("and so much of Schedule 5 as relates to section 25 of the principal Act").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
5.37 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved in paragraph 14 (1) to leave out from "words" (where that word occurs a first time) to the end of the sub-paragraph, and insert:
"'if it thinks fit' there shall be substituted the words and, if it is not a juvenile court, shall, unless satisfied that it would he undesirable to do so'".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, may I first remind your Lordships of the background to this Amendment? At present, Section 56 (1) of the principal Act provides that, where a child under 17 is found guilty of an offence other than homicide by a court other than a juvenile court, that court "may, if it thinks fit" (as the phrase goes) remit the case to a juvenile court. That court then decides how the offender is to be dealt with. As it stands, paragraph 14 (1) of Schedule 3 to the Bill amends that provision by deleting the words "if it thinks fit". The intention here was to indicate that remittal is to be the normal course, as the Ingleby Committee recommended in paragraph 176 of their Report.
The Amendment which I am now moving would go further and, in relation to courts other than juvenile courts, substitute for the words "may, if it thinks fit" the words "shall, unless satisfied that it would be undesirable to do so". Thus the opening words of Section 56 (1) of

299
the principal Act, as amended, would read as follows:—
"Any court by or before which a child or young person is found guilty of an offence other than homicide may and, if it is not a juvenile court, shall, unless satisfied that it would be undesirable to do so, remit the case to a juvenile court …."
In Committee, the noble Baroness moved a new clause, which would have made it obligatory for a court other than a juvenile court to remit the case of a juvenile offender to a juvenile court. When I pointed out the objections to this, she suggested that we might consider—and I quote her words from column 467 [Vol. 245 (No. 20)] of Hansard—
"whether there is any possibility of spelling out the exceptions or, if not, making it perfectly clear that the exceptions must be thoroughly exceptional".
We examined the first alternative very carefully. However, we found no practicable way of specifying in the Statute all the circumstances in which it would be right for a court other than a juvenile court to deal with a juvenile offender itself.
One of the factors that the court might well have to weigh is how long the child would have to wait for the next sitting of the juvenile court to which his case would be remitted. But whether the disadvantages of delay would outweigh the advantages of remittal would depend not only on the length of the interval but on other factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the age of the child, and possibly quite fortuitous and exceptional matters like the imminent emigration of the family to New Zealand or the impending admission of the child to hospital to have his tonsils out. To specify some categories of exceptions would exclude other combinations of circumstances that we really cannot foresee in advance.
The Government have therefore conic back to the noble Baroness's other alternative. We have tried to find a form of words that will indicate more clearly than those at present in the Bill that remittal is to be the normal course and that a court is to refrain from it only for some positive reason. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, we see no magic quality in the phrase "special reasons". As she herself said during Committee, such reasons can be "very slippery". As we see it,
300
the courts will have ultimately to decide which cases should be treated exceptionally and which not. All that it really seems practicable to do in the Statute is to spell out what is to be the rule and what the exception. That, I submit, this Amendment does pretty plainly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 5, leave out from ("words") to end of line 7 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 16, in the proposed new subsection (2B), after "person" to insert: "of or over the age of sixteen". The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 16 of Schedule 3, which I desire to amend in the manner suggested, really contains an Amendment which forms a new subsection of Section 62 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which states that:
"Any young person brought before the court as being in need of care and protection…"
The new subsection which is proposed to this Schedule would prohibit a married person of any age, however young, from being brought before, or dealt with by, a juvenile court under the present provisions of Section 62 of that Act. I desire to insert the words:
"of or over the age of sixteen".
It would, therefore, read:
"A person of or over the age of sixteen who is, or has been, married, shall not be brought before, or dealt with by, a juvenile court under this section".
The provision, as it stands without my Amendment, would operate against the interests of quite a number of young girls, especially those who are, or have been, married according to the laws of other countries when very young. For example, to quote an actual case, quite recently the attention of a children's officer of a local authority was drawn to the case of a girl from Pakistan who was thirteen years of age and had come to this country in order to join her husband. She was found to be living under the most deplorable conditions, and the local authority, if they had been able to do so, would have brought her before the juvenile court as being in need of care and protection. But with this provision, since this girl of thirteen was a married woman and not a child, they could not

301
help her. That is an actual example, and noble Lords must be aware that this kind of case does, and will, crop up. My Amendment is designed to restrict the operation of this new subsection to married people who are sixteen years or over; and those who are under sixteen, if they are still in need of care and protection in the manner I have indicated, should not be denied it. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 27, after ("person") insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there are some girls in this country under sixteen years of age (I think the numbers must be quite small) who may, under foreign law, have contracted perfectly valid marriages. I quite take the point that marriage at an age not permitted by our law ought not to stand in the way of local authorities affording such young girls the care and protection which they obviously may need. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the particular example which he did, as I think it helps us to visualise the sort of difficulty with which local authorities have been faced. I might mention that in paragraph 92 of their Report the Ingleby Committee referred to
"a girl of sixteen who contracts a valid marriage".
I think this shows that the Committee had only girls of that age, and not younger girls, in mind. For these reasons, and those which the noble Lord has given, I am glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in paragraph 26, in the proposed new subparagraph (3), to leave out "in their area who is out under supervision from that school" and to insert:
"in or from that school who is likely to be or is out under supervision in that local authority's area".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of this Amendment is to make sure that paragraph 26 of Schedule 3 prescribes duties which conform to the accepted practice about after-care of
302
approved school children. In my submission, the Schedule as now worded fails to do that. The Amendment implements the Ingleby Committee's recommendation No. 111: that children's authorities should be required, if requested to do so by approved school managers, to act as after-care agents to approved-school children. This is now, of course, general practice. The point was made in paragraph 491 of the Ingleby Report that after-care duties begin when the child enters an approved school, and that the after-care agent should be appointed as soon as possible after the child is admitted. Indeed, preparations for release from an approved school begin quite soon after admission, and, therefore, it is essential that the after-care agent should make early contact with the child's family, or the place to which the boy or girl is expected to be released, and keep in close touch with the parents, if the child has parents, and even to make various arrangements, including periods of leave, before the eventual release of the boy or girl.
A Home Office Memorandum issued to approved schools in 1955 emphasised the importance of this preparatory after-care work. But despite this Memorandum, the paragraph requires local authorities to undertake after-care duties, if so requested, in relation to a person who is out under supervision from the approved school, which means after he has been released. It could be interpreted as not including the most important preparatory stages of after-care, prior to actual release. Such an interpretation would be embarrassing to local authorities, because it would be contrary to the present generally accepted practice. It has been stated by many people that after-care of adults who go to prison should begin with the welfare officer in prison on the day the man starts his sentence. If that is true of adults—and I think it is—it is even more true of children that their successful rehabilitation after they have served their term in the approved school should start on the very day or as soon as possible after they get the first shock of going into an approved school. Therefore, I am submitting this Amendment so as to make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the duty of local authorities to act as after-care agents, including the duty to employ staff for that purpose, includes the

303
time that the child is in the approved school and is not restricted, as the present wording would have it, to the time when he is under supervision. Again, I hope that the point will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 29, leave out from ("person") to ("or") in line 30, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have only three brief points to make in reply to the noble Lord. The first is to assure him that we recognise the great importance of satisfactory after-care arrangements in this as in other spheres. That was why paragraph 26 of Schedule 3 to the Bill follows the Ingleby Committee in placing a clear duty on local authorities to undertake, on the Manager's request, the after-care of an approved school child. My second point is that it is at least arguable that a duty to undertake after-care would include this additional duty to do the necessary preparatory work which is provided for in the noble Lord's Amendment. However, we have been in consultation with the local authority associations on the question whether the point required clarification. Their replies suggest that it would be safer to put the point beyond doubt, and we propose to discuss with them and with the London County Council the form the Amendment should take. I should mention that the drafting, as we see it at present, presents some difficulty, since it is not always possible to say at the beginning of a child's stay in an approved school—the very time when the managers will want to make their request to a local authority—where he is likely to go on release.
This brings me to my third and final point. Given this sort of drafting problem we should like a little time to consider the precise form the Amendment might take. I trust that the noble Lord will at this stage be content with my assurance that at a later stage of this Bill, after we have had time for further consultation, we shall be very willing to move an Amendment along the lines of that which we have just been discussing.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most happy to accept the noble Earl's assurance. I gather that he has come to the conclusion that clarification or added words are necessary to put the point
304
beyond doubt. He is not satisfied that the words I suggest are necessarily the right ones, but I shall be perfectly satisfied, if he will consult the local authorities in this matter, to leave it to him to then decide the form of words which will meet the point.
As this is the last of a large number of Amendments I have had to move, I should like to thank the noble Earl and his noble friend for the very great care with which they have considered all our arguments and also their unfailing courtesy. In my experience this Bill, at least in its Report stage, is unique, in that I cannot recall one Amendment that has been moved from these Benches which the noble Earl or his noble friend have not either accepted or given an assurance about which has been almost equal to acceptance. For that I and my noble friends are extremely grateful. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, first may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I hope he was wrong in his final remarks, otherwise I fear my reputation may not be unblemished elsewhere. As regards this Amendment, I should perhaps explain that Section 43 (1) of the Children Act, 1948, lays down the functions of the Secretary of State on which he is, in England and Wales, to be advised by the Advisory Council on Child Care. They include his functions under that Act and under Parts IV and V of the Act of 1933. In this Bill, Clause 1 has some affinities with the Act of 1948 and Clauses 11 and 13 are related to the subject matter of Part IV of the principal Act. We therefore think it right that the functions of the Secretary of State under these clauses should be brought within the Advisory Council's terms of reference. That is the effect of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 27, at end insert—
("41. In section 43 (1) after the words 'the Children and Young Persons Act 1933' there shall he inserted the words 'sections 1, 11 and 13 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963'.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is purely a matter of drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 48, at end insert—
("46. In section 75 (2), for the words from including an order' to '1933' there shall he substituted the words 'including detention in pursuance of a provision made by virtue of section 9 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963'.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Enactments Repealed]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 44.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, leave out lines 18 and 19.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as this Amendment is linked with Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54, I suggest that we might consider them together. These are drafting Amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Acts of 1948 and 1961 about attendance centres. They repeal words which are no longer needed since your Lordships accepted the Amendment raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line:39, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 19 (1), the words 'not less than ten but'.

In section 48 (2), the words 'of not less than ten but'.")

—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is again a consequential drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 18, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 70, in subsection (2), the words from 'or that' to 'control him'.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 19, column 3, at beginning insert ("In section 10, subsection (1)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I move this Amendment formally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 23, leave out ("and").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is the last Amendment, which I also move formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 27, at end insert ("and the entry relating to section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, the words from 'and for' to the end of the entry; and the entry relating to section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act. 1948").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

HOME LEAVE FROM APPROVED SCHOOLS
5.59 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will increase, in accordance with the Ingleby Committee's recommendation, the present maximum number of days of home leave allowed to children in approved schools. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a point on which it was rather strongly desired that we might have the opportunity of obtaining some information from the Government. It was not precisely appropriate to the Report stage of the Bill we have just considered, and with the agreement and assistance of the noble Earl I will raise it now, very briefly.
Your Lordships will be aware that the present maximum of home leave which may be granted to a child in an approved school is normally 24 days in one year. The Ingleby Committee, in paragraph 466 of their Report, recommended that this maximum be increased, in view of the great therapeutic value of home leave to those children, if, of course, the home leave is granted under the proper conditions and properly used and applied, as indeed it almost always is. The present annual maximum of leave is laid down in the Approved School Rules, which is why I could not really find opportunity to raise the matter under this Bill. I do not think there is any question at all that home leave at proper intervals under proper conditions and, as it were, as something to work for, is of great value in the approved schools system.
One other point—and I hope it is a valid one—is that in view of the great call, or strain, on accommodation in approved schools, it could, I think, be regarded as at least a contributing factor in easing that strain if there were the right to increase the period of home leave. It can be argued that if the increase were too substantial there would be no point in sending a child to an approved school at all. But I would point out that the present maximum is 24 days in a whole year and no child is going to get leave from an approved school unless the school managers or welfare officers think it will be helpful and that the child will benefit. I should be very grateful if the noble Earl could say whether the Government have it in view to revise the rule with regard to maximum home leave within the reasonably near future; and, secondly, I shall be grateful for any other information he can give your Lordships on that point.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the position is as follows. Home leave, as the noble Lord has said, for boys and girls in approved schools is governed by Rule 30A of the Approved School Rules. This provides that such leave must be granted to each boy or girl each year, unless circumstances make it undesirable—and, of course, circumstances may make it undesirable—and that, except with the permission of the Chief Inspector of the Children's Department of the Home Office, leave may not exceed 16 days at any one time or 24 days in any calendar year.
In girls' approved schools, leave tends to be granted for varying periods at different times, as circumstances require. In most boys' approved schools, however, ordinary leave is granted in three blocks of eight days, usually at or around Chirtsmas and Easter and in the summer. It is the practice for the day of return to the school not to be counted as leave, so that in effect most boys are away from their schools for 27 days in the year. In addition, most boys spend several odd days away from their schools, though not at home—for
308
example attending camps, on canoeing expeditions—a very popular activity in approved schools—or engaging in similar activities. If additional home leave is required in individual cases for special purposes—for example, if a boy is thought to need frequent contact with his family in their home—this is granted with the approval of the Chief Inspector.
As the noble Lord has made clear, the Ingleby Committee considered the question of home leave, as one means of maintaining contact between the child and his or her home, and in paragraph 466 of their Report they said—and I should just like to quote:
"We think that home leave, properly used, can be of great therapeutic value and are of opinion that, for younger children especially, it would be an advantage if school managers had discretion to grant more leave in suitable cases. We recommend, therefore, that for children of compulsory school age the maximum amount of home leave that may be granted should be increased."
This recommendation is supported by the various associations
concerned with approved schools. I am glad to inform the noble Lord and, through him, others who may be interested in this question, that we have accepted it in principle. Specific proposals will be put forward in the near future for discussion with the local authority associations and the Approved Schools Central Advisory Committee.
I can also assure the noble Lord that as soon as these consultations have been completed the necessary amendments of the Approved School Rules will be made. A number of further changes in the Rules are thought to be desirable as a result of other recommendations of the Ingleby Committee, and for other reasons, and a general revision of the school rules has therefore been undertaken. The Amendment on this subject will, however, be made separately if waiting for the completed revision of the rules would involve material delay.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much.
House adjourned at six minutes past six o'clock.